Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 229

Archive 225

←

Archive 227

Archive 228

Archive 229

Archive 230

Archive 231

→

Archive 235

Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Uzek on 13:58, 17 February 2023 (UTC).

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 Muhammad Ali Jinnah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Uzek (talk · contribs) Flamealpha123 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue is regarding the ethnicity of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It is already mentioned he has Gujarati origins but another editor put in that he is also an "ethnic Muhajir" (immigrant) since his parents migrated before partition of Pakistan to Pakistani territory. To sum it up, a Muhajir is a person who is a Muslim who immigrated to Pakistan from Indian territory AFTER the India-Pakistan partition. Jinnah was born in Karachi and was raised there,so he is not in anyway classified as a "Muhajir". The editor insists so only because his parents migrated BEFORE partition and forcing this identity on him by claiming he left Karachi and spent his political career in Bombay (Indian territory) which he left in the 1947 partition, though he also owned property in the future Pakistani territory of Karachi before partition. Plus this identity evolved over time as an "ethnic group" in a specific region (Sindh) because of politics. It's status as an "ethnic identity" didn't exist in the first decade of partition. Lastly, his first language was Gujarati and the "Muhajir" ethnic identity in Pakistan is used as an alternative for the "Urdu-speaking" community since they were the predominant group that came. Many other migrants like Bengalis, Afghans, etc who immigrated are not grouped into this identity. This identity is therefore not fixed and very flexible. The editor has provided a source which calls Jinnah a "Muhajir" in an article where the politics of ethnicities in Pakistan is discussed, which categorised Jinnah to be one since no other term for him probably came to mind. But this categorization is a rare opinion. I've provided sources on the talk page to back my claims and how many sources contradict the need for this categorization. I've also asked the editor I'm in conflict with to counter the 3 points I have raised, to which they didnot respond and asked to bring in a third opinion instead. Will be thankful for your cooperation. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah#Ethnic_Muhajir How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By helping decide if the mention of him being "ethnic Muhajir" should be kept or not since the history of his parent's migration + his Gujarati origins is mentioned in the article hence unnecessary to stuff in this newly evolved term. Summary of dispute by Flamealpha123 Firstly, I want to clear some misunderstanding regarding this dispute and that is the importance of the place of settlement of Jinnah's parents and his birhtplace. Being a muhajir, as I will discuss later, has nothing to do with where your parents lived or where you were born, but what matters is your ethnicity and location at the time around the Partition. I called Jinnah an ethnic muhajir because he exactly fits into the widely used muhajir definition which is: Migrated to Pakistan from Muslim minority provinces of the subcontinent around the time of partition, Is not considered as belonging to any of the nationalities of Pakistan, neither Punjabi, nor Pashtun, nor Sindhi, nor Baloch, Migrated from those areas of East Punjab whose language and culture were not Punjabi. (He did not migrate from Punjab) My sources proving Jinnah fits into the definition: Clause 1 of definition:(On 7 August, Jinnah, with his sister and close staff, flew from Delhi to Karachi in Mountbatten's plane, and as the plane taxied, he was heard to murmur, "That's the end of that.") sources:[1][2][3] (Jinnah stayed in the House (in Bombay, India) till partition of India in 1947, after which he moved to Karachi in Pakistan.)source:[4] Clause 2 of definition: (In 1913, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the son of an affluent Gujarati merchant from Kathiawad, joined the League) source:[5] Clause 3 of definition: This clause is only for people who migrated from Punjab, to avoid classifying ethnic Punjabi migrants as muhajirs. Jinnah migrated from Delhi (see clause 1). Anyone who believes Jinnah is not an muhajir should try to prove that he does not fit this definition. Uzek claims jinnah can not be considered a muhajir because: Jinnah was born in Karachi and was raised there. I have discussed this above, that birthplace has nothing to do with being a muhajir only ethnicity and location at the time around the Partition matter. Jinnah was a Gujarat, so not a native Pakistani, and his permanent residence was in Bombay at the time of Partition (see sources for clause 1 of definition and the passport photo). He owned property in the future Pakistani territory of Karachi before partition. To counter that I will say that owning property is not a sign of permanent residence. Many people own property in several different countries, so why are they not considered permanent resident of that country? And also Jinnah's Domicile (a person's fixed, permanent, and principal home) is of mumbai not karachi. Clearly stated jinnah is domiciled in bombay not karachi his first language was Gujarati and the "Muhajir" ethnic identity in Pakistan is used as an alternative for the "Urdu-speaking" community since they were the predominant group that came. Many other migrants like Bengalis, Afghans, etc who immigrated are not grouped into this identity. This identity is therefore not fixed and very flexible Well, Jinnah was a gujarati and gujaratis in Pakistan are considered muhajirs. [6][7][8] The term “Urdu Speaking” was coined because most of the people who migrated from the minority provinces of India and settled in Sindh spoke Urdu or some dialect of it as their mother tongue, though there were muhajirs in good number from Gujrat and Bombay whose mother tongue was not Urdu.[9] Anatol Lieven clearly states in his book Pakistan: A Hard Country: In Karachi, they (muhajirs) were 48 per cent, with around another 8 per cent made up of Gujarati, who also left India after 1947 and so come under the same heading of Mohajir. also The balance was largely made up of Muslim emigrants from Gujarat in India, who speak their own languages but as Urdu-speakers tend to identify with the Mohajirs and the MQM. This case of urdu-speakers and muhajirs is the same as russia which is called by this name because it is dominated by ethnic Russians, but that does not mean that tatars or chechens are not russians. Also he brings up the issue of bengalis and afghans, they did not migrate from India and therefore are not considered muhajirs (this has nothing to do with Jinnah). I also have reliable sources clearly stating Jinnah was a muhajir: Pakistan at the crossroads : domestic dynamics and external pressures [10] There are many sources that indirectly state that Jinnah was a muhajir but to keep this short I will not include them. First statement by moderator (Jinnah) I am willing to moderate this dispute. It appears that there is discussion taking place here, and the discussion may be useful, so we will use a set of rules that permit back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Please read the rules and acknowledge that you agree to them. It appears that the issue is whether Jinnah, who is regarded as the founder of Pakistan, can be referred to as a Muhajir, which refers to Muslims who migrated from what is now India to Pakistan. Is that the primary issue? Are there any other content issues? Please answer those questions in the area for first statements, and you may continue discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Jinnah) Yes, that the only issue. Besides the summaries, detailed discussion is present on the article talk page and the second statement. Would add to it if further questions asked or if Flamealpha likes to comment on it. Uzek (talk) Muhammad Ali Jinnah discussion (Back-and-forth) Hey there, We can't call Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, a "Muhajir" throughout his article. I'm sorry. It doesn't matter "where he was" during the Partition of India, because he is the one who partitioned India in the first place. We can have a neutral sentence that discusses why he may be considered a Muhajir for "certain analyses", e.g. since he is an ethnic Gujarati (on both sides) and spent much of his political life in India. We can even consider him a "Muslim migrant" during the Partition of India. For these reasons, calling him "Muhajir" is not inaccurate. It's just not entirely accurate either. Generally "Muhajir" refers to refugees affected by the Partition and their descendants -- Muhammad can't be considered a "Muslim refugee" when he instigated the cause for the immigrations in the first place. My vote is that there be a single reference to him being considered Muhajir, maybe like this: "Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been considered a Muhajir in certain analyses because of his Gujarati ethnicity and the fact much of his political life was spent in India before the Partition.(your refs here) However, labelling him a "Muhajir" is equivocal due to the definition of that term being related to the Partition of India that Muhammad himself caused.(more refs here)" And just leave it at that? Let me know what you two think. Thanks :) LightProof1995 (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Second statement by editor Thankyou for your response! I agree that this info should be included only if it paints both sides of the picture of why or why not he may be "considered a Muhajir". But the problem with words like "in certain analysis" or similar such wordings would be, to my knowledge, no analysis of him being "considered" a Muhajir is published yet, because this topic holds no relevance in public discourse in Pakistan. The consideration of him being one based on much of his political life being spent in Bombay is not published either, it's just this editor's (Flamealpha123) personal opinion. The editor has provided only TWO sources which they claim to call Jinnah a "Muhajir". I think the editor mistakenly included the Jaffrelot source ( https://www.worldcat.org/title/949668196 ), since I read the whole shortbook on ethnic politics in Pakistan today and no where does Jaffrelot call Jinnah a Muhajir? Requesting the editor to go through it and cite the paragraph where it claims so (it is not there). The second and only source which categorises Jinnah to be a Muhajir (rare opinion) is the one I have a problem with. This is the paragraph: "WHICH ethnicity and class has ruled us the most? Each era has a ruling clan with a top honcho and kitchen cabinet. But for ease, I focus on the former (ignoring dummy prime ministers). Jinnah (middle-class Mohajir); Liaquat Ali (landowner Mohajir), Bhuttos/Zardari (landowner Sindhis) and Sharif (industrialist Punjabi) were political and/or elected rulers." ( https://www.dawn.com/news/1357045 ) Besides the writer calling Jinnah a Muhajir (unnecessary categorization), he also goes on to call former prime minister Nawaz Sharif a Punjabi (misinformation) when he in fact was a Kashmiri (mentioned in his wikipedia biography). This writer's article hence needs to be discarded as a source of how ill-informed he is of existence of other minority ethnicities in Pakistan and grouped them all into the majority known ones. Many reliable sources exist which do not categorise Jinnah as a Muhajir in such published articles, rather just mention his Gujrati origins. For example, this one from Britannica: "Jinnah had worked hard to mollify competing and ambitious provincial leaders, and Liaquat Ali Khan, himself a refugee (muhajir) from India, simply did not have the stature to pick up where Jinnah had left off." https://www.britannica.com/place/Pakistan/Birth-of-the-new-state See the contradiction? One source calls both Muhammad Ali Jinnah AND Liaquat Ali Khan the first leaders of the newly formed state of Pakistan Muhajir while the other (also reliable) source doesn't. (Because Liaquat fits in perfectly with the definition of a Muhajir, while Jinnah doesn't). You're right. I should've just taken that source out the first time. I was being neutral about it, but by "certain analyses" I did mean the source where they were comparing ethnicities of prime ministers or whatever it was. I suppose I was trying to not be judgmental about this source? Now I'm judging it as not appropriate for Wikipedia and can be excluded. Thanks for taking the time to make a second statement. LightProof1995 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC) @LightProof1995 Thanks alot for taking out your time to resolve your dispute. I am perfectly on board with your judgement although I think it will be better if we merge the two sentences you added with a comma 😂 @Uzek for the question about https://www.worldcat.org/title/949668196 (pg.10 section:Introduction) The disappearance of these two muhajirs politicians (Jinnah and Liaquat) left the democratically inclined Bengalis in a face off with the Punjabi elites I am not saying the muhajir term should be used throughout the article, It should be used only once in the way you did (have a neutral sentence that discusses why he may be considered a Muhajir for because some researchers such as jaffrelot). So if you are writing about the causes for 1971 civil war or any other thing about Pakistani politics you can't say Pakistani establishment was dominated by Urdu-speakers, gujaratis, rajisthanis, etc. You have to use the term muhajirs as Jaffrelot uses in his book. So we can say (as @LightProof1995 did) for some researches and analyses jinnah is a muhajir. And the rest can be left up to the reader to decide if he was a muhajir or gujarati. Should we close this dicussion now? FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC) And I think He was of a Gujarati Khoja Nizari Isma'ili Shi’a Muslim background, though Jinnah later followed the Twelver Shi'a teachings. should be moved after the sentences about the muhajir stuff because it seems weird to have a sentence about his ethnic origins, then one about his religion, then again about his ethnicity, and another one about his religion. FLA-ALP-1 (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your reply :) Sorry I haven't had a chance to look at this again until now. I've moved the sentences so it doesn't jump from religion content, to Muhajir content, back to religion content. LightProof1995 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC) I see. But the pattern of both these sources is "Ethnic politics in Pakistan" and "which majority ethnic group rules" to create a narrative of who dominates Pakistan. Hence the bias towards grouping them all into major known categories. Mentioning any outlier (minority ethnic group with sparse numbers) that has ruled Pakistan doesn't get a mention in both. While the Britannica I mentioned which is contradictory to these sources or many similar sources on general history always use the clear cut definition of the term Muhajir, hence no mention of Jinnah being one in most. Now it's up to the moderator to decide who must know better regarding the policies of inclusion of such terms which have no consensus/aren't black and white. Uzek (talk) Third statement by moderator (Jinnah) I see that one editor has made a second statement, so I will skip making a second statement and make a third statement. Do not reply to each other in your third statements. Address them to the moderator, who represents the community. I see that an editor who is not yet listed as one of the parties, User:Uzek, has joined the discussion. Do you, Uzek, agree to abide by the rules? Are there any other issues besides whether Jinnah can be referred to as a Mujahir? Will each editor please list all of the specific places in the article that they either want changed or left the same because of the question of whether that characterization applies to Jinnah? