Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 210

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 205←Archive 208Archive 209Archive 210Archive 211Archive 212→Archive 215

Pentagon UFO videos

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This is a disagreement over the inclusion of a statement that counters the proposal that "radar spoofing" is an explanation for Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. I regard the statement as a valid inclusion, various other editors do not.

The proposal that Radar spoofing is an explanation for UAPs was added to the article. In line with WP:BAL/WP:NPOV I added the counter argument (that is, if the same incident is also seen by human eyes then Radar spoofing is not an explanation). This was deleted from the article. This was the statement I had added, it was later removed:

However, the ODNI report noted that most of the UAPs reported probably do represent physical objects, and so couldn't be radar spoofing, as they were detected by "multiple sensors" and "visual observation". [1]

Full quote from the ODNI report that supports the inclusion: "Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation."

I have tried to get some compromise on wording here via WP:BRD and discussion on the talk page, but I have had no luck.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Pentagon_UFO_videos#Issues_with_NPOV_on_this_page, posted to 3o where it was discussed but the third opinion editor disqualified themself

@Deathlibrarian: That's not exactly what happened over on WP:3O. 3O is only to be used “If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved[.]” Given how many editors have already opined on this, and how many you listed above, 3O is obviously not the proper venue. So, I removed your request from 3O, I didn't disqualify [my]self. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi - Psiĥedelisto a bit of confusion - I was referring to something else - The 30 was posted previously (before you saw it) and kindly picked up by Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk · contribs) to give his opinion, but he then disqualified himself as he had some minor involvement on the page. I reposted it and then you (correctly) took it off. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If a neutral person could look at the suggested inclusion, in it's context and decide if it is a suitable.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I don't think this process can really help with this dispute - Deathlibrarian has started a couple RFCs on related POV issues at the article (one of which is currently ongoing), and they have failed to find support from the wider community. I don't think we need more of the same at another venue. - MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle:, Deathlibrarian's selective quote above is leaving out some rather important information. Here's the very next sentence of that same source: "In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis." - MrOllie (talk) 11:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie

This may not be appropriate for DR. Deathlibrarian does not appear to understand that edits like this are classic WP:SYNTHESIS. It is possible they have an inability to grasp editorial policies, or there is some cognitive issue, since they often insert text into articles twice, typically in two different places (note they have added a summary header for my username twice to this DR entry). - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The template automatically generates these summary headers- Deathlibrarian had nothing to do with that, and I'm not sure why it put you twice instead of Pyrrho, but I'll fix that momentarily. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JoJo Anthrax

The filer's desired contributions at Pentagon UFO videos, including the contribution being evaluated here, are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR attempts to weaken a mundane explanation of UFO sightings, and in so doing add/enhance a pro-fringe, pro-pseudoscience POV. Other relevant policies and guidelines include WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Pyrrho the Skeptic

While I agree with the consensus on the issue, I will reiterate my statement from the Talk Page discussion, which is that the paragraph in question would be better with the first sentence only, to give proper balance to the statement before it that it is meant to refute. That way, it gets the point across without needlessly going into the details of one magazine article author's interpretation. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Pentagon UFO videos discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by Mediator

I will try to act as the moderator. Read the ground rules. Each of you are responsible for complying with the rules. If you do not comply with the rules, I will fail the discussion. I will try to be neutral, but if one editor complies with the rules and the other does not, I will stop being neutral. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are not helpful. They may permit the poster to feel better, but they often do not clarify the issues, except to establish having a strong opinion. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article or articles, and so should be focused on the encyclopedia. So discuss content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Comments that get into personalities will be collapsed. Also, do not reply to each other or engage in back-and-forth, except in the space that I provide for you (where back-and-forth can be ignored). Address your answers to me, as the representative of the community, not to each other.

Before we begin- I would ask that each editor fill out their summary section above- keeping in mind that long walls of text are difficult to read and process, and also keeping discussion on content, not on the editors.

Also, could @Deathlibrarian: please link and/or quote the specific text that they feel supports their statement? Just to be sure we don't have a case of synth going on. Not every involved editor must agree to participate for this to continue- but we do need a majority of involved editors participating in order to have a productive session. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking this on Nightenbelle, I've added the deleted inclusion in the overview section, in italics. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear- I want you to copy and paste the exact quote from the source that supports the inclusion- I do not want to have to read the entire 9 page legalese document to find it. Please help me out with that. Also- is there an rfc currently open on this topic? Nightenbelle (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, that was my fault, I misinterpreted your request - I've posted the exact quote in the overview, in italics, sourced from page 3 of the ODNI report. There's no RFC about this topic, just the third opinion which was closed because the number of editors involved exceeded 3. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

2nd statement by mediator

Unfortunately there is a very clear consensus here against including the statement- and your source does not directly support your desired statement. It requires some synthesis to get to your statement deathlibrarian- so unless you can find a reliable source that directly states what you are trying to include- the DRN will be closed in 24 hours and the consensus against will have to stand. I’m sorry. Nightenbelle (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this Nightenbelle, your time here is appreciated. I've spent enough time on it already, so at this point I'm happy for it to be closed.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  1. ^ Office of the Director of National Intelligence (25 June 2021). Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. p. 3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

God in Islam

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a dispute between me and the user @VenusFeuerFalle: about a sentence in the article of "God in Islam" in a specific section titled "Comparative theology".

The sentence in question is: "In contrast to the absolute monotheism of Islam, Hinduism is characterized by polytheism and the philosophy of pantheism, which means everything is God or part of Him."

Here is what the sources say: "In contrast to the absolute monotheism of the major Western religions represented by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Hinduism is characterized by polytheism and pantheism."

"Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus profess belief in multiple deities. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three deities, some believe in thousands of deities, and some others in 330 million deities. This is because of the common Hindu belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and nonliving, to be divine and sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as a deity. He considers the trees, the sun, the moon, the monkey, the cow, the snake and even human beings as separate deities."

I only have two questions:

  1. Are these sources reliable or not?
  2. Are these sources cover/support the added content or not?

Thanks in advance and sorry for the inconvenience.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:God_in_Islam#Please_be_careful_with_sources

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If a neutral person could look at the suggested inclusion, in it's context and decide if it is a suitable.

Summary of dispute by VenusFeuerFalle

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by ParthikS8

Before I begin, just a note that TheEagle107 needs to put his name in the users involved section, as it is primarily a dispute between him and the other editor, as he said. They are disputing inclusion of those two sentences, with TheEagle107 arguing the sources provided are suitable so those sentences should be included and VenusFeuerFalle arguing they aren't. I haven't been involved in this dispute until now, though I did add my comment to a similar dispute between the two users on another set of issues relating to that page.

My own view is that there are questions as to whether the two sentences are relevant to the topic of that section of the article, whether a sweeping generalisation is being made, whether an opinion-as-fact claim is being made, why the statements do not attribute these views to the authors and lastly questions upon the neutrality of the second source. I do not contest reliability or that the sources (at least the first), covers those sentences.

So I do not support the inclusion of the two sentences highlighted by TheEagle107 in their current wording with these sources and do not understand why they are relevant to the article. ParthikS8 (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

God in Islam discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Robert McClenon: I have notified the other editors on their user talk pages.--TheEagle107 (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I am not sure, is this dispute resolved now? My opinnion is not this section needs to be removed, but maybe it is better to remove this. My point is also not to object that Pantheism and Polytheism exists in India (as the reliable source by "Yong Choon Kim" states, but that "Ali Ünal" states. Since the author is associated with the Gülen Movement and not a qualified researcher on religion, culture or anthropology, I objected his reliability. my main objection however comes from the author's arguement equating pantheism and polytheism, stating that Hinduism's pantheist would lead to the conclusion every natural asset or animal would be a god. This is just untrue. Also these sources do not investigate the relationship between Hinduism and Islam in reality, but assert an opinnion from the point of view of an Islam scholar (what Muslims should believe according to the author's opinnion). I am not sure, if the entire section needs to be removed, since there have been some reliable source talking about comparing God in Islam with, for example Judaism.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@VenusFeuerFalle: Has the volunteer opened the discussion? And you should move your opening statement into the relevant area above. ParthikS8 (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (God in Islam)

I am willing to act as the moderator if moderation is still needed. I will ask the editors to read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. I will make the disclosure that, as a Christian, I largely but not entirely agree with the Muslim concept of the Oneness and transcendence of God, and I don't think that should affect my ability to moderate. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but they seldom clarify the issues. I am neutral, except that one way to get me to be non-neutral is to ignore the rules that I set forth. Do not respond to each other's statements, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion (which I have the right to ignore).

It appears that the issue had to with the section on Comparative Theology, and that that section has been deleted. Does this resolve the issue, or is there now an issue about whether to restore a section on Comparative Theology?

Are there any other issues to be discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (God in Islam)

Back-and-forth discussion (God in Islam)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sri Lankan Moors

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 disagrees on the addition on research data involving x-str claiming contradiction. Does not provide sources or data for the so-called contradiction but uses selected sentences from wikipedia articles and goes on unrelated issues such as linguistics. Argues that because sample size not including the entire population size and using unrelated individuals in research and normal things as reasons for removal. The argument goes in circles and the user refuses to allow it to be added.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Sri_Lankan_Moors#Removal_of_X-SRT

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At least get User:AntanO to provide the sources and data of the contradictions so they can be added if not disengage the argument and allow the research data on genetic relations to be added.

Summary of dispute by -AntanO

The result is based on 838 unrelated individuals which is a few samples from 1,869,820 moors. Also, Eastern Moors are Western Moors are not same in terms of culture, language and inter marriage with Sinhalese and Tamil, and the study did not say where were the specimen came from (Eastern Moors / Western Moors). The article says with RS that ... Tamil is the mother tongue of the community whose maternal lineage are Tamil. It is not about linguistics, and it's about "maternal lineage". Apart from the research, you have to understand the community issue in Sri Lanka. The issue is ethnic conversion. If I start to clarify, it might go for some more paragraphs. Also, read Genetic studies on Sinhalese which disputes (with RS) the claim that Moors are not most closely related to Sinhalaese and then to Sri Lankan Tamils are most closely related to Sinhalaese.

Sri Lankan Moors discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Sorry I added in the article talk page and forgot to add in the user talk page. Its done now. Thank you- UmdP 05:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


Again user AntanO fails to provide a source or any research to dispute a peer-reviewed scientific research and relies on a single line in the language section.

Also the user is lying about the "reliable source" because the source cited for that specific sentence is a readers blog in a newspaper with no citations to real scientific research.

Are we really going to dispute the factual accuracy of scientific research with some blog post and call the blog a reliable source over actual genetic information? - UmdP 14:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears my comment was perceived as offensive. Apologies if anyone was offended and I did not mean to imply the user was liar but the statement was false as the source is a blog post and therefor not RS. Thank You. - UmdP 19:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User UMDP ignores that fact that I raised that so called scientific research is piece of work done by 2 or 3 persons with a few specimen. Do I need to repeat again to make awareness? --AntanO 01:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

: The "so-called" scientific research is peer reviewed and published. Putting a so-called in front doesn't change the research. Published research has stricter standards than random opinions pieces in blog posts as they are sent to many external scientists by the publisher. The review board of the publisher and external peers have decided the research is valid to be published in the journal. Questionininh the validity of the research results is not possible here unless you provide the data of these research results you claim to exist that contradictory to this. And that is how research is done, in fact most genetic studies done in SL specially pretty much all those in Genetic studies on Sinhalese have much smaller sample sizes. You don't take the population you take a sample and they make sure the individuals are unrelated to reduce the bias. The number of scientists involved is not even an argument against the results. Thank you. - UmdP 02:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
So far, there no complete scientific research. A sample is not be a conclusion. The peer review is failed to say who were the participant and their origin, geographic location, etc. Eastern Moors are mostly connect to Tamil maternal lineage. Some hundreds specimen cannot conclude the entire community's genetics since the Moors have varies maternal lineage. --AntanO 03:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
What? I don't understand what you are saying. What is "complete scientific research"? This is complete that has been published. You only take samples in research to make a conclusion. Making up claims like "peer review failed" means nothing, WP:SOURCE clearly says peer reviewed articles have highest verifiability. Where are the sources for your claims? You said there is contradictaory research but still haven't posted anythinmg and instead making up nonsense to WP:FILIBUSTER. -UmdP 03:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If it a black, I can just say black without referring any nonsense. First, you should understand the facts of Moors community. So far, you skip my points. Again I ask what were specimens since there are four major Moor groups in Sri Lanka. Give me supportive references for your claims. If it anyone ask further reference, someone has to give regardless of WP:SOURCE --AntanO 07:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
SO you are making up everything and expect your opinion to be equal to peer-reviewed research? WP:SOURCE is clear on this, you claiming something and demanding to "understand" it cannot be taken as fact here. You are calling your own personal opinion and your own classifications based on WP:OR as sources which cannot be accepted. You are also not a authority to "fail" peer-reveiwers. You claimed that the research is contradicted by other research so you should take the WP:ONUS to provide peer-reviewed research to contradict it not some random reader's blog. You claiming something doesn't mean anything as all of your claims are made by you, not backed by any source with the only exception being a random reader's blog. The research is published in open so you can read it yourself. So yes you are WP:FILIBUSTERing by wasting time and making up your own claims to avoid adding reliable sources instead of unreliable reader's blogs- UmdP 07:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Moors, Malays, Memons, Bohras are part of Sri Lankan Moors and they were from different ethnic backgrounds (Arabs, Indonesian, Kathiawad & Gujarat) and intermarried to Sinhalese and Tamils. Peer-review failed to say it in details than a vague report, not detailed. Do you say we have to accept peer-review if it not failed to figure out many facts since it is "research"? How could you say or give reference if I want to see genetic relation between Malays and Sinhalese? Do not give earlier reference since it failed to give details to all Moors. --AntanO 08:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes now you are making your own categories of 4 up from your previous classification of 2. You claiming the authority to decide peer reviews doesn't mean anything and won't be taken seriously. WP:SOURCE makes it clear you not accepting peer review process is irrelevant. Malays are not Moors they are a seperate ethnic group which they acknowledge. The research clearly states 'In addition to these ethnicities, around 0.5% of the Sri Lankan population comprises other minor ethnic groups belonging to numerous descents. They include Malays (descendants from island of Java) Burghers (descendants of colonists from Portugal, Netherlands and UK) and other Chinese and African migrants who came to the island in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.".
Also your made up classifications aren't even reliable. Malays are an ethnic group while Bohras are a religious sect. If you are going to put up your own WP:OR at least make it consistant, not changing 2 to 4 and mixing ethnic groups and religious denominations. Its impossible to resolve any dispute when you attempt to WP:FILIBUSTER by creating WP:OR on the go. I will await Moderator view before trying to debunk all the WP:OR you cook up on the go thinking it has weight against actual scientific research that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal.- UmdP 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Read Islamic Outreach by Centre for Islamic Studies to know more about Moors. I am clear about Wiki policies, and I encourage you to read WP:GF since you point your finger towards me than the subject. Scientific research says "This can be represented through tables, figures, and pictures, and then described in words." But so far you are not ready to show any figures on where I raised concern. Therefore, WP:IAR. Because, those finding are not clear. Still not clear? I can come up with more questioning figures. --AntanO 10:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
You have not even talked about the subject rather making up WP:OR on the go. On the contrary you have false claimed about including Malays as part of Moors which they aren't, SL census clearly considers them a separate ethnic group and not even considered as part of the research as the very above the research report it is explicitly stated that it only includes Sinhalese, SL Tamils, Indian Tamils and Moors with Malays being a separate group. You keep on creating new ethnic classifications on go. Also you were the one that is against representing research data in the Moors page claiming it contradicts your blog post, instead of providing WP:RS with contradictory data. Now complaining about not including other forms of data representation is not even relevant to what you are trying to argue. You you claimed multiple times that contradictory research exist but only put links to wiki articles. I have assumed good-faith but now you explicitly stated that you are going to "come with up" things rather than providing the so-called contradictory research and you have expressed to abuse WP:IAR. This is why I will wait for moderator opinion because you will just "come up with more figures" rather than using research data to create an argument against it so you can continue the DNR for infinity just like how you make up two different classification systems that demanded it to be answered. - UmdP 10:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The research results are represented in tables and figures you can just read them including the AMOVA analysis in a table and the UPGMA phylogram based on X-STR data. The phylogram could be added to wiki in the future. I don't think adding the figure showing the loci of the STRs that were studied is necessary. - UmdP 10:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I cannot access the link, and browser says Your connection is not private --AntanO 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second Anglo-Afghan War

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

Both of us are having a dispute over if Afghanistan was a protected state or a protectorate.

Brief summary of what a protected state is: [2], and the difference between the two. [3]

I am disputing and saying that Afghanistan is a protected state, and the other user claims it is a protectorate.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[4]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I wish for someone to help find a solution or to tater to either side, we both have multiple sources that veer and mine also explain the difference between protectorate and protected state, his sources claim protectorate but then go on to explain the defenition of what a protected state is for what the British had in Afghanistan. Which was foreign affairs grants given up to the british only, this is a protected state. a protectorate is more of a puppet-ish to their overlord.

Summary of dispute by Noorullah21

Me and IP user are disputing over if Afghanistan is a protected state or a protectorate after the Second Anglo-Afghan War, we both have multiple sources that tater.

I also explain the meanings between protected state and protectorate, his sources also go on to claim protectorate, but then give the definition of what a protected state is, I am arguing for protected state by the way.

  1. [5] (difference between both)
  2. [6] (protected state meaning)
  3. [7] (sources that mention Afghanistan as a protected state)

IP user posts sources that claim it is a protectorate, but has the definition of a protected state, the explanation behind this is that protected state was commonly referred to as a protectorate as its side name, but the two meanings have jarring differences hence why I am arguing for the second anglo afghan war page to include protected state instead of protectorate, because Afghanistan only gave up foreign rights access to the British, but did not give up its internal affairs, if it gave up internal affairs access, it would then be considered a protectorate. 

[8] (one of the sources that state Afghanistan as a protectorate but then describe it as a protected state.
  1. [9] (also a source that refers to protected state as a protectorate, hence why most modern scholars used to use protectorate, essentially same meanings at the time until noticed otherwise.
  2. [10] (more sources that state afghanistan as a protected state, giving up foreign rights only)

Treaty of Gandamak page also states that afghanistan gives up foreign rights access.

  1. [11] Talks about it being a protectorate but also describes it as a protected state with foreign right access given to the British.

And finally, a source that states Afghanistan as a protected state.