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Jinnah) Yes, I have read the rules and agree to abide by them. This was the first version of the sentence. "He is considered to be an ethnic Muhajir" over which the dispute had started. Now it has been modified to "Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been called a Muhajir by some writers because of his Gujarati ethnicity and the fact much of his political life was spent in pre-modern-day India before the Partition. However, labelling him a "Muhajir" is equivocal due to that definition generally referring to Muslim refugees of the partition Jinnah himself instigated." by a volunteer editor. The issue is over if the term "Muhajir" should even be included to begin with, since there is clear proof as stated in above discussions that the term has no consensus. And detailed analysis of him being one or not has not been published in writing in reliable sources, which makes it difficult to include it since wikipedia doesn't use opinionated text outside of reliable sources. (Per: WP: SYNTHESIS) Uzek (talk) Fourth statement by moderator (Jinnah) Will each editor please identify each place where Jinnah is referred to as a mujahir. Are there any other issues besides whether Jinnah can be referred to as a mujahir? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Hey everyone, Sorry I've been extremely busy and haven't had the time until now to look at this again. There are a couple of reasons why I believe some mention of him being called a Muhajir will have to be in his article. First, the sentence about him being considered a Muhajir was in the article before these two editors came along in February. It originally read, "He was of a Gujarati Khoja Nizari Isma'ili Shi’a Muslim background, though Jinnah was considered an ethnic Muhajir because of his Indian background.". I've now changed it to "Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been called a Muhajir by some writers because of his Gujarati ethnicity and the fact much of his political life was spent in pre-modern-day India before the Partition. However, labelling him a "Muhajir" is equivocal due to that definition generally referring to Muslim refugees of the partition Jinnah himself instigated." Note the keywords/phrases here: some writers and equivocal; I chose these words to highlight labelling him Muhajir is disputed. To me, even saying "writers" is a stance on the term being contested because generally we'd prefer to say "authors" or "scholars". Saying "some writers" instead of just "writers" also highlights the term is disputed (in favor of those considering him not a Muhajir). If we just said "writers" it would point to more acceptance of the term being applied to him. Second, I assume the sources provided call him a Muhajir. The full text for these books aren't online. I've opened the "Pakistan at the crossroads" as a Google ebook preview online and searched for "Muhajir", but nothing came up. "Searching "Mohajir" brought up results but none related to Jinnah specifically. This proves nothing as it is just a preview, but you see the problem: I'm not going to the library to check this book out to verify the claim (I have no car, sorry). Same with the other source. Since I can't verify, I have to go with what was already on the page as the consensus before these editors came along, unless someone wants to check out/buy those books to verify the claim. Note Uzek says they read a shortbook on ethnicities in Pakistan by the same author and it never called Jinnah a Muhajir, so they requested a page and paragraph citation for the reference, and FlameAlpha seems to have provided this. FlameAlpha says on page 10, there is this sentence: "The disappearance of these two muhajir politicians (Jinnah and Liaquat) left the democratically inclined Bengalis in a face off with the Punjabi elites." A third party reviewing these sources would be great, but it can't be me. However, I feel there is a strong case that these sources do indeed call Jinnah a Muhajir, given the fact these sources were listed before these editors came along, and the fact FlameAlpha has provided a page reference and sentence for one of the sources. Third, this sentence from Britannica was brought up as evidence Jinnah is not considered a Muhajir: "Jinnah had worked hard to mollify competing and ambitious provincial leaders, and Liaquat Ali Khan, himself a refugee (muhajir) from India, simply did not have the stature to pick up where Jinnah had left off." From what I can tell, this sentence neither confirms nor denies Jinnah can be considered a Muhajir. To summarize, I feel the article was skewed towards the Jinnah-is-a-Muhajir (FlameAlpha) view, and I've now adjusted it to be neutral and take into account the Jinnah-is-not-a-Muhajir (Uzek) view. Especially the word "equivocal", I am surprised this was not good enough to close this case -- does it not highlight the term has no consensus? LightProof1995 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Jinnah) LightProof1995, it was edited into the article some months ago by editor Flamealpha in June 2022, the reason why she's so defensive over it. (I would've linked the edit here but can't for some reason). Her account is dedicated to this identity and the political party Muttahida Qaumi Movement – London (Muhajir nationalists) I'm not the only editor who has challenged her on this view, maybe only on this page because it has not reached enough people to see how wrong it sounds She has been challenged for inserting Jinnah on the Muhajir article itself and the List of Muhajir people article by completely different people. (would've linked them too if the option was visible on my device) I was trying to stretch and discuss all my points in complete detail (many which were left unsaid) since Flamealpha wouldn't engage with me on the talk page properly Think I'll just withdraw the case and accept your version since you say the Britannica source is not enough. I used it as an example to make it easier for volunteers to understand the issue, since the other option is plastering a burdensome wall of texts on the definition of a Muhajir Thankyou for your edits! Uzek Waaaaaait no don’t go, this changes everything!! I only went back to view the history since November, I did not realize the Muhajir information was added by FlameAlpha in June 2022. I appreciate you saying the current version is okay, but I am now suspicious the Muhajir stuff should be included at all. I’m just a volunteer mediator so this could be a higher-level issue but I’ll try my best here. FlameAlpha, it would be different if your edits were neutral. It sounds like they potentially aren’t, but we have to be neutral… here are the questions we should be asking: 1. Are the current two Muhajir sentences giving Jinnah WP:UNDUE weight, when Jinnah was not a refugee? And 2. Do the current structure of the sentences invite people to edit them more, or are they “stable”? We want stability since the article is a Featured Article. If more people are going to see the Muhajir sentences and think “No, this doesn’t belong here, he wasn’t even a refugee!” instead of “Oh right, yeah I was wondering if Jinnah is considered a Muhajir because of his Gujarati ethnicity and his time spent in pre-modern-day India…” then they should probably be taken out. But that is my sole opinion; the opinions of the two editors are most important. And since both of you have said you can accept the current version, perhaps it should be left as is. However if you both want to make further statements regarding WP:UNDUE, please feel free to do so, also if either of you just need to talk to me about this, please feel free to leave a message on my Talk page. Thanks! :) LightProof1995 (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) I think I've done my part on proving why it could be WP:UNDUE. Yes, leave it as it I think until new sources are published (or found?) to modify it further. Uzek Fifth statement by moderator (Jinnah) I will again state that when I said to be civil and concise, that meant to be concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues, even if they make the author feel better. Please answer these questions concisely. If you have already answered them, maybe the length of the answers has made it hard for me to find the answer. Do not reply to the answers of other editors. Are there any issues other than whether Jinnah should be referred to as a muhajir? Please identify all of the places in the article where Jinnah is referred to as a mujahir. Do not expand on the identification; just locate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Jinnah) 1. "WHICH ethnicity and class has ruled us the most? Each era has a ruling clan with a top honcho and kitchen cabinet. But for ease, I focus on the former (ignoring dummy prime ministers). Jinnah (middle-class Mohajir); Liaquat Ali (landowner Mohajir), Bhuttos/Zardari (landowner Sindhis) and Sharif (industrialist Punjabi) were political and/or elected rulers." https://www.dawn.com/news/1357045 2. Claimed by Flamealpha:- (pg.10 section:Introduction) The disappearance of these two muhajirs politicians (Jinnah and Liaquat) left the democratically inclined Bengalis in a face off with the Punjabi elites. https://www.worldcat.org/title/949668196 Yes there is no other issue except he being referred to as Muhajir (Pakistan) Uzek Sixth statement by moderator (Jinnah) I was not asking where books or other sources call him a Mujahir. I was asking where the article calls him a Mujahir, since that is the content issue. A search of the article for "Muhajir" finds that the phrase appears in the article in two sentences: Muhammad Ali Jinnah has been called a Muhajir by some writers because of his Gujarati ethnicity and the fact much of his political life was spent in pre-modern-day India before the Partition. However, labelling him a "Muhajir" is equivocal due to that definition generally referring to Muslim refugees of the partition Jinnah himself instigated This portion states that his status as a muhajir is equivocal. It is also sourced. Does anyone think that it needs to be changed? If so, how? It also appears as a link to an article in the context that he provided aid to the Muslim migrants into Pakistan, but the word does not appear in the article, and in a category. So exactly what change does anyone think should be made to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Jinnah) Can we just change the sentence to "though the term Muhajir is equivocal due to the definition usually refering to Muslims refugees who migrated after partition" and change the source with a source defining what a Muhajir is? This one doesn't mention anything about him instigating the migration. And removing the sentence would still not look appropriate if we're also specifying the term has no consensus. Let's close the case with this modification, if anyone doesn't disagree. Uzek (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by Moderator (Jinnah) What information if any that is now in the article should be removed or changed from the article? If you are requesting that anything be changed, please make a one-paragraph statement. If there is no response within 24 hours, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Jinnah) "Jinnah has often been referred to as a Muhajir by some writers because of his Gujarati ethnicity. However, labelling him a "Muhajir" is equivocal due to that definition generally referring to Muslim refugees from India who migrated to Pakistan after the 1947 partition." This source will also be included to refer to the definition. https://www.britannica.com/place/Pakistan/People#ref989666 I've trimmed out the part in the sentence where it says that he is also referred to as Muhajir due to "much of his political life being spent in India before partition" because this also doesn't appear in the sources, and was Flamealpha's personal opinion. I will change it after the case is closed. And also, anywhere else in Wikipedia where Flamealpha has portrayed Jinnah as a Muhajir an encyclopedic entry will have to go unless she also specifies the uncertainty regarding it everywhere. This includes the Muhajir and the List Muhajir people article. Uzek (talk) 08:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by Moderator (Jinnah) Is there agreement to change the wording of the sentence in question about Jinnah as a muhajir? If there is agreement, or no disagreement, I will close this dispute as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Jinnah) More back-and-forth discussion (Jinnah) 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.