  1. [12] (by Alexander)
  2. [13]] (Jame's source that also mentions afghanistan as a protected state)

Summary of dispute by 199.82.243.110

Dispute is that Noorullah21 claims that Afghanistan is a protected state when all sources state that it was Protectorate after the Second Anglo-Afghan war which concluded with British Victory, resulting in Emir signing Treaty of Gandamak making Afghanistan a British Protectorate state. The Treaty was later reformed in 1907 during Anglo-Russian convention and again in 1919 where Afghanistan was given independence where British Government still continued to have influence over Afghanistan. But that is irrelevant to the topic of discussion which was about the result and treaty signed in 1879 which clearly states that Afghanistan became British Protectorate as a result of British Victory and the signed Treaty of Gandamak. Here are references by acclaimed scholars that Afghanistan became British Protectorate after Treaty of Gandamak. 3rd Opinion also claimed the inclusion of Protectorate. Below references:
Reference 1, [14] by David A. Lake, states Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate. Following the Peace of Gandamak, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to leave the control of his foreign relations to the British Government....Afghanistan's status as a PROTECTORATE was recognized in the Anglo Russian Agreement of 1907.
Reference 2, [15]. Reference by Westel W. Willoughby and Charles Ghequiere Willoughby[16] states that 1879, May 26 - Peace of Gandamak. Afghanistan became, in effect, a protectorate of Great Britain.
Reference 3, [17] Reference by David Little[18] states In 1878, the Second Anglo-Afghan war broke out. It ended two years later with the Treaty of Gandamak, which effectively made Afghanistan a PROTECTORATE of Britain.
Reference 4 [19] Reference by Kent F. Schull [20], Lale Can [21], Michael Christopher Low [22], Robert Zens [23] states Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.
Reference 5, [24] Reference by Lucy Inglis [25] states that At the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE and Kabul was opened up to a British mission, something Afghans still consider to be an appalling loss of face.
Reference 6, [26] Reference by Paul Joseph [27] states The following year, Anglo Indian troops invaded Afghanistan and imposed, through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass....
Reference 7 [28] Reference by Arthur Homer Furnia states by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops.
Reference 8 [29] Reference by Masato Toriyo (leading specialist on Central Asia and Researcher at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) states: According to a large number of previous studies, Afghanistan was fixed as a buffer state between Russia and British India as a result of the war and the Gandamak Treaty, which was concluded between Amīr Ya‘qūb Khān and the British on 26 May 1879, substantially as proof of the surrender of the Afghan side. In this treaty, the Amīr of Kabul, a previous ruler of Afghanistan, not only ceded various territories but also handed over diplomatic rights to the British. In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.

This is what 3rd opinion said on the [30], Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC). 199.82.243.96 (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Second Anglo-Afghan War discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Social Democracy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

A prior consensus (minus 1 user) was reached on the second sentence of the preamble, specifically that its economic ideology is a capitalist mixed economy, not socialism.

This dispute now is over the very first sentence which states the exact opposite (that it is socialism). The first sentence is directly contradictory to the second sentence.

I believe we need clarification on 3 points: 1) That Economic Ideology and Economic Philosophy are synonyms, and are not different. 2) The first sentence directly contradicts the second sentence. 3) Since the second sentence is not in question, the first sentence should be changed to match the second.

Unfortunately most of the talk page with this issue has been archived. Let me know if I need to provide relevant archived discussions or any other additional information.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[31]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify the 3 points listed

Summary of dispute by Czello

I am surprised this post was made -- Twozerooz, I thought we agreed that an RfC was the best way to resolve this issue?

However, my summary of the issue is simply that there was no consensus to remove "economic philosophy" from the opening sentence, and Erzan was in discussion with OP about this issue, before OP stopped responding. As the the text remained for the next few months, I assumed the issue was resolved -- until OP chose to remove the text again by deceptively labelling it as vandalism.

All I want is for OP to pursue a consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring (something he has been reported to WP:EWN twice for, the second time resulting in a block). This is why I suggested an RfC, and OP agreed to this. Why we've come here instead is rather bizarre. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarification Czello: The first sentence was never discussed. But given that the second sentence now has consensus, it seems to follow that the first sentence was simply omitted by error. I think much of the confusion here is in regards to different synonyms being used, so as long as nobody has an issue with it I will make an edit to use the same term for both sentences, then we will go from there. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
It has been like this for almost half a year. 'Economic ideology' and 'economic philosophy' mean the same thing. The reader will be taken to the same page, which is economic ideology so there is no confusion. Erzan (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes agreed, my point 1 is indisputably correct. --Twozerooz (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Social Democracy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note -While some precedent does seem to have been put forth roughly five months ago on the talk page, the discussion between the two parties mentioned here has been very short. Additionally, User:Czello has not been notified on their talk page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - The discussion on the article talk page seems to be agreeing that a Request for Comments is the best way to resolve the questions. An issue should not be discussed in two or more places at the same time, and an RFC takes precedence over discussion at a noticeboard. If the editors want assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC, they can request that here. Are the editors requesting moderated discussion (in place of or prior to an RFC), or do they plan on using an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry wasn't aware there was different processes. I haven't initiated any other process yet, so please let me know whether I should do that or any other actions. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, I'm rather confused as to why this post was made after OP agreed an RfC is the best way forward. Given that the original talk page thread had several different discussions going on at once, I think an RfC makes the topic of contention much clearer. I would urge Twozerooz to pursue that route as agreed. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Twozerooz: The best thing to do is follow the instructions here. As a suggestion for a neutrally-worded question for the RfC, I recommend Should "economic philosophy" be removed from the opening sentence?". — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Reading the processes, it does actually seem like a dispute resolution is more appropriate given that this is not actually a conflict regarding subject matter. The issue now isn't related to economics at all, but rather just confusion over synonyms and logical contradictions. Any unbiased party should be able to rectify this, regardless of their level of knowledge in economics. An RFC would have been very useful during the first dispute over the second sentence, but that has been resolved already --Twozerooz (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
You know what, I concede. I have no interest in arguing this further. I didn't feel strongly enough the matter the first time round, and it looks like it's just becoming a new edit war -- which is the very thing I was trying to prevent. Erzan appears to have returned this debate, so I'll leave it to him. Although what, that was before I saw this. It appears consensus may in fact be leaning to leaving it in. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 17:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Valjean was referring to changing the first synonym, as opposed to the second. He was right. I changed the second one to match instead - Valjean thanked me for the edit. And yes, someone canvassed Erzan to bring him in.... --Twozerooz (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
As I've already explained to you, notifying someone who was part of a prior discussion that the discussion has reopened is not canvassing. See WP:APPNOTE. Again, my position on the matter isn't all that strong, so your dispute is with Erzan more than it is with me. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 21:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
From WP:APPNOTE: "but uninvolved"... "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Given that Erzan was the subject of the original edit war who had clear and very strong opinions to the contrary - and is someone who has a long history of edit warring - it just seems bizarre that someone would deliberately bring him in in order to "stop an edit war in the first place". Regardless, the bell cannot be unrung. Tagging in another editor to take your place does not mean the dispute is over; The dispute is still on-going and needs to be resolved. --Twozerooz (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You know what, you're right. I didn't notice the "but uninvolved" part. Given the nature of your reversion on this, where you incorrectly labeled it as vandalism, I felt it appropriate to notify someone who was part of the debate. However, if I have misread the boundaries of WP:APPNOTE then I have erred and apologise. I do wish we'd had and RfC on this, but whatever -- I hope your other post resolves this. I worry that page is becoming a WP:BATTLEGROUND so I might just remove it from my watchlist. Peace. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't understand what Wiki defined vandalism as so I apologize for that. I still fail to understand how that could justify canvassing other people to push a specific viewpoint. Regardless, this will be my last comment here - I'll let the dispute resolution process continue. --Twozerooz (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Social democracy)

I am willing to act as the moderator. I will ask the editors to read WP:DRN Rule A and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but they seldom clarify the issues. I am neutral, except that one way to get me to be non-neutral is to ignore the rules that I set forth. Do not respond to each other's statements, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion (which I have the right to ignore). Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors.

It appears that there is some discussion of whether an RFC is needed, or whether moderated discussion is needed, or perhaps moderated discussion that decides the content of an RFC.

The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so Be Specific at DRN. I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want added to or removed from the article, or left alone in the article when someone else wants to change it. Then I will decide how to proceed further. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Social democracy)

Change

Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within the socialist tradition.

to

Social democracy is a political and social philosophy within the socialist tradition.

Reasons were already given above. It looks like everyone understands economic philosophy and economic ideology are synonyms (#1 above). So only #2 and #3 need moderation. For reference, the 'second sentence' that everyone has already agreed to is:

"As an economic ideology and policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal-democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy." Bolded to highlight the contradictions between first and second sentence.

--Twozerooz (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Social democracy)

One editor has responded, and has said to take out the phrase 'economic philosophy' from the lede sentence. Does the other editor agree, or will an RFC be needed?

They also referred to second and third points needing moderation, and they gave one example.

The other editor has not responded yet, so I will ask them again to state concisely what they want changed, or what they want left the same that other editors want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I presume this is directed at me -- as stated above I concede on the matter; judging by the edit history of the article, I think OP's dispute is with Erzan, still. OP did have a dispute resolution case involving Erzan open but he appears to have closed it. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 09:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Social democracy)

Third statement by moderator (Social democracy)

I am willing to start an RFC if any editor requests it. If there are any other issues, please state them concisely. If there are no issues or requests, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This is probably the best solution. Honestly, I'm still confused as to why OP has avoided one even after agreeing to it originally. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 20:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Social democracy)

Seems like a DRN is more appropriate given that this is not actually a conflict regarding subject matter. The issue now isn't related to economics at all, but rather just confusion over synonyms and logical contradictions. Any unbiased party should be able to rectify this. There's already been far too much effort going into what really should be a very simple correction. If Wiki administration really is this convoluted and unworkable, I can definitely see how easy it would be for someone to exploit it through edit warring, canvassing other editors, etc - just to push a certain POV. --Twozerooz (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:AGF. — Czello (Please tag me in replies) 20:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Social democracy)

For the moderator's clarification: The dispute was with Czello, but Czello has now canvassed another editor who agrees with him to 'tag out' and take his place. This editor is aware of this DRN and has already commented on it once. --Twozerooz (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Heterodox Academy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 several times to add material to the "Heterodox Academy" entry, and my additions have been summarily deleted. I am not a member of Heterodox Academy, and I am not working on their behalf, but I do study free speech--that is my only "connection" to the topic. The editor who most often deletes my work, Aquillion, is the same editor who initially added the material for which I have tried, fruitlessly, to provide context and contrary evidence. After various objections that struck me as misplaced, I put details of a Heterodox Academy study on campus expression in the section entitled "Programs and activities" instead of mentioning the study in "Ideology and reception," as I had before. Originally, I characterized the study as a refutation of the material that Aquillion had inserted, but in the section "Programs and activities," I no longer characterized the material as a refutation; I simply let the data speak for themselves. This new material too was deleted, even though I had framed it differently; a new editor, "Notfrompedro," erased it with the terse remark, "This was explained on the talk page." Plenty of other Wikipedia entries on non-profit organizations provide the details of studies conducted by the very non-profits that are the subject of the entry (see, for example, s.v., "Southern Poverty Law Center"). Some efforts to block my revisions border on the bizarre. Even when I deleted the subtly charged word "formally"--"Heterodox Academy formally describes itself as non-partisan"--because "formally" implies that the self-description is not genuine, my edit was reverted.