Podu Dâmboviței

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Afil on 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Podu Dâmboviței (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Biruitorul (talk · contribs) Dispute overview For most countries of the world, Wikipedia accepts articles for villages of these countries. There are categories for these villages in Bangladesh or North Macedonia., However there is an exception which covers the two Romanian talking countries Romania the Republic of Moldova. I would expect Wikipedia to apply the same rules to Kall countries. There should not be second hand countries having villages unworthy to have a separate article. All information regarding these villages are included in the articles if the communes in which they are included. This is incorrect as communes are administrative units, whereas villages are settlements. I suggest that there should be a consistent approach with the same rules applicable all countries of the world/ At present the same rule is applied to big countries, such as Russia, and small countries such a Liechtenstein. What is wrong with Romania and the Republic of Moldova? This issue has been discussed with User:Biruitorul for several years but no consensus has been reached.Afil (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [Recently Podu Dâmboviței and Dâmbocicioara. It makes no sense to move the article back and forth. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I consider that a solution consistent with the general approach of Wikipedia, applicable to similar articles for all the countries of the world. Summary of dispute by Biruitorul Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. First, the framing of this issue is absurd: no one is targeting anyone, it’s merely a technical matter. Second, WP:GEOLAND presumes notability for “populated, legally recognized places”. Therefore, there’s nothing the matter with having separate articles only for the smallest administrative unit — i.e. the commune. This is of course preferable to having another 9000 or so permanent stubs, rather than covering a few tiny populated places with no legal personality under the same umbrella. (Something that, needless to say, also benefits the reader by presenting the topic in a more coherent fashion.) Finally, this issue (or non-issue) has been raised several times by the same user during the last 15 years (yes, really): no one else seems bothered by it, and it’s time to move on to more productive endeavors, like adding content, even if beneath the commune aegis. — Biruitorul Talk 20:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC) No back-and-forth at this time, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) All neighboring countries have separate articles for villages such as Bulgaria Babovo (442 inh), Serbia Sjeverin (337 inh), Ukraine Protopopivka(440 inh) - just to show some examples of what is acceptable to Wikipedia. If we want to have a high quality Wikipedia, the approach has to be coherent and homogeneous. Having different approaches for similar, even identical cases, is not an encyclopedic approach. The villages of Romania and Bulgaria are equally recognized places. If WP:GEOLAND is applicable, it should be applied to all similar cases. What I am asking for is a general applicable rule. If we accept User:Biruitorul's view, wikipedians would be entitled to delete the articles for villages in Bulgaria, Poland, Ukraine and other countries. Should we not also ask wikipedians of these countries what their view? After all this is be an international encyclopedia, merging the views of wikipedians with various backgrounds. Afil (talk) Afil (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) This is the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Just because some bored editors decided to create reams of dead-end stubs like Panitsovo or Gyulyovtsa or Pismenovo does not mean we need to emulate them. A relevant policy, GEOLAND, already exists, and we have been applying it for Romania for over 15 years, up to the level of the smallest administrative unit. It works, and there is no compelling reason for 9000 extra stubs. No, I’m not going to start merging Bulgarian or Serbian villages, because I don’t have unlimited time on my hands. But I will continue to stand in the way of irrational proposals, and to plead for content creation over sterile debates. — Biruitorul Talk 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Podu Dâmboviței discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Question - Are the villages in Romania that are being blanked and redirected legally recognized populated places, or are they populated places without legal recognition? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Question - Is this a dispute about the content of one article or a small number of articles, or is this a policy question about the notability of places? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Thia ia a policy issue. It does not concern a single village, but all the villages of a country. The arguments presented by Biruitorul for Romania or the republic of Moldova are equally valid for Bulgaria or the Ukraine, where they are not applied. The question I am raising is that we should treat identical cases in an identical way. Either we accept that all villages should be included in the articles of communes (as it is done in Romania, or we accept separate articles for villages, I. as it is done for Bulgaria. am only asking for a coherent solution for similar casesWe cannot have both. Biruitorul explains why he applies one solution for Romania, he does not explains why dhe rejects the ssspution applied for most other countries and ahhy Romania is different, What is good for the goose is goopd for the gander,Afil (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC) There really is no imperative for a uniform cross-country solution. We’ve come up with an intelligent approach that works well for Romania and Moldova. If Bulgaria and Ukraine-focused editors wish to emulate that, great. If not, it’s not the end of the world. (Actually, no one really cares.) Biruitorul Talk 21:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC) To clarify, what set off this report is the merging (not blanking) of one village. Moving on: this particular village, and all like it, lacks legal recognition. The law creates communes, further subdivided, informally, into villages. Communes have a mayor and elected council; villages do not. We currently have articles on each and every commune in Romania. Each article lists the component villages, and there are redirects and disambiguation pages for each village, so in the event a reader is looking for a village, he will find it, only it will be covered under the commune article, not as a separate stub. Biruitorul Talk 09:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC) In all the countries mentioned the villages have identical legsl status. 21:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Afil (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Well, sort of. Bulgaria has no self-governing rural localities: the smallest unit of local government, the municipality, is always centered on a city or town. So that’s one obvious difference. Anyway, why this OTHERSTUFFEXISTS concern with Bulgaria? The current approach simply works well, which is why we’re going to keep it. Biruitorul Talk 21:59, 8 March 2023 (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.