Extensive conversations on the "Talk" page ("Citing Gallup, Knight, and Heterodox Academy itself") have gone nowhere. Pengortm attempted a compromise intervention, but Hipal responded by insisting on a proposal instead. Given that every single edit that I have made has been reverted, I don't begin to know how to draft such a proposal, and no one else has offered one.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have tried to make my case in the "Talk" section, to no avail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heterodox_Academy#Citing_Gallup,_Knight,_and_Heterodox_Academy_itself


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There must be some suitable compromise available, but some of the other editors seem unwilling to compromise. Could a couple of seasoned Wikipedia editors who are unattached to the "Heterodox Academy" page have a look at the various edits and suggest a blueprint for moving forward?

Summary of dispute by Free Speech Wikipedian; Aquillion; Hipal; Notfrompedro; Pengortm

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Heterodox Academy discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Multiple pages

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

Multiple pages - Cork Airport, Dublin Airport, Shannon Airport, Zurich Airport (unfortunately the list goes on)

Hello, the dispute concentrates as two users’ interpretation of the Wikipedia policy WP:RS. The users claim that using an airline or airport as a source to support editing on articles, is against this policy which it is not (they have demonstrated their analysis on my talk page.)

I have sought to engage to come to an independent resolution, however at points was asked for independent thoughts on which sources are valid which confirmed to me WP:RS was being abused in this instance. Despite multiple points of engagement, I have not been able to come to a resolution.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk points have opened on Talk:Dublin Airport#Passenger_Destinations, Talk:EireAviation#October_2021

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The users need to understand they are exacerbating an issue that does not exist by fundamentally not understanding WP:RS. Their patten of engagement is confrontational and leads to issues not being resolved.

Summary of dispute by The Banner

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

In short, EireAviation is refusing to use independent sources but prefers related sources. He is editwarring to remove sources requests and maintenance templates. With his battlefield mentality, refusal to accept arguments and engage in a meaningful discussinion, and refusal to adhere to the policies, I do not think DRN is of any use. AN/I seems a better option. With edits like this one I doubt his intentions.

And I would have appreciated it when EireAviation had informed my and @Andrewgprout: about this smokescreen. The Banner talk 13:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Andrewgprout

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Multiple pages discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boycott, Divestment_and_Sanctions

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 disagreement is over the sentence in the lead speaking about Human Rights Watch's opinion.

PRIMARY ISSUE: I believe that Nishidani has misrepresented what HRW said, but after a lengthy discussion I realized it's violation WP:SYNTH which might make this easier to resolve. The most relevant part the text from the article says:

"Joe Biden’s inauguration as president is unlikely to end governmental efforts to malign the Global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Campaign against Israel"

Based on that, Nishidani has written:

"Human Rights Watch's Eric Goldstein considers the charge of antisemitism against BDS a smear."

I think one can correctly infer that Goldstein has issues with "spurious allegations", but beyond that it's a guess, and it's blatant synth to assume that Goldstein thinks every single accusation of anti-Semitism against BDS is a "smear". Nishidani claims he's "paraphrasing".

SECOND ISSUE: Nishidani insists that the author absolutely MUST be attributed and it's misrepresentation to do otherwise. I've disagreed, and said it can be acceptable, especially to keep things brief in the lead, that a director of HRW, writing on their website, can be referred to as "HRW says.."


How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Countering_anti-Semitism_in_the_lead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Source_falsification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Jerusalem_Declaration_-_Accuracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Source_misrepresentation_(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions#Summing_up_Goldstein

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

My disagreement with Nishidani feels intractable. I think some additional opinions might help resolve things about if his text accurately represents the article, whether or not it's synth, and what's allowable attribution.

Summary of dispute by Nishidani

Actually the filer left out the fact that another person, who appears to have as much difficulty as I in understanding how the filer reads a simple piece of prose, is also involved (Selfstudier). I advised him to ask for third party neutral input on the WP:OR board. he declined, just as I decline to spent several more days dealing with an editor who, in my view, is intractable. Indeed, he threatened the page that he would editwar and escalate the situation unless I negotiated a deal with him. I'm in my seventies, and have a life to live, and, more importantly, I can't reverse my 90% research offline, 10% wiki contribution work time ratio so that I have to spend my days talking with, for example, bob about how to read a piece of prose. He has a 1,000 edits, I 85,000, most in article construction, not in endless extenuating negotiations on what, to me, is very clear cut. Sorry, but no. The right page for this is the WP:OR board.Nishidani (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment_and_Sanctions discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template talk:Infobox writer

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dispute over what to include in an automatic short description.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Template talk:Infobox writer#Proposed short description

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide input.

Summary of dispute by MB

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Nikkimarua

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Template talk:Infobox writer discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8C %D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

Back in 2007 there was a murder video posted on youtube by Russian neo nazis, it's a VERY famous cold murder case. It was finally solved after a documentary filmmaker made a film about it, naming the murderers in 2015. The problem with his film is that he also suggests that the murder was a preplanned by the Russian FSB. The Russian editors of wiki, for some reason, block all my attempts to publish pages on the murder case or on that guy. I would like to ask for a third party help. This is THE most famous neonazi murder case in recent Russian history, with dozens if not hundreds of independent publications about it. It must be on Wikipedia. Please help.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

The discussion is not on the talk page but on "pages for deletion" https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/7_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_2021#%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8C_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please, get someone with common sense who speaks Russian and ask him to take a look at this case.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8C %D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%B8_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I'm not sure what this is about but to save others a couple clicks this Ghost of Shamil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) will show that this is the first edit for Ghost of Shamil since July 2020. MarnetteD|Talk 07:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
----
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zen

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

Trying to bring to light an editorial bias is not being received well to the point that I'm just being ignored instead of having the proposed point of view considered.


Same thing is happening on the Bodhidharma page, it's almost the same issue and with the same user, so I don't think it's out of place to mention here.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zen#Dhy%C4%81na

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bodhidharma#Wall-gazing

I haven't tried any other methods beside trying to point it out, the editor in question does not engage with the material or clarifies why his bias has more weight than conficting information.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Seeing as the editor in question isn't willing to cooperate or discuss, I have no idea.

Summary of dispute by Joshua Jonathan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

IP is pushing WP:OR, interpretinf primary texts and openlydiscarding the relevant scholarship as worthless and useless. They use the talkpage as a forum, engaging in personal attacks instead of normal responses. Their talkpage-additions don't even come close to trying to gain WP:CONSENSUS for his 'proposals'. They hardly seem able to understand what I write, what the sources say, and how Wikipedia works, let alone to engage in a constructive discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If you don't wish to be insulted, don't start it and don't talk down on others. Already explained the scholar point on the talk page. If OR is wrong, don't mention your 30 years of practice, it had no place in the discussion, no matter what way you look at it. The 30 years is also a meme in the zen canon, which you would know if you actually read the stuff (the stuff that doesn't just confirm to your bias); if time was a good qualifier for effective zen practice, every one of the monks in the old canon would be on the same level as zen masters, as long as they start early enough, according to you. You're trying to measure dicks here... It's unbecoming and has no place on wikipedia or in zen.
I suggest you change your attitude.
Apologies if this is the wrong place, but there was no other spot reserved for this response.
This is the meme, it's like they were expecting you. Or maybe you're just not as special as you think you are:

A monk said, ‘I have admired Guanxi for a long time, but on coming here see only a pond for soaking flax.’

‘You see only a pond for soaking flax and don’t see Guanxi,’ replied the master.

‘What is Guanxi like?’ asked the monk.

‘Swift as a searing arrow,’ replied the master.

(Textual comment: Later people brought this up with Xuansha, who said, ‘Even if he studied for another thirty years, he still wouldn’t understand Chan.’)

-2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772


Zen discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The question asks how the volunteers at this noticeboard can assist the filing party. The filing party answers: "Seeing as the editor in question isn't willing to cooperate or discuss, I have no idea." Neither do we. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Comment - The filing party may be in an emotionally "stuck" state. It is my understanding that Zen sometimes relies on koans to try to break a novice out of an emotionally stuck state, but only if the novice is willing to open their mind. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
If you want to look at emotionally stuck you should start with joshua's 30 years of stagnation, I also don't see how the comment has any value in this discussion. Claims of attainment and schooling people though koans is not what wikipedia is for. If you want to play zen master, you should try your luck at your local sangha. All it does here is show a bias for your own interpretation of zen, acting as if your point of view (opinion) has any merit, which, again, doesn't belong in a discussion on wikipedia.
Who is "we", btw. I'm only seeing one person here. I started this discussion to get ideas from you what to do, as I'm not familiar with wikipedia's policy regarding these things, but I've made it very obvious on the bodhidharma page that there is a bias and I don't think that should be ignored as it undermines the intergity of the article.
Can I ask you, you are in favor of meditation and practice and agree that it is central to the tradition of zen, correct?