Ahsoka (TV series)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by UnkreativeFrog on 07:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC).

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. I'd want to close this dispute resolution UnkreativeFrog (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Ahsoka (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved UnkreativeFrog (talk · contribs) Favre1fan93 (talk · contribs) Jauerback (talk · contribs) adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I added missing relevant and useful information, backed by reliable sources, on an already pretty thin article and was reverted multiple times. after being asked to reach a consensus on the talk page i stated the relevance of my edits and my lack of understanding about the perceived problem with it. My arguments were frankly kinda ignored and it was just multiple times (in long, but in terms of content frankly rather short, answers) said that i would add unnecessary information in "often in the style of a fansite or wikia". Many of my informations and section (plot, release as said by actress, marketing, much of information about characters) were and still are completely lacking from and relevant for the article (and relevant and useful information for people that search for it (which was why i edited it in the first place)) (I also generally find the general attitude of just reverting complete edits (which where kind of work) instead of changing individual points or consider if maybe its a good or better style and state as before, pretty annoying.) After multiple very long messasges i waited a few days but I honestly still don't understand the problems they seem to have with my edits. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Ahsoka (TV series)#Reach consensus on recent edits How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Mostly talk with Favre1fane about his concerns and his attitude concerning states of articles, edits and reverting and find a consensus and resolution about the state of a somewhat thin article.. Summary of dispute by Favre1fan93 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This feels like a completely unnecessary step when the talk page was fully sufficient for this type of discussion. I was the reverting editor and provided full explanations to the user's edits and why they were undo, which where (in whole or partially) agreed with by 2pou, Adamstom.97 and Jauerback. I won't rehash any of it here, it can all be viewed on the talk page. This feels like the user is WP:NOTGETTINGIT seeing as they said above I honestly still don't understand the problems they seem to have with my edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Per Robert McClenon's comment below, if necessary to state this, no I do not wish to participate in moderated discussion. I feel using the talk page was working/able to handle this matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jauerback Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by adamstom97 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I feel that I wasn't really involved in this dispute. I have the article on my watchlist and put in my two cents at the talk page discussion is all. My opinion is that UnkreativeFrog made some unsupported changes to the article that were reverted and when they didn't like the answers given at the talk page they decided to come here. Unfortunately consensus is against them and I doubt this dispute resolution process is going to change that. Favre1fan93 gave detailed reasoning at the article's talk page for why the changes were reverted, which I agree with. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2023 (UTC) Ahsoka (TV series) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor is asked to please notify the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I have the article on my watchlist, and have noticed the discussion on the talkpage, although I have not partaken in it. Several editors have replied to UnkreativeFrog's posts on the talkpage, some in great detail, and I don't think that his claim that he has been ignored was fair. As far as the issue at hand is concerned, I see no problem with the addition of a bit more information along the lines of the information added by UnkreativeFrog. A sentence here, a sentence there, that is called adding useful background information, and does not yet cross the line of adding useless fancruft. Especially on an article that is as of yet indeed rather thin. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding the additions: StarWarsNewsNet.com, used for the premise Set after the fall of the Empire, Star Wars: Ahsoka follows the former Jedi knight Ahsoka Tano as she investigates an emerging threat to a vulnerable galaxy, seems to be an unreliable source, with no evident editorial policy in the site, and the text added seems not to add much anyway. In the cast section, they replaced Bordizzo watched Rebels to prepare for her role, reliably sourced info, with the unsourced She lived and fought as a member of the Ghost crew, which is rather weirdly worded and probably what what the editors perceived as "worded like a fansite". They also put a reference before a colon, which seems incorrect. Though previously rumored Lars Mikkelsen, who voiced Thrawn in Rebels, will not appear in the series. This is completely trivial, it talks about a rumor (not normally included in Wikipedia) that turned out not to be true, so basically non-information, which is sourced by The Daily Express, unreliable per WP:DAILYEXPRESS. The bit A first teaser trailer was also shown but was never officially released to the public seems not to important either, and one of the sources is a YouTube video from a very small non-verified channel with bootleg footage of the unreleased teaser. They also changed the section heading from Marketing to Marketing and Release when there's already a Release section, using title case instead of sentence case, and unnecessarily making Release a subsection of Marketing. There doesn't seem to be anything clearly wrong with the rest of the changes in my view. —El Millo (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Ahoksa) I see that at least two editors who were not listed by the filing party have made comments. They are welcome to discuss along with the named editors, but I will add their names to the list of named editors if they plan to continue participating. I will try to be the moderator. Will the editors please all read the usual rules and say whether you want to take part in moderated discussion? Each editor is also asked to say concisely, in one paragraph, what they wanted changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Ahoksa) 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.

Picts

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LightProof1995 on 02:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Picts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LightProof1995 (talk · contribs) Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs) Ceoil (talk · contribs) Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Mutt Lunker had me blocked instead of trying to discuss my additions to the Picts page. I was accused of vandalism when my edits were sourced and attributed. I was originally told by Mutt perhaps I should've used my sandbox, which I'd never used before, but when I realized that and apologized right away, it did not matter and he continued to discuss my "behavior" on the talk page instead of the content itself. I sure am sorry if this isn't the place for this. I tried to keep the discussion at Talk:Picts about the content but they kept harassing me about how I edited the article too much at one time. Maybe all that belongs somewhere else, but I wouldn't know where. Anyway, to focus on the content: The information I added was about how the Romans, like Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder, stated Celtic Britons would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad". The etymology of the word "Picts" means "painting", and the article didn't mention painting at all before I came along. Other editors tried to argue this wouldn't apply to the Picts, but this simply isn't true -- you can see my arguments on the talk page where I clearly describe how the words the Romans used could apply to the Picts just as much as the Celtic Britons in southern Britain, but it did not matter, they had me blocked and then asked me if my sources ever specifically said "Picts", which guess what? They did. I added a source by the Roman poet Claudian where he clearly states the Picts were tattooed, which my edits were also about. I think the current state of the article, where it suggests the Picts weren't tattooed at all in the Society section and the entire article doesn't even mention painting, is completely unacceptable. The version Mutt undid three days ago I thought was the best; check out my sandbox for a longer, more-detailed version. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Picts#Good_faith_revert User_talk:Mutt_Lunker#Picts User_talk:LightProof1995#February_2023 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By actually focusing on the content instead of my "behavior". LightProof1995 (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Mutt Lunker Per Talk:Picts#Good_faith_revert, your sources regarding woad give no indication that they relate specifically to the Picts, the topic of the article. The conjecture that they do is WP:OR, so has no place here. The article already covered the topic of tattooing and the Picts. As far as I can see, the source you use to support your assertion that "The pigments for these tattoos and paints could have been derived from woad" relates to Britons, actively casts doubt that woad was used by them and refers to neither Picts nor tattooing. Though the dispute is demonstrably in regard to content, if you war, your behaviour is hardly going to escape attention. WP:BRD is not BRRD. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2023 (UTC) WP:BRD is completely optional, and Britons includes Picts :) LightProof1995 (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, optional but your active disdain for it will be noted. No, conventionally it does not. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC) From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain. Do you have a source that says otherwise? LightProof1995 (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC) You cited James Fraser's chapter in Pictish Progress below... have you actually read what he says? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC) That citation already exists in the article. In this text it is only citing the phrase “Pictish practice of tattooing.” LightProof1995 (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ceoil As outlined by Catfish Jim below, this is an exhausting attempt to bludgeon SYNTH into the article. I took the article of my watchlist a few weeks back in dismay, and hadn't realised until now that LightProof had been since blocked for their behavior on the article. I don't plan on re-watching anytime soon, although the topic is closely within my usual editing area. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your comment :) I’ve adjusted my original overview to say it was actually only Mutt who performed the block. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Picts discussion This is beyond the point of disruptive behaviour. LightProof1995 is bludgeoning his original research, attempting to synthesise a narrative that does not exist in academic circles. I have been observing this dispute from the sidelines for some time while not having the time to be directly involved in the discussion. I am involved through my interest in the subject and my history of editing the article so I will recuse myself from any admin actions. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Hey, welcome. It's not WP:OR if it is sourced. My sources are academic. LightProof1995 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I'm afraid you're falling foul of WP:SYNTH. You can only use sources to back up conclusions that are explicitly made by the original authors. Statements made by Julius Caesar about Britons are not relevant, nor are those made by Pliny the Elder. Both are anachronistic to the subject at hand, having been made centuries before the period assigned as "Pictish". The reference to Claudian is interesting, but is a red herring. "Pict" originally was a pejorative, generalised term used by Romans to describe unromanised peoples. Claudian is clearly talking about Scots, who were distinct from the people who later adopted the ethnonym of "Picts". Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Picts and Scots are two different identities. The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain. Seeing as Claudian was a Roman, I don't see how one could say he "actually" was talking about "Scots" instead of Picts. Okay, I didn't realize the term "Picts" came about after the time of Caesar and Pliny. I don't think it is anachronistic regardless, as the term "Picts" was applied to the Celtic Britons the Romans could not conquer in the North, and all I stated was: Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported in the first centuries B.C.-A.D. that the Celtic peoples of the British Isles would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad", but originally may have meant "glass" and "green" (vitrum and glastum, respectively). Woad; a plant that produces indigo dye when its leaves are crushed, soaked in water, fermented, and mixed with a strong base; is native to Europe, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean; and has been used as a source of dye since ancient times. Tattooing has been known across indigenous cultures worldwide, including Europe as seen in the Ötzi bog body discovered in the Alps, home of the Proto-Celtic Hallstatt culture. Therefore, the references to the Celtic British warriors encountered by the Romans are generally understood to be a reference either to the Pictish practice of tattooing; or to painting themselves blue and green. The pigments for these tattoos and paints could have been derived from woad and other plants, or from copper and iron pigments such as basic copper carbonate. The Van Der Veen source clearly states: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad."" So it's not something I just made up or "synthesized." I didn't say Caesar and Pliny said "Picts", I said "Celtic peoples", but I feel this relates to the Picts as they were the Celtic Britons in the North the Romans could not conquer. You can argue because the actual term came about a couple of centuries after Caesar and Pliny it's irrelevant, but I don't think that is true because the reason for this addition was to help explain the etymology of "Picts", and "Picti" means "to paint" or "painted". It is akin to providing background information about the etymology of any subject. Also, even Britannica says in its short entry on the Picts that the etymology of the word may "refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." LightProof1995 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC) venit et extremis legio praetenta Britannis, quae Scotto dat frena truci ferroque notatas perlegit exanimes Picto moriente figuras Claudian is definitely talking about the Scots. Julius Caesar's experience of Britain was limited to Kent and the lower Thames valley. But this is all tangential... what matters here is that there is consensus to not include the edits you made. Wikipedia is built on consensus and sometimes it goes against you, particularly when dealing with topics you have little expertise in. My advice would be to go and edit something else. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Oh, it looks like Scotto means Scots, but he also says Picto which means Picts, you even wrote it. Obviously I’m here to build the consensus to include my edits. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC) "Pict" at that point did not specifically relate to the people that later identified as Pictish. It was essentially a racial slur that the Romans appeared to use for any non-romanised people in the British isles. You are not going to get consensus to include your edits because they are not appropriate or correct. I hope you understand and accept this. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC) I disagree and see no reason to close this DRN until the Picts article mentions that the etymology of Picts may have come from accounts from the Romans of Celtic Britons painting themselves in “woad” and the Society section uses my Claudian’s source to make it neutral about they could have had tattoos or not instead of saying they flat out had no tattoos, which is not neutral. LightProof1995 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Picts) I will try to mediate or moderate this dispute if the editors agree that they want moderated dispute resolution. Please read the usual rules. If you are willing to take part in moderated discussion, please say that you have read the rules and will follow them. In particular, please stop the back-and-forth discussion, which has just gone back and forth. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that there is an issue about synthesis, the combining of the ideas of two reliable sources to come to a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by either of the sources. The combining of the ideas of two sources is considered original research in a subtle way, but is still original research. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they think is the main issue with this article. You may use multiple paragraphs if you identify multiple issues, but be concise. If the only issue is synthesis or other original research, the issue will likely be better decided at the original research noticeboard, but I am willing to try to moderate this dispute, at least to determine what the issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Picts) Thanks Robert :) I've now read the rules you linked. Here is my paragraph: The woad article currently states that the northern inhabitants of Britain came to be known as "Picts" by the Romans because they painted their bodies or possibly tattooed themselves. The Picts article only mentioned that the etymology of "Picts" is that it means "painted" in Latin, but then says nothing about how the Picts possibly painted themselves. So, I included edits saying that Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported that the Celtic Britons would paint themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad", but originally may have meant "glass" and "green", respectively. Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." There seems to be confusion as to whether the Picts are Britons and if the comments by Caesar and Pliny can apply to them. From what I can tell, The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain, which matches what the woad article currently says. Furthermore, I added an additional source by the Roman poet Claudian where he says the Picts were tattooed and that was reverted as well, even though there was already consensus elsewhere in the article that the Picts tattooed themselves. WP:OR only occurs if the editor didn't provide reliable sources that clearly state what the editor themselves are stating, but I provide multiple sources that say exactly what I say. Word for word, here are what my reliable and academic sources state: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad.""; "There is a plant in Gaul, similar to the plantago in appearance, and known there by the name of glastum: with it both married women and girls among the people of Britain are in vile habit of staining the body all over, when taking part in the performance of certain sacred rites"; "the legion that kept the fierce Scots in check, whose men had scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts.". I see no reason why Wikipedia's woad article and Britannica's Picts article can state painting as the most likely etymology for the word Picts and cite Caesar, but not Wikipedia's Picts article itself!! Edit: Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me: "Prior to the sixth century, the Pictish system seems not to have existed. However the very name "Picts" (from the Latin Picti) almost certainly means the "painted people." The original name for the inhabitants of Britain as a whole, the Prettani, may originally have meant the "people of the designs/symbols." Looking at both names in conjunction, it may well be that the pre-Roman Britons and the post-Roman Picts were both particularly associated with symbolic motifs long before the Picts developed their script. It is conceivable that the sculpted characters derived from earlier motifs used for body painting." I hope that helps :) LightProof1995 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Firstly, I'd like to commend LightProof1995 for their tenacity. I would however urge them to not confuse strength of feeling with evidence, and to become more acquainted with Wikipedia policy on referencing. There is a tendency for new editors in this and related subjects to get hung up on what is said in primary sources without cross-referencing with academically accepted secondary sources, relevant policy is found in WP:PRIMARY. Accepted secondary sources in these regards would be textbooks that can be found in university course reading lists for History modules dealing specifically with the mediaeval history of Northern Britain. A reasonably full list would include: Fraser, James E. (2009), "From Caledonia to Pictland: Scotland to 795", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 1, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-1232-1 Woolf, Alex (2007), "From Pictland to Alba 789 - 1070", The New Edinburgh History of Scotland, vol. 2, Edinburgh University Press Markus, Gilbert (2017), "Conceiving a Nation: Scotland to AD 900", The New History of Scotland, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Smyth, Alfred P. (1984), Warlords and Holy Men: Scotland AD 80–1000, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, ISBN 978-0-7486-0100-4 (Getting quite old now, really superseded by Fraser, Woolf and Markus) Clarkson, Tim (2016), The Picts: A History (New Edition), Edinburgh: Birlinn, ISBN 978-1780274034 (an excellent introduction to the subject, easier to read than Woolf or Fraser) Noble, Gordon; Evans, Nicholas (2019), The King in the North: The Pictish Realms of Fortriu and Ce, Edinburgh: Birlinn, ISBN 978-1780275512 Wainwright, F.T. (1955), The Problem of the Picts, Edinburgh: Nelson (the first real academic treatment of the Picts, some concepts are now dated) Driscoll, Stephen T.; Geddes, Jane; Hall, Mark A. (2010), Pictish Progress: New Studies on Northern Britain in the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, ISBN 978-90-04-18759-7 (outlines developments in understanding since The Problem of the Picts was published) In relation to specific points, tattooing is already discussed in the article in as much depth as it is given in secondary sources, which always relate to etymology. One of the main objections to expanding discussion beyond this is the complexity of the ethnogenesis of the Picts. While we have records of "Pict" as a Latin pejorative exonym (a racial slur if you like) in the 3rd century CE, its adoption as an ethnonym and endonym is much later, as late as the 7th century CE. There is no evidence for cultural unity before this. In terms of including tattooing in the society section of the article, there is no strong evidence that tattooing was a custom that the ethnic group that called themselves "Picts" actually practiced. Contemporary sources close to the Picts (like Bede) did not mention it. There is an early 7th century reference by Isidore of Seville in his Etymologiae to Pictish nobility having tattoos, but it is unclear how reliable this is given his heavy reliance on Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) and Gaius Julius Solinus (3rd century CE). Any temptation to assume a unity of cultural practices in pre-Roman Britain that extends into the Pictish era should be rejected as over-simplistic and misleading. Markus warns against such simplification in the preface to Conceiving a Nation. We know that there were many ethnically distinct kingdoms in Roman times. Julius Caesar's reference to the Britons needs to be framed in the context of his first hand experience of these peoples, which was limited to the Cantiaci and Cenimagni. He states that merchants involved in cross-channel trade were unable or unwilling to supply him with any information about the people. His gains in the second invasion of 54 BCE did not extend to within 350 miles of the area later known as Pictland. We cannot take statements made by him as relating to the peoples of Northern Scotland. We also know that the Romans did not view the people of Northern Scotland as a politically or culturally unified people. Ptolemy in his Geography records 14 distinct tribes living in the area that later became Pictland. Fraser is explicit on this: "Whatever we make of the appearance of Picti in our sources in late Antiquity, then, we may feel assured that the term does not refer to a single political community or ethnic solidarity. There is no convincing evidence that it did so much before 700." I have reviewed the literature regarding Claudian and will include it in the article, referenced to a secondary source. I find no compelling reason to include Julius Caesar or Pliny the Elder in the article. It would be an anachronism. Worse still is the suggestion that we should mention Ötzi, who lived 4,000 years before the ethnogenesis of the Picts and 900 miles from their border. While tattooing is mentioned in secondary sources in relation to the etymological origin of the word "Pict" (and not as the sole possibility), no mention of how it might have been done is covered in any serious source. We simply do not have any evidence of it at all. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC) References First statement by moderator (Picts) The zeroth statements by two editors are too long to be useful, except to illustrate lengthy disagreement. Please read the rules again, including the rule to be civil and concise. @LightProof1995, Catfish Jim and the soapdish, Ceoil, and Mutt Lunker: – Are you interested in moderated discussion? If only one editor is interested in moderated discussion, I will close this case with a recommendation to take any remaining dispute to the original research noticeboard. If you want to engage in moderated discussion, please make a one-paragraph statement about what you think the issue is or issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Picts) Thank you for your efforts @Robert McClenon: I suggest this discussion is indeed closed. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:09, 14 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion is not closed -- I read the rules and condensed my statement to a single paragraph, of 508 words above (the banner says 1000 words or less). Please don't close this dispute. I've condensed my paragraph to 359 words below. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC) My paragraph: Our woad article states the Romans called the northern inhabitants of Britain "Picts" because they painted their bodies and tattooed themselves. The Picts article mentions the etymology of "Picts" means "painted" in Latin, but says nothing about how the Picts painted themselves. My edits said Julius Caesar and Pliny the Elder reported the Celtic Britons painted themselves in various terms that are now translated as "woad". Even Britannica's short entry on the Picts states: "Their name may refer to their custom of body painting, or possibly tattooing." There is confusion as to whether the Picts are Britons and if the comments by Caesar and Pliny can apply to them. The Romans assigned the term "Picts" to the Celtic Britons they were unable to conquer in northern Britain, which matches what the woad article says. I also added an additional source by the Roman poet Claudian where he says the Picts were tattooed and that was reverted as well, even though the current consensus is the Picts tattooed themselves. WP:OR only occurs if the editor didn't provide reliable sources that state what the editor states, but I provide multiple sources that say what I say. Here are what my reliable and academic sources state: "Caesar describes the use of body paint by ancient Britons: "All the Britons, indeed, dye themselves with woad.""; "with glastum (woad), the people of Britain are in vile habit of staining the body all over."; "the legion... scanned the strange devices tattooed on the faces of the dying Picts.". I see no reason why Wikipedia's woad article and Britannica's Picts article can state painting as the most likely etymology for the word Picts and cite Caesar, but not Wikipedia's Picts article itself!! Here is an additional source that makes the synthesis for me: "The very name "Picts" (from the Latin Picti) almost certainly means the "painted people." The original name for the inhabitants of Britain as a whole, the Prettani, may originally have meant the "people of the designs/symbols." It is conceivable that the sculpted characters derived from earlier motifs used for body painting." Also the Fraser source cites Caesar on Page 27. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks Robert. I'd be happy to see this closed as no resolution can be reached when the root is the failure, or refusal to, understand the nature of SYNTH and OR, evident since before the matter was brought here. The filer lays out expansively the nature of their textbook violation of these policies, then baldly states that they have not. No resolution can be reached, without the denial of the policies. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Picts) I am puzzled as to what User:LightProof1995 wants. The other editors have either asked me to close this case or agreed that this case can be closed. What does User:LightProof1995 want me to do by keeping this case open? How do they expect that keeping this case open will improve the encyclopedia? I am not closing this case at this time, but I really want to know what they think that I can do. Did you read the heading at the top, where it says: This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. There is a rough consensus that LightProof1995 is engaging in synthesis having the nature of original research. If they want a fifth opinion from volunteers who are familiar with original research and with Wikipedia's policy against original research, they can ask at the original research noticeboard. If they want me to do something to advance their viewpoint, they should tell me what they want me to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Picts) Thanks Robert :) By leaving this open, I was hoping all of us would just talk about the content. Instead, Mutt has attacked my intelligence and insists I don't understand WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Catfish made a valiant effort to talk about the content, although I still disagree with what they said in regards to the content. Mutt had me blocked and accused me of WP:VANDALISM. Mutt then insulted the admin that blocked me on their talk page, twice. I just want to add my clearly non-OR edits to the Picts page without getting blocked. Before we switch to the OR noticeboard, do you have any comments about the content? As an outside opinion of someone who hasn't edited the Picts page? It truly feels like all three editors here just don't want to admit I'm right (although I think Catfish may be starting to agree with me some). At the top it says this is a first stop for disputes; clearly this dispute is more than just the content. Where should I go about that? LightProof1995 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2023 (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.