Collectively, findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing ideological views are at least as neutral as other similar sources, but articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer –– or more ideologically homogeneous –– contributors were more likely to reflect an editorial bias.[4][5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia

Maybe there should be some input from people who aren't as invested as the both of you.
-2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772
  • Volunteer Note - I meant that the other volunteers probably also have no idea what they can do to help, if you don't make a request for help. If you want general advice, you can ask at the Teahouse. If you want to discuss editorial bias of an article, you may do so on its talk page. If you want to discuss editorial bias in general, you may do so at one of the Village Pump forums. I will leave this case for other volunteers to open or close. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I am using the talk page. I'm not sure why you commented here if you're not going to read the stuff I say, or only look at what's convenient to you.
-2A02:A210:BA9:9080:90CB:BEAF:12E3:7772
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tver Oblast

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 infobox had a parameter with no content, just a citation. I removed the "citation" (which is more of a comment or footnote at best), and it was reverted by User:Ymblanter because they believe it's useful. Essentially, another user added these "citations" long ago to some Russian oblast infoboxes to explain that an oblast anthem doesn't exist, but is permitted by law. Some oblast infoboxes listed "none" and then the citation, or just the citation. Some pages had these, some didn't. Some pages had actual oblast anthems, like Ulyanovsk Oblast, which entirely makes sense in this case. But for the infoboxes like Volgograd Oblast, Vologda Oblast, and others, while there is no content for the parameter, there is a "citation" which explains why there isn't an anthem. I have never seen this in any infoboxes on WP, and to illustrate the fact that there could be an anthem, but there isn't, all in the infobox makes no sense. I'm sure this is a violation of MOS:INFOBOX, but as I explained to Ymblanter on their talk page, it's as if one needs to find a policy on adding periods at the end of a sentence. They stand by their ground that this is useful, and that we have differing opinions. To me, if the indication were that notable, then it would probably be worth noting somewhere in the article, but if the word "anthem" isn't even mentioned in the article at all, why would it be useful to understand that an anthem doesn't exist, but could, in the infobox. Seems very trivial to add any parameter to the infobox that isn't notable at all, or for something that doesn't exist.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

User_talk:Ymblanter#Infobox_blank_parameter_with_a_ref

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Third party comments on the MOS of an infobox

Summary of dispute by Ymblanter

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I think this is a matter for WT:MOS or smth similar, not for this venue.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Tver Oblast discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russia (disambiguation)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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:Korwinski keeps reinstating entries that are simply related to Russia, rather than those that are synonymous with the name. Both User:Bkonrad and I have explained what dab pages are for, but they persist in their behavior.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Russia (disambiguation)#Russia, only Russia

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

More editors supporting and reiterating the dab guidelines may somehow convince Korwinski to cease and desist, though I'm not too hopeful. Anyway, this seems like the least combative next step.

Summary of dispute by Korwinski

I was the one who initially started discussion as other party preferred edit war. In order to confirm my point I provided numerous sources and, as per Clarityfiend's request, I submitted my points, sources and reasons for a review. So far:
1. No objection from community regarding that request.
2. Other party did not provide any sources to confirm their point, nor did they provide any valid sources that would in any way confirm that my sources cannot be considered Reliable sources or that Western Russian states/regions cannot be called/aren't referred to as "Russia" or that "Russia" can be applied only to the territory of the historical and modern Eastern Russian state.
3. The only valid reason I heard so far is a breach of Partial title matches for one of the four entries there. But as I mentioned on talk page there weren't that many states with similar names, so it's standard practice on Wikipedia to keep all countries with the same or partially the same name on disambiguation page (see examples on talk page).

Also for some odd reason that desire to stick to that rule on one hand removes all entries (even ones that I had confirmed with sources that they can be referred to just as Russia and that do not breach Partial title matches), and on the other they ignored that rule for all the examples that I had provided them with. Considering amount of edits that they make and lack of any specific topic, I can only find that they are biased on this topic for some reason. Korwinski (talk) 07:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bkonrad

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Russia (disambiguation) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

First statement by moderator (Russia)

I will open this dispute for moderated discussion. Editors should read the usual ground rules. If you don't understand the rules, ask rather than guessing, but they are written to be understandable. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not communicate effectively, even if they make the poster feel better. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided for the purpose. Otherwise address your statements to the community, and to the moderator, who represents the community. It appears that the issue is that one editor wants to add some links, and that at least one editor does not want the links added. So I will ask each editor to provide one paragraph stating why the additional disambiguation links should or should not be included. If there are any other issues, state them in one more paragraph. After we have initial statements, we will decide how to proceed. Two possible ways to proceed would be compromise or RFC, but first provide the opening statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend, Bkonrad, and Korwinski: - This case will be closed as abandoned if there are no answers within less than 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I'm not that often on Wiki, hence the reply delays. I actually did that already in "Summary of dispute by Korwinski". Please see above. Korwinski (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Russia)

Second statement by moderator (Russia)

Is it correct that the disputed entries are partial title matches? Does that mean that the basic issue is whether partial title matches should be included in the disambiguation page?

In the space marked "Second statements by editors", I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement, unless there are any other issues, in which case they should make a two-paragraph statement.

I will also mention that the rules say that each editor should reply within 48 hours. If you aren't on Wikipedia that often, either log on to take part in DRN, or you will not hold up a settlement. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Russia)

Back-and-forth discussion (Russia)

I haven't read most of the recent discussions, but my understanding is that some of the entries on the dab page do not pertain to any recent English usage, is that so? My view is that if a usage is found in recent English-language sources (say, last 150 years, regardless of the historic period talked about in those sources) then it's likely to be encountered by readers and so should be added to the dab page. And if, on the other hand, it's a case of historic curiosity that's long lost any currency (even in historical literature) then it shouldn't be on the dab page, but can instead be mentioned in the article Names of Rus', Russia and Ruthenia (which itself can be linked from the dab page). – Uanfala (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a good deal of pipelining hiding the actual titles of articles in question:
  • Kievan Russia for Kievan Rus': It does state that a Latin name for it is Russia, which I missed, so maybe that may pass muster.
  • Kingdom of Russia for Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia: There is one 1570 map showing a "Rvssia" (no indication it refers to this kingdom, however) and a few other images where variations pop up ("Regis Russiae", "Rvssi", "Moneta Russie"), but "Russia" is never mentioned as an alternate name of the region in the body of the article.
  • Russian Voivodeship for Ruthenian Voivodeship: There are only two mentions of the Latin title, Palatinatus russiae.
  • Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia and Samogitia for Grand Duchy of Lithuania: This bogus title is not mentioned once in the article, and would be a partial match anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
This is actually a good example of what I said I above. Both editors did not even bother to check sources I mentioned above and that request that Clarityfiend himself asked me to write. Because if he actually did, he would see that I even had quotes written there in order to speed up the process there. I mean what kind of quality of these edits can we talk about, when editor did not check article about kingdom itself to see that it existed from 1199 to 1349, and the only "Russia" that can be there in 1570 is province in Kingdom of Poland. And then for that province he writes "There are only two mentions of the Latin title", while when I go to Google Books and set search results for past 150 years, I easily get English sources with Russian palatinate (1, 2) and Russian voivodeship (1, 2). But at least I do hope he now understands my issue with looking for exact sources containing "Russia" and "Russian" that are not about Eastern Russian states. Yet I did find multiple ones for each one of them.
My reasons are simple: “Russia” was and still sometimes used nowadays not only to name modern state, but also Western Russian states/regions. Most of the sources fit into that 150 years gap. It’s not like there were tens or hundreds of them or any other Russia’s, except for Western in all of its forms and Eastern one. While strictly sticking with "Partial match" rule in this case means that at very least we will have to review other similar articles remove Holy Roman Empire, Eastern Roman Empire etc. from Roman Empire (disambiguation) or Mainland China from China (disambiguation) etc.
Note, I myself already excluded and never added to this disambiguation entries that have very few or no sources at all to confirm their name translation as “Russia” and not “Ruthenia” or “Rus”. For instance, I did not add to this list Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth or Grand Principality of Rus' (1658). Korwinski (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
P.S. That "bogus title" was official name of the state up until Union of Lublin officially declared in Statutes of Lithuania. After that it remained only as a title of the king and several variations were used before and after that officially and as a historiography term like "Western Russia" or "Lithuania and Russia". Yes, it is not in the article as it covers whole history of GDL from 13th and until 18th centuries. Although it is covered in Russian and Ukrainian wiki's, so you can check them for more detailed explanation with sources (all in corresponding languages). Korwinski (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
In the first place, neither "Russian Palatinate" nor "Russian voivodeship" are synonymous with "Russia". They wouldn't even qualify for inclusion in Russian (disambiguation) IMO. Only Palatinate of Russia or Voivodeship of Russia would, and they apparently don't exist. "Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Russia and Samogitia" is about as "partial matchy" as it gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I mean even in the very first source I mentioned above:

..."Russia" which was being used in different meanings, was used here in its narrowest sense, meaning only the so called "Russian" Palatinate...

Or in case of it's predecessor [source]:

Lubart opposed Casimir's ambitions in Russia. He was baptised in the Orthodox faith with the name Dimitri and actively promoted the cause of Russo-Lithuanian commonwealth [...] Casimir in 1349 in a powerful campaign against the Lithuanians, occupied most of the old realm of Daniel of Halich, assuming the title of Dominus terrae Russiae. Casimir's nephew, Louis of Hungary, who also had claims on Galicia, recognized the fait accompli in exchange for promises of succession to the Polish crown.

Regarding partial match issue, I still want to hear the reason you've been ignoring all other similar articles I pointed out that have this conflict? Why so strict with Russia only in particular? Like in case of Roman Empire (disambiguation). How come "Old Russia" or "Western Russia" do not meet that rule, but "Ancient Rome" does? How come Lithuania-Russia does not meet that rule, and Mauro-Roman Kingdom does and you don't see any issues with it? Korwinski (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I can't be everywhere at once. The Roman Empire dab page is also a mess, which I will now rectify nominate for deletion. How anyone could think that the Roman Republic qualifies is beyond me. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
You did find time for Lithuania and your other edits don't look consistent, hence my question.
I guess at this point we can say that first three entries qualify to stay on Russia (disambiguation). So the only question is with Lithuania-Russia. As I can see you nominated Roman Empire (disambiguation) for deletion and not all editors agree that disambiguation page should be that strict. I'd like to see their resolution, since it looks like they want to keep it more broad after all with republics, Gallic Roman Empire and Empire of Romans and Franks. Korwinski (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WiFi Sensing

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I tried to add description about open source efforts and tools that help collect data for WiFi sensing. Another editor cannot agree on the inclusion of the contents and keeps removing the edits.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:WiFi Sensing

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Arbitration on the dispute and to approve the edits deemed best by you.