Roald Dahl

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Yossisynett on 18:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Roald Dahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Yossisynett (talk · contribs) ND81 (talk · contribs) Pngeditor (talk · contribs) Reflecktor (talk · contribs) Shoelaces1 (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) TylerBurden (talk · contribs) BippyTheGuy (talk · contribs) Kashmiri (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute regarding the title of the section that describes anti-Israel and antisemitic comments made by Dahl: Roald_Dahl#Anti-Israeli_comments. The dispute does not appear to be about the content but rather than the title, currently "Anti-Israel comments". It seems to me and ND81 (talk · contribs) that the title should reflect the section content, which includes both anti-Israel and antisemitic comments. Pngeditor (talk · contribs) seems to be requesting that additional proof be provided for why the comments are antisemitic. This seems strange and a little disingenuous considering the comments include: The United States, he said, was "so utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions" that "they dare not defy" Israelis. "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." "I'm certainly anti-Israeli and I've become antisemitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism... There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that's why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel." I'm not attempting to argue that Dahl was antisemitic. It's possible that, as Isiah Berlin suggest, it was just whimsy. I'm also not taking issue with the content. But I feel the title of the section should reflect the content, for instance, something like "Anti-Israel and antisemitic comments" How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? A discussion has taken place at Talk:Roald_Dahl#Anti-semitic_and_anti-Israeli? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'm hoping that neutral third parties may see that the current section title doesn't reflect the content of the section. Summary of dispute by ND81 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Pngeditor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Roald Dahl discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor is asked to please notify ND81 on their user talk page. (I will remove Pngeditor from this case because they have been blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked editor.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from filing editor - Thank you, have notified ND81 on their user talk page. Yossisynett (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from a volunteer - I read the entire paragraph and I feel "Anti-Israeli comments" is fine. The heading as it currently stands is concise and I feel "anti-Israeli" already covers both anti-Israel-the-state and anti-Israeli-people. To add https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=24"and anti-semitic" to the header feels redundant to me. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from filing editor - It feels a little redundant to say this but there is a difference between Israelis and Jewish people or the Jewish faith. The section includes comments from Dahl such as "There's a trait in the Jewish character... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason", The United States was "dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions", "There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they [Jews] control the media". These comments are about Jewish people, and they are classic antisemitic tropes. Whether or not these comments by Dahl were motivated by Dahl's feelings about Israel, they are antisemitic so I would argue that adding "and antisemitic" to the header is far from redundant. Yossisynett (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Oh, I thought you the filer were the one wanting to leave it as it is, lol. Anyway, your comment here to me is more than enough to show that adding “and anti-Semitic” to the header is reasonable bc you show here “Israeli” does not always mean “Jewish” and you show here he specifically said anti-Jewish comments (as well as his anti-Israel comments). LightProof1995 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from filing editor - Added a number of users who have been involved in changing this section title back and forth over the last month to give them the chance to have their say. Yossisynett (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for pinging. I'm hesitant to accuse the subject of antisemitism in Wikipedia voice – this is a significant charge that should always be attributed IMO. Besides, I don't really get it: complaining that, say, chocolate industry is dominated by the Swiss is not considered anti-Swiss; complaining that the diamond industry is dominated by the Belgians is not usually labelled anti-Belgian; or that Indian restaurant industry in the UK is dominated by the Bangladeshis is not considered anti-Bangladeshi. However, complaining (unfairly, I agree) that the publishing industry is dominated by people of Jewish origin suddenly makes one an antisemite and this is expected to go into an encyclopaedia. We as encyclopaedia editors also need to remember of WP:COMMONSENSE and not just blindly copy and paste what others have written. As I often say, a good encyclopaedia is not a collection of press clippings. — kashmīrī TALK 11:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding accusing the subject of antisemitism, we can't know what was in Dahl's heart. There is a difference between saying Dahl was antisemitic and that he made antisemitic comments. There can surely be no argument that saying that "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." is antisemitic speech. I don't propose that we call this section "Dahl was an antisemite", I think it should be called "Anti-Israeli and Antisemitic comments" because that accurately describes the content of the section. Regarding your assertion that saying that the publishing industry or financial institutions are dominated or controlled by Jews is no different that saying the chocolate industry is dominated by the Swiss. Perhaps you are unaware that those specific claims about Jews echo anti-Jewish and antisemitic conspiracy theories that have been used to perpetrate pogroms, massacres and genocide of Jews since at least the medieval period. Notable examples are The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hitler's Mein Kampf. I don't believe that anyone has ever sought to wipe out the Swiss on the basis that they have too much influence over chocolate. Yossisynett (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC) To compare Dahl to Hitler goes because both used negative stereotypes a bit too far for me. Argumentum ad Hitlerum usually ends any meaningful discussion. FYI, Nazis also tried to exterminate other minorities; yet, those who negatively stereotype the Romani people or the homosexuals don't usually get called Nazis. My view is that isolated off-the-cuff remarks are too trivial to be included in an encyclopaedia. Making fun at, or being annoyed with, what are popularly considered national/ethnic traits ("Oh, those Germans...", "Eh, typically French...") is fairly common in the society and is below what I'd consider an encyclopaedic element of a biography. — kashmīrī TALK 07:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from volunteer Not all anti-Israel comments are anti-semitic (particularly those criticizing particular Israeli government actions). Not all anti-semitic comments are anti-Israel. That said, there's very often overlap, and there are clear RS examples of both anti-Israel AND anti-semitic ("There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.") comments, so adding "and anti-Semitic" to the section header is very appropriate. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Still, we absolutely need to maintain WP:BALANCE. A single off-the-cuff remark in one's lifetime is certainly WP:UNDUE, even if picked up by some journalist. As I wrote before - me, like many others, may have certainly made a few nasty jokes about various nationalities in my lifetime, but why should anyone put them into an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī TALK 00:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Roald Dahl) I will try to conduct moderated discussion concerning this dispute. Please read the usual rules and state whether you agree to them. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. With eight good-standing editors listed in this case, back-and-forth discussion will not be allowed. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and the community. It appears that one issue, possibly the main issue, is whether a heading should refer to anti-semitic comments or to anti-Israeli comments. Are there any other issues? In particular, are there any issues concerning the text of the article? Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the main issue, or what they think are the main issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Roald Dahl) Statement by Yossisynett (filing editor) Thank you User:Robert McClenon for agreeing to moderate this dispute. I have read and agree to the rules. I don't have any issues with the text of the article or the section in question. My issue is with the title of the section. The section clearly deals with both Anti-Israeli and antisemitic comments by Dahl and current title "Anti-Israeli comments" does not reflect that. I won't respond any further on the above back and forth but I would to clarify to you that I was not comparing Dahl to Hitler above, suggesting so seems to be an attempt to straw man my argument, which was that complaining that the Swiss have undue influence over the chocolate industry is a poor comparison with complaining about Jews controlling the media and financial institutions since the latter has been part of antisemitic discourse and been used to justify violence against and genocide of Jews for centuries. Yossisynett (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Dahl) It appears that none of the editors except for the filing party have responded. I will be closing this dispute in 24 to 48 hours if no one else wants to engage in moderated discussion. No one has disagreed with the filing editor, who wants to relabel the subsection from Anti-Israeli Comments to Anti-Israeli and Anti-Semitic Comments. I would advise the filing editor to make that change. If the change is reverted, the next step is to discuss on the article talk page, and a step after that is to submit a Request for Comments on the title of the subsection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Dahl) 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.