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

WiFi Sensing discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Woke

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 think material concerning an iconic photo of prominent BLM activist DeRay Mckesson being arrested in a #STayWoke hashtag t-shirt belongs in the section of the article concerning the hashtag.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Sangdeboeuf Talk:Woke#DeRay Mckesson #StayWoke t-shirt

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A supplementary editorial opinion would help. If any party's editorial opinion is obviously out of line with Wikipedia policies, then that party would benefit from learning this. If no parties' opinions are thus out of line, editors would learn to allow editorial disucussions to proceed.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Woke discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Battle of Vukovar

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 keeps readding phyrric victory, states it as apart of source, but it does not follow WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX, which finds terms like phyrric and decisive inappropriate to be included in an article.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[32]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Try to find a solution to whether phyrric should stay or be removed.

Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • I wasn't notified on my talk page, just via a ping on the article talk. Essentially the MOS (especially a specialist bit of it that has a range of views) does not trump what the reliable sources say, ie the victory was "Pyrrhic". It is not the role of the MOS to deprecate content when the reliable sources clearly support that content, that would be the tail wagging the dog. Three reliable sources (CIA Office of Russian and European Analysis, Balkan Battlegrounds: A Military History of the Yugoslav Conflict, 1990–1995: Volume 1, pp. 99–100 [33]; Susan Woodward's book Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War, Brookings Institution Press, p. 258 [34] and Josip Glaurdic's The Hour of Europe: Western Powers and the Breakup of Yugoslavia, Yale University Press, [35]) specifically say the victory was "Pyrrhic" (because when you examine the detailed results, it clearly was) and other sources use language consistent with the definition of a "Pyrrhic" victory, and no-one so far has produced a single reliable source that contradicts that description. So that is how Wikipedia should describe it, in the infobox and in the lead and body. This argument regarding Vukovar comes up regularly [36][37][38], and it is almost always a Serbian POV argument that they won and that is all that should be said about it. It was a major strategic stuff-up by the JNA/Serbs, and some editors don't like it being pointed out. That may be behind this particular iteration of this dispute, but of course it may also just be an editor seeking to slavishly follow the MOS. They wouldn't be the first. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good 4 U

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

Some users claim Good 4 U is grunge because a source was found for it using a google search. Nothing about the song is Grunge and several users have tried to have it removed without avail. the user that added the source claims it should stay because WP:EXPLICITGENRE but wp:FALSEBALANCE claims even if a source “ explicitly attribute the genre to the work or artist as a whole” If it is a minority view it should not stay because it creates disruption in the article. Grunge staying is clearing creating a disruption.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[39]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think grunge should either be removed from the infobox or removed as a whole.

Summary of dispute by Ronherry

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by MPFitz1968

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Good 4 U discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

For what it's worth, there appear to be far more than one mention of "grunge" in relation to this song on the web. There are many, ranging from unsourcable Wikis to Girl's Life. Grunge is not listed as thte primary genre in the infobox but rather tacked on the end of a list, which seems appropriate. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It still appears in the infobox and it’s creating a disturbance not just for me but others. There are several controversial sources that call the earth flat but doesnt get added because its a minority view.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The artist herself called grunge an inspiration for that album here.
“I love pop-punk music; I love grunge music; I love country music and folk music. I think, honestly, you can see little influences of all of those genres in my album.
And calling the world flat is not really comparable to calling music a particular genre, is it? I don't even think "grunge" is a minority view, here. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
If it’s not a minority view why does it keep getting removed? Should we add country to the info box as well because it was an influence? This song isnt grunge period and calling it such is offensive to bands like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, etc.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Would you object to "grunge-pop", or some similar hybrid? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Socialism in the UK

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a dispute over the scope of Template:Socialism in the UK over what areas of socialist parties should be included.

I believe there should be a broad church approach to socialism, including parties like Labour (which is centre-left/ mostly social democratic) to parties like the Communist Party of Britain. This is reflected in Communism nested within Socialism and this dynamic seen elsewhere, such as communist to green parties included within the "socialism in the united states" template.

I have conceded to the user that anarchist groups can be excluded.

The other user believes there should be a more strict inclusion of only parties that have "socialism" within their name or in the ideology section within the infobox of their article.

It would probably be best to see the page's talk page for the nuance of the issue at hand as we have discussed the issue at length and need to find mediation to get around this and continue editing.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Template_talk:Socialism_in_the_UK, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Socialism

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think finding a third party to help decide upon the scope of the template would be extremely helpful so further editing can continue.

Summary of dispute by Helper201

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Template:Socialism in the UK discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

United States Army Special Forces

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 an ongoing issue regarding the active or foundation date of the United States Army Special Forces since 2019. Recently, there has been multiple IP users who have reverted this date from 1987 to 1952. The user Thewolfchild has made it a point to raise this issue again on the talk page, there has been an active dialogue between myself and this user but it appears there is a lack of input from third parties and no IP user has commented regarding the changes.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would ask that a third party examines the discussion in entirety and render a neutral third opinion. Lastly, I would ask to provide guidance on how to move forward.

Summary of dispute by 50.206.243.186

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 65.127.60.202

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 12.16.108.86 

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 207.172.52.155

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 107.77.204.230

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

United States Army Special Forces discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Comment - Adding me a party to this is somewhat disingenuous. This is between a group of IP users that wants one date while Signaleer prefers another. This dispute has been going on for months with constant back-and-forth edits. I started the tp discussion to try and end the disruption, and attempted an edit that would not only (hopefully) satisfy both parties, but also recognized wp:rs and wp:con. The IP users have yet to respond but Signaleer continues to push his preferred edit only. If another editor would like to try and resolve this dispute between Signaleer and all these other users, I wish them the best of luck. - wolf 14:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The user Thewolfchild has made it a point to take a position by reverting changes and making edits to the article page, these actions are not consistent with a neutral position. I have re-added this user as an active participant. -Signaleer (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
It says to keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The only edits I reverted to the "Active" (years) parameter of the infobox were unsupported/unexplained changes, regardless of the year being added. I attempted the single edit of adding both years, as both were supported by sources, and at least one supported by consensus, in an effort to appease both factions. I reverted you once, after that, because you undid that edit without explanation. Once it was clear that you would continue edit-warring your preferred edit/year, regardless of the disruption, I disengaged. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, as in I don't care which year is there, if both years are there or if the parameter if left blank, just as long you and these ip users stop disrupting the page with your year-long edit-battle. And finally, I will again ask that you stop trying to drag me into this with your less-than-honest comments. - wolf 17:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I have once again reverted this, it is evident based on your comments and actions that you are actively involved and have taken a position to directly involve yourself into this article. I would ask that you do not remove or excuse yourself from this discussion for the duration. -Signaleer (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "I have once again reverted this"
    Yes, of course you did. That is what you do...
  • "it is evident based on your comments and actions that you are actively involved and have taken a position to directly involve yourself into this article."
    My "position" is that you and these ip users are disrupting the page with your year-long edit-war.
  • "I would ask that you do not remove or excuse yourself from this discussion for the duration."
    Wait... wut? I'm not allowed to remove or excuse myself from this discussion? - wolf 17:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary Statement by Moderator (Special Forces)

Do the registered editors have an unresolved content issue where they want moderated discussion? Are they ready to be civil and concise? Moderated discussion may or may not be the best way to resolve this dispute. If there are only a few possible solutions, such as two or three possible solutions, then an RFC may be better. Please read the usual rules. Each editor may make a one-paragraph statement in the space below. Do not reply to the other editor. If there are no responses, I will close this thread. If there is too much back-and-forth, I will fail this thread. I will only start moderated discussion if two editors both want moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary Statements by Editors (Special Forces)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpaceX Starship

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Dispute surrounding whether a subsection or section should be allotted to criticism concerning the project and how and where it is being conducted.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:SpaceX_Starship#Should_we_integrate_the_section?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help us decide if having a subsection or section devoted to criticism is undue or not.

Summary of dispute by CactiStaccingCrane

The dispute is about where to put the criticism. I suggested to integrate it to sections, since:

  1. It is not about Starship itself
  2. It provides context to these criticisms, and
  3. Not every reaction about Starship are criticisms.

It is ok to put them to a seperate section, however, what I have seen is that the main point of the argument is that there are overwhelming amount of criticism, and I disagreed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Stonkaments

WP:CORG tells us: If reliable sources – other than the critics themselves – provide substantial coverage devoted to the controversies or criticisms, then that may justify sections and sub-articles devoted to the controversies or criticism... Indeed, reliable sources have provided substantial coverage of the controversies and criticism of SpaceX's Starship program—see: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]. Given this amount of significant coverage, a 'Criticism and controversies' section clearly appears to meet WP:DUE, and it is more appropriate and coherent to keep this content in a dedicated section rather than integrating it into the rest of the article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bonewah

Summoned to this article via a Third Opinion request, which I offered here. The summary version: Avoid crit sections per WP:CSECTION, incorporate relevant criticisms into the article, cut the trivia. (note, Fcrary had a similar take here but was not named in this DR)

Response by CactiStaccingCrane: "ok doing it" diff.
Counter response by QRep2020: "Thats just an essay" diff.
Me:"Can you explain your thinking?" diff].
QRep2020 Response:"No, cause Other stuff. diff
CactiStaccingCrane:"criticism section should be for Starship itself, not development" diff.
Me to QRep2020:"no really, you need explain yourself, here ill re-iterate my thinking" diff.
QRep2020: "There should be a criticism section because criticism exists and is sourced, im requesting DR" diff.
Stonkaments: "DR notice" diff.

So, yea, that was the discussion after I got there. Not much in the way of consensus building, or arguing of positions for that matter. Taking it all to DRN seems a bit premature, I mean editors could try and make their case on the talk page first, but thats just my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping me if you need anything further, im un-watching these pages. Bonewah (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

SpaceX Starship discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Sorry, I always forget it is not automated. Will do now. QRep2020 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Starship)

Are the editors still interested in moderated discussion? It appears that User:Bonewah says that they offered an outside opinion and will probably not be participating further, but they may participate if they wish. Read the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often do not resolve the issues, even if they make the poster feel better. It seems that at least one of the issues is whether to have a "Criticisms" section, or to include various criticisms and reactions in the individual sections. Do not respond to statements in the section for statements. Those statements are made to the community, and to the moderator for the community. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the section for that purpose. I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement in the section for statements, explaining what they either want changed or want left the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Starship)

A criticism section is appropriate as there are numerous reliable relevant third-party independent sources that cover critical remarks and discussion regarding the Starship project from academics, government officials, and others. Attempting to diffuse the material into other parts of the article would be an ad hoc measure especially given the other sections are mostly about technical specifications and historical details and not about political or environmental issues. None of the included criticism is trivial and readers will benefit from learning that legitimate concerns face the project in a concise, cohesive arrangement. QRep2020 (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is that many of the criticisms are accurate, however, they should be incorperated to the article because the surrounding information would give them some context. Most of the criticisms isn't about Starship itself, but rather about Starship's development, one of which criticize about SN8 launch should be mentioned directly to the dedicated history section. Otherwise, I fully support QRep's opinion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Starship)

There are currently four paragraphs in the Criticism section. Is CacciStaccingCrane saying that the four paragraphs should each be moved into another existing section of the article? If that is the case, then we can discuss each of the paragraphs and where it should go. Please state whether the question is only about whether to distribute the four paragraphs into existing sections (as opposed to rewriting or deleting them). After we agree on that aspect of the scope of the issue, then we will proceed to discuss each of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be only about splitting up the existing Criticism section at the moment, but I will leave it to CactiStaccingCrane to confirm. QRep2020 (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Starship)

Back-and-forth discussion (Starship)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dorian Abbot

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

As discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorian_Abbot#Edit_war:_MIT's_rationale_for_cancelling_Carlson_lecture_and_Prof_Abbot's_Nazism_reference, I am trying to include mention in the "Dorian Abbot" article of two points that I think are relevant, but a user reverts my edits each time. He gives justification in the Page History, and I don't doubt that he's editing in good faith, but in my assessment he is violating the Neutral point of view guidelines with these reverts.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorian_Abbot#Edit_war:_MIT's_rationale_for_cancelling_Carlson_lecture_and_Prof_Abbot's_Nazism_reference

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think it would be helpful to get input from a third party on whether these two points are relevant and ought to be mentioned in the "Dorian Abbot" wikipedia article.

Summary of dispute by David Eppstein

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Dorian Abbot discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Grand Duchy of Lithuania

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

There is a content dispute caused by user Korwinski who attempts to prove that the name of Grand Duchy of Lithuania at some point of its history was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Samogitia. He is basing his point of view exclusively on sources published when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania already did not existed (the earliest source he provided is from 1854, while the state was wiped out in 1795 following the Third Partition of the Commonwealth).

Such triple name is not supported by Lithuanian sources (e.g. Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia) or top-class international sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica (see provided articles). There are many authentic old maps of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (dating before 1795) and not a single of them uses a triple name. It is either Grand Duchy of Lithuania or simply Lithuania. Moreover, the Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth was only proposed, but never actually existed. There is a Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations (pay attention: TWO nations) which proves that there was nothing else in the state's names than Lithuania and Poland that later together formed the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. The rulers of Poland, Lithuania and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth held other royal titles as well, but these were smaller duchies (e.g. Duchy of Prussia, Duchy of Masovia) which were part of Lithuania or Poland and their names were not included into the state's names (e.g. see: this authentic document from 1791 which includes list of the royal titles).


How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

  • Talk:Grand Duchy of Lithuania#Etymology, however at the end of this discussion user Korwinski issued a threat (his statement) that he will wage a revert warring if his obviously incorrect statements will not be included into the article, so an administrators intervention in this content dispute is a must as I don't want to be part of any edit warring.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This content dispute requires a decision whenever information about this triple name should be included into the article text or not.

In order to avoid any false modern interpretations and ensure WP:NPOV, I suggest to discuss by only including sources published before 1795 as this is about name of a state, not about some kind of niche thing. However, user Korwinski refuses to provide any sources from before 1795 and wants to rewrite history based on interpretations in later/modern sources.

Summary of dispute by Korwinski

  • None of the sources user Pofka provided cover name of the state.
  • He ignores all my sources that say specifically that there was in fact in 14-16 centuries full name of the state.
  • When he is not making up his own translations of the "other [lands]" part (although additional source explaining it was added), he considers all (and I mean all) of this to be a “title” of the king.

“Written rights of an Old Statute and given to grand duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Samogitia and other [lands] by illustrious highness Sigismund, by the grace of God the king of Poland, the grand duke of Lithuania, Ruthenia, Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia, and other [lands]".”

  • In order for me to confirm it he wants me to find some primary sources dated from before 1795(!). No, not translations or anything. He wants me to provide him with actual books and documents from that time. Full text of privileges given to the state by king Alexander Jagiellon as well as both original and translated text of First Lithuanian Statute he considers "falsified" and ignores them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • In addition every single post from this user includes accusations of some “falsifications” made by me and my sources. Without any shred of proof. As well as accusations of me starting “edit war”. Here I should note that from my side I did only first initial revert during which notified that there was already before a discussion on this topic. During it I refrained for a week from making any further edits until any of the other editors had any objections. Korwinski (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
UPD: Actually ironically I never checked article about First Statute as there isn't one in English wiki. But Eastern slavic wikis got it. And it includes a gallery of scans of that Statute. I believe this one has the most readable text. Anyone who can speak either of these languages will be able to confirm name of that state on the second line in the top. Korwinski (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sabbatino

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Cukrakalnis

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Grand Duchy of Lithuania discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Please do not discuss the Dispute until a volunteer steps forward to mediateNightenbelle (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Volunteer Statement- I'm tempted to close this now because of the WP:Battleground mentallity and Personal Attacks you both are resorting to. Unacceptable. At the moment- this sounds like behavior complaints and would, more than likely, result in warnings and/or bans all around. Before any volunteer here is going to take this on you two need to re-read your statements on this page, strike the personal attacks, and promise to proceed with decorum and professionalism. Otherwise- ya'll can head straight to the ani and work out those behavior issues and whoever is left standing after that can finish editing the page. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
In order for discussion to take place, both parties must provide any valid arguments, sources and actually try to resolve issue. Unfortunately thats not what the other party is doing, hence when he threatened to open this dispute I saw no other way on how to handle it. I mean how can discussion can be resolved if other party does not provide any requested sources and ignores all questions? How can I resolve it myself when other party first says one source is valid, I note that it includes information that contradicts their point and they start to accuse me of trying to insert it into the article? How can it be resolved when English source says something explicitly and other party starts to make up their own translations and rules? How can it be resolved, when other party requests sources and when I provide them in multiple versions, they start claiming that they are falsified without a single source confirming such statement?
Overall in any case there were two main requests from Pofka:
1. "Provide at least one source from the GDL (e.g. Statute of Lithuania) which uses name Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia."
Texts from Statute of Lithuania: Source 1 (in Ruthenian and Russian), Source 2 and Source 3 (both in English). In addition to that here are just a few of the sources I found stating explicitly that this was its full name [55], [56], [57]. Note, I even excluded any Eastern slavic sources. Although I'm not sure on what grounds editors remove most of them.
2. "So provide at least one authentic source published before 1795 to support your statements about a different name of this state or there is nothing else to discuss."
Yesterday after this dispute started I found out that Eastern slavic wikipedias have article about this Statute and contain gallery of images with it. Here is the easist to read one. Second line from the top. That both confirms that accusation of sources as being "falsified" is a lie. And meets Pofka's second request. Unless he will make up some more rules and requests, of course. Korwinski (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle: My statement: "Provide a source using this name before 1795". His argument: "I mean how can discussion can be resolved if other party does not provide any requested sources and ignores all questions?". So basically he accused me of an action which he refuses to do himself. He clearly does not seek for a compromise. I will freely accept this name of the state if he will provide a source. All we need is a moderator who will observe if he will provide a source from a period when the Grand Duchy of Lithuania still existed in order to prove that such name of the state was really used or is a made up fact by later authors. -- Pofka (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Volunteer statement: This generally seems to be a dispute over the verifiability of a primary source at this point. @Korwinski: I will note that the listed English sources are not full previews on Google Books and thus I cannot read them; it may be helpful if you screenshotted the pages and uploaded the images to a site like Imgur so that we can all read them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Iazyges: These books 1, 2 provided by Korwinski has such quote: "Written Laws Given to the State, the Grand Principality of Lithuania, Rus', Samogitia and Other [ Lands ] by Enlightened Lord Sigismund, by the Grace of God King of Poland, Grand Prince of Lithuania, Rus', Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia and Other [ Lands ]" (since this quote is provided by two unrelated authors, I will presume that it an authentic text for the sake of a compromise). So let's analyze this quote. It says that Lord Sigismund (whose royal titles are: King of Poland, Grand Prince of Lithuania, Rus', Prussia, Samogitia, Mazovia and Other [ Lands ]) gives written laws to the: 1) Grand Principality of Lithuania; 2) Rus' (region) (he ruled large part of Ruthenia); 3) Samogitia; 4) and Other [ Lands ]. So do we have names of a country which are named in such a way "Grand Principality of Lithuania, Rus', Samogitia and Other [ Lands ]" (pay attention to the highlighted part)? It completely clear that this text describes not a name of state but names of places to which the ruler gives these laws (Statute of Lithuania). -- Pofka (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pofka: could you provide screenshots of this, as with Korwinski? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Iazyges: @Nightenbelle: Here are screenshots of these books: 1) Studien Zur Geschichte Osteuropas; 2) Magna Carta: A Central European perspective of our common heritage of freedom. There is no chance that a state name could include words "and Other [ Lands ]". -- Pofka (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Iazyges:
Primary sources: 1, 2, 3
Secondary sources: 1, 2, 3 Korwinski (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I just noticed that Pofka started again his own original research. In order to save everybody's time, here's another primary source: The Privilege of rights and freedoms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania:
  • It does not include mention of "other lands". So the name fully matches secondary sources.
  • Title of the Grand Duke is different from name of the state. And after introduction it names king Alexander only as Duke or Grand Duke without naming any of his realms. While lands on the contrary go either by full name or just as Grand Duchy.
  • Most importantly it grants same rights for people of Grand Duchy as it does for Kingdom of Poland, so you can compare how it addresses the two and how in no way that is a "title" of Grand Duke. Korwinski (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Nope. This quote provided by Korwinski (from a Privilege of Rights and Freedoms): "In the first place to the above mentioned prelates, princes, lords, nobles and burghers the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Ruthenia and Samogitia we gave, awarded..." (link of his uploaded image once again) means exactly the same thing as the previous quote I decoded. It lists the LANDS in which the rights and freedoms are awarded by their ruler Alexander Jagiellon: 1) Grand Duchy of Lithuania; 2) Ruthenia; 3) Samogitia. Pay attention that Alexander Jagiellon royal titles in that document are: 1) Duke of Lithuania (Lithuania proper); 2) (Duke of) Samogitia (Duchy of Samogitia); 3) Lord and heir of the lands of Ruthenia (e.g. lands of Principality of Smolensk, Principality of Kiev). HE IS NOT: Duke of Ruthenia. HE IS: Lord and heir of Ruthenia. It is clear that the Duke of Lithuania and Lord and heir of Ruthenia are separate titles of separate lands/regions (to which he gives the freedoms and rights via the said Privilege). This Privilege does not include Prussia (Duchy of Prussia) because Alexander Jagiellon did not ruled it, unlike the later ruler Sigismund I the Old who had the title Duke of Prussia (mentioned in the Statute's quote above). However, pay attention that: the royal titles of Sigismund I the Old (dating to 1529) also includes word LANDS, so same as the royal titles of Alexander. LANDS is not equal to STATE. If it really was a state name, then the Encyclopedia Britannica would undoubtedly mention such important fact in its article.
What is the difference between the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (royal title: Grand Duke of Lithuania) and Lithuania proper (royal title: Duke of Lithuania)? The Grand Duchy of Lithuania at the time of Alexander Jagiellon (reigned in 1492 – 1506) consists of: Lithuania proper and the already annexed Ruthenian principalities (e.g. Principality of Polotsk since 1307 or 1397, Principality of Minsk since 1413, Principality of Turov since the early 14th century). Other Ruthenian principalities which were annexed later to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were ruled via the royal title of "Lord and heir of Ruthenia" (e.g. Principality of Smolensk and Principality of Vitebsk were annexed in 1508, Principality of Slutsk was annexed only in 1791). It is important to note that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania competed with the Grand Duchy of Moscow which of them will have more vassal Ruthenian principalities and were later annexing them (e.g. the Muscovites annexed the Principality of Yaroslavl in 1463/1471).
So the royal titles of Alexander Jagiellon and Sigismund I the Old (provided above) includes more than one state as the non-annexed Ruthenian principalities are regarded as separate states (vassal states of the Grand Duke of Lithuania), same as the Duchy of Prussia (annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia only in 1701; it was never annexed by Lithuania or Poland and was ruled only via a separate royal title). -- Pofka (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Statement Involved editors are reminded to please answer volunteer questions susinctly and not to discuss the dispute beyond the answers to those questions until a volunteer has agreed to mediate this case. They are also reminded ... again... to strike personal attacks from their explanation of the problem and to agree to focus on content not behavior. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Other party claims sources are "falsified" and "modern authors made inaccurate statements". He did not provide any sources to confirm that claim. Even though I was able to find scan of one of the original document that has the very same text as in the source he claims was "falsified". Korwinski (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of_coups_and_coup_attempts

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

People are removing my edits with vague references to Wikipedia policies, saying that the matter has not reached consensus and calling me disruptive. However, they are not substantially participating on the Talk page or providing other sources. I have explained my edits and provided adequate sourcing. No substantial responses have been given in the talk page for the article in dispute.

Instead, my Talk page has been edited, calling me disruptive and making it seem like I am some sort of internet vandal.

As to the article, the description of the events of Jan. 6 has evolved since earlier this year as much more is known, such as the release of the Eastman Memorandum. For example, the Associated Press refers to the event as an "attempted coup" (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-technology-business-social-media-media-07124025bdbeba98a7c7b181562c3c1a) as do many other neutral sources. You can verify this by doing a search on news aggregator.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_coups_and_coup_attempts


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. My contributions are valuable but I do not see the value in deleting them out of hand. Please discuss with these moderators the applicability of Wikipedia's policies to this situation. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by NoonIcarus

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Anachronist

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of_coups_and_coup_attempts discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subhas Chandra Bose

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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 lead of this article is too wordy and doesn't seem like a typical lead on Wikipedia. Rather than introducing the subject, the lead is giving conclusions on his lifework. Also, it is too wordy (almost 50 words in the first sentence) and hence the readability is compromised. It isn't aligned with the guidelines provided at WP:EXPLAINLEAD. I didn't remove any content. I tried to break the long sentences and added some details that actually introduce the subject. but @Fowler&fowler is reverting the changes stating it needs consensus. And as evident by his note on the talk page, it seems like he himself want to rewrite and shorten the lead. It could be the reason for his reverts.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Akshaypatill#October_2021

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Asses the lead and its readability and whether it follows the guidelines given at WP:EXPLAINLEAD

Summary of dispute by Fowler&fowler

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is no dispute that I can discern, other than this editor wanting to insert an independent WP:Peacock clause in the longstanding lead sentence (upward of ten years) and having been reverted, wanting to have his way come hell or high water. He has never edited this article, which is fine, his sources are abominable, which is not fine, and despite my requesting him several times on his user talk page that he voice his discontent on the article's talk page first, present his sources, etc., he has not opened any thread there except one at 18:30 proclaiming an RFC! I have edited many tired old India-related articles, including Subhas Chandra Bose and the FA India, into whose phrasing the painstaking input of dozens of Wikipedians has gone. Hundreds watchlist them. People arrive at these pages, don't bother to read the talk page archives, think their edit is the latest and greatest since wonderbread. If they get reverted, which many politely are, they start what appears to be a metaphorical death by a thousand cuts in other articles. I am used to it. But, lately, this seems to have become much worse. I am human. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Subhas Chandra Bose discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Fowler&fowler: You never mentioned the WP:Peacock in our conversation nor you gave any reason other than consensus. Anyway, I have rewrote it incorporating your suggestions and have added new sources. Have a look whether they are valid are not.Akshaypatill (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - The discussion has been inadequate. Each of the identified editors has made two statements, but they do not appear to be discussing, and the discussion has taken less than 24 hours. Sometimes 24 hours of discussion helps to resolve a dispute. Also, an editor who has stated an opinion has not been included in this filing. I am leaving this case as it is for now to permit more discussion and to permit the addition of any editors. If the editors resolve the dispute, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Seems like @Fowler&fowler: is taking it personally and don't seem to believe in discussions. Sometime ago he changed the whole section. Now it doesn't even feel like lead.Akshaypatill (talk) 02:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ultimate Warrior

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this 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

Hi,

There has been a link that has been repeatedly deleted by someone called gimblibot. Admittedly this ended up in an editwar and seemingly a friend of his decided to block me - and myself only, despite the other party clearly being guilty of and admitting partaking in the edit war. The link involves clear medical analysis of Warrior's autopsy report - by Dr Kevin Horns. Link the the autopsy analysis of Dr Horn by Dr Aziz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8fd7SnTosw&t=2520s It is a lengthy video no doubt, but that shouldn’t make it worthy of instant deletion. If you want a more succinct view of the evidence that is presented in the video this is it: https://www.linkpicture.com/q/Warrior-autopsy-wiki.jpg Now before anyone says 'its only youtube on a small channel' and platform discriminating, I would request looking at the actual evidence being presented. There was actually no myocardial infarction (i.e. heart attack) so the wiki information at present is categorically incorrect and in fact that should be deleted (I didnt so as to allow people to judge for themselves). Again the evidence that is presented in the video analysis and repeatedly deleted: https://www.linkpicture.com/q/Warrior-autopsy-wiki.jpg The full autopsy pdf - publically available information - that Gimlidotnet is both mocking and deleting repeatedly without any clear medical reason: https://easyupload.io/rcfu9r You can also request this for free from Maricopa County Office of the Medical Examiner. Whatever the rules may be of which platform can be referenced (is youtube really black listed?) I’d like to ask fair and unbiased editors - does this really not contribute the discussion and facts in question? Again – is this evidence – the single most categorical medical commentary of Warrior’s death really a violation of wiki rules and worthy of constant deletion and a one sided blatantly biased unannounced blocking? Is Wikipedia really such a clique as opposed to evidence based analysis?


How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GeneralNotability#User%3AEvidenceAlliquots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EvidenceAlliquots


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. Allow this quite irrefutable and black and white evidence that undoubtedly contributes to worthwhile discussion in good faith - and in actual fact corrects the misinformation currenly on Warrior's page - to be published.

2. Take disciplinary action against gimlibotnet for frivilous deletion with no good reason except platform discrimination cited.

3. Take disciplinary action against generalnotability for a biased one sided blocking of an edit war


Summary of dispute by GimliDotNet

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by generalnotability

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Ultimate Warrior discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_210&oldid=1053486772"