Roald Dahl

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Yossisynett on 18:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Roald Dahl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Yossisynett (talk · contribs) ND81 (talk · contribs) Pngeditor (talk · contribs) Reflecktor (talk · contribs) Shoelaces1 (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) TylerBurden (talk · contribs) BippyTheGuy (talk · contribs) Kashmiri (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a dispute regarding the title of the section that describes anti-Israel and antisemitic comments made by Dahl: Roald_Dahl#Anti-Israeli_comments. The dispute does not appear to be about the content but rather than the title, currently "Anti-Israel comments". It seems to me and ND81 (talk · contribs) that the title should reflect the section content, which includes both anti-Israel and antisemitic comments. Pngeditor (talk · contribs) seems to be requesting that additional proof be provided for why the comments are antisemitic. This seems strange and a little disingenuous considering the comments include: The United States, he said, was "so utterly dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions" that "they dare not defy" Israelis. "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it's a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean there is always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." "I'm certainly anti-Israeli and I've become antisemitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism... There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that's why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel." I'm not attempting to argue that Dahl was antisemitic. It's possible that, as Isiah Berlin suggest, it was just whimsy. I'm also not taking issue with the content. But I feel the title of the section should reflect the content, for instance, something like "Anti-Israel and antisemitic comments" How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? A discussion has taken place at Talk:Roald_Dahl#Anti-semitic_and_anti-Israeli? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'm hoping that neutral third parties may see that the current section title doesn't reflect the content of the section. Summary of dispute by ND81 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Pngeditor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Roald Dahl discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor is asked to please notify ND81 on their user talk page. (I will remove Pngeditor from this case because they have been blocked as a sockpuppet of another blocked editor.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from filing editor - Thank you, have notified ND81 on their user talk page. Yossisynett (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from a volunteer - I read the entire paragraph and I feel "Anti-Israeli comments" is fine. The heading as it currently stands is concise and I feel "anti-Israeli" already covers both anti-Israel-the-state and anti-Israeli-people. To add https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=24"and anti-semitic" to the header feels redundant to me. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from filing editor - It feels a little redundant to say this but there is a difference between Israelis and Jewish people or the Jewish faith. The section includes comments from Dahl such as "There's a trait in the Jewish character... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason", The United States was "dominated by the great Jewish financial institutions", "There aren't any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they [Jews] control the media". These comments are about Jewish people, and they are classic antisemitic tropes. Whether or not these comments by Dahl were motivated by Dahl's feelings about Israel, they are antisemitic so I would argue that adding "and antisemitic" to the header is far from redundant. Yossisynett (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC) Oh, I thought you the filer were the one wanting to leave it as it is, lol. Anyway, your comment here to me is more than enough to show that adding “and anti-Semitic” to the header is reasonable bc you show here “Israeli” does not always mean “Jewish” and you show here he specifically said anti-Jewish comments (as well as his anti-Israel comments). LightProof1995 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from filing editor - Added a number of users who have been involved in changing this section title back and forth over the last month to give them the chance to have their say. Yossisynett (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Thanks for pinging. I'm hesitant to accuse the subject of antisemitism in Wikipedia voice – this is a significant charge that should always be attributed IMO. Besides, I don't really get it: complaining that, say, chocolate industry is dominated by the Swiss is not considered anti-Swiss; complaining that the diamond industry is dominated by the Belgians is not usually labelled anti-Belgian; or that Indian restaurant industry in the UK is dominated by the Bangladeshis is not considered anti-Bangladeshi. However, complaining (unfairly, I agree) that the publishing industry is dominated by people of Jewish origin suddenly makes one an antisemite and this is expected to go into an encyclopaedia. We as encyclopaedia editors also need to remember of WP:COMMONSENSE and not just blindly copy and paste what others have written. As I often say, a good encyclopaedia is not a collection of press clippings. — kashmīrī TALK 11:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC) Regarding accusing the subject of antisemitism, we can't know what was in Dahl's heart. There is a difference between saying Dahl was antisemitic and that he made antisemitic comments. There can surely be no argument that saying that "There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason." is antisemitic speech. I don't propose that we call this section "Dahl was an antisemite", I think it should be called "Anti-Israeli and Antisemitic comments" because that accurately describes the content of the section. Regarding your assertion that saying that the publishing industry or financial institutions are dominated or controlled by Jews is no different that saying the chocolate industry is dominated by the Swiss. Perhaps you are unaware that those specific claims about Jews echo anti-Jewish and antisemitic conspiracy theories that have been used to perpetrate pogroms, massacres and genocide of Jews since at least the medieval period. Notable examples are The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Hitler's Mein Kampf. I don't believe that anyone has ever sought to wipe out the Swiss on the basis that they have too much influence over chocolate. Yossisynett (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC) To compare Dahl to Hitler goes because both used negative stereotypes a bit too far for me. Argumentum ad Hitlerum usually ends any meaningful discussion. FYI, Nazis also tried to exterminate other minorities; yet, those who negatively stereotype the Romani people or the homosexuals don't usually get called Nazis. My view is that isolated off-the-cuff remarks are too trivial to be included in an encyclopaedia. Making fun at, or being annoyed with, what are popularly considered national/ethnic traits ("Oh, those Germans...", "Eh, typically French...") is fairly common in the society and is below what I'd consider an encyclopaedic element of a biography. — kashmīrī TALK 07:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Comment from volunteer Not all anti-Israel comments are anti-semitic (particularly those criticizing particular Israeli government actions). Not all anti-semitic comments are anti-Israel. That said, there's very often overlap, and there are clear RS examples of both anti-Israel AND anti-semitic ("There's a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity... Hitler didn't just pick on them for no reason.") comments, so adding "and anti-Semitic" to the section header is very appropriate. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Still, we absolutely need to maintain WP:BALANCE. A single off-the-cuff remark in one's lifetime is certainly WP:UNDUE, even if picked up by some journalist. As I wrote before - me, like many others, may have certainly made a few nasty jokes about various nationalities in my lifetime, but why should anyone put them into an encyclopaedia? — kashmīrī TALK 00:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Roald Dahl) I will try to conduct moderated discussion concerning this dispute. Please read the usual rules and state whether you agree to them. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. With eight good-standing editors listed in this case, back-and-forth discussion will not be allowed. Address your comments to the moderator (me) and the community. It appears that one issue, possibly the main issue, is whether a heading should refer to anti-semitic comments or to anti-Israeli comments. Are there any other issues? In particular, are there any issues concerning the text of the article? Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think is the main issue, or what they think are the main issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Roald Dahl) Statement by Yossisynett (filing editor) Thank you User:Robert McClenon for agreeing to moderate this dispute. I have read and agree to the rules. I don't have any issues with the text of the article or the section in question. My issue is with the title of the section. The section clearly deals with both Anti-Israeli and antisemitic comments by Dahl and current title "Anti-Israeli comments" does not reflect that. I won't respond any further on the above back and forth but I would to clarify to you that I was not comparing Dahl to Hitler above, suggesting so seems to be an attempt to straw man my argument, which was that complaining that the Swiss have undue influence over the chocolate industry is a poor comparison with complaining about Jews controlling the media and financial institutions since the latter has been part of antisemitic discourse and been used to justify violence against and genocide of Jews for centuries. Yossisynett (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Dahl) It appears that none of the editors except for the filing party have responded. I will be closing this dispute in 24 to 48 hours if no one else wants to engage in moderated discussion. No one has disagreed with the filing editor, who wants to relabel the subsection from Anti-Israeli Comments to Anti-Israeli and Anti-Semitic Comments. I would advise the filing editor to make that change. If the change is reverted, the next step is to discuss on the article talk page, and a step after that is to submit a Request for Comments on the title of the subsection. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Dahl) 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.

Draft:Marshall Weber

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cleshne on 03:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Draft:Marshall Weber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cleshne (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have created quite a few biographical entries. I created this one with references, but was given feedback that there were not enough references. So I added more references. I believe that they arre reliable, they include mainstream newspapers and other arts sites. One of them was the website of a non profit that Wever founded. He has founded other non-profits as well, and has had a career as an artist. I could remove that reference, but not sure that is helpful. I am not sure what else to do. I stuck a big list of links ("more info") at the bottom, which is messy and could be removed but I am at a loss. The process has taken a long time, perhaps I did not see a notification when it was reviewed again. This article is more thorough than others that I have created without the push-back. I have a difficult time figuring out how to communicate with the various editors and reviewers, so may not have done everything possible. I got no response to my comment on the talk page. A consultant of some kind from "Wiki Submissions" contacted Marshall Weber to help him make the web page, but he is not the one writing it, and this is not a commercial endeavor. It seems weird that commercial (?) consultants are trolling the rejections.... How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marshall_Weber - talk page How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? review the article and if it is somehow not up to standards, delete what needs deleting or explain what else needs to be done. Draft:Marshall Weber 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.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LokiTheLiar on 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs) Bon_courage (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article currently has a criticism section which includes a section describing EMDR as "pseudoscience". This is based on two 20+ year old sources and one source that is just a professional opinion, not a study. As the rest of the article has many, many sources scientifically verifying the efficacy of EMDR in at least its core purpose of the treatment of PTSD, I don't believe that these three sources are sufficient to apply the contentious label of "pseudoscience". The article also already has IMO better discussion of places where the evidence base for EMDR is shaky outside the criticism section. Therefore, I would like to remove the section calling EMDR "pseudoscience". Bon_courage, as far as I can tell, believes these three sources should be considered completely independently from all the other sources. They also appear to believe that all the other sources are not particularly reliable. But I'll let them elaborate on their position more, as I honestly don't understand it very well. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#"Pseudoscience"_section How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I feel like Bon_courage is not listening to what I am saying, and I don't really understand what their argument is either. I feel like a mediator could: a) evaluate the relative strength of the arguments and come down in favor of one side or the other or at least b) suggest some sort of compromise other than keeping or deleting the section. Summary of dispute by Bon_courage Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Update: other editor has said that they won't participate here and has tried to take this to WP:FTN, over my objection. Loki (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editor of this filing. Also, if the main issue is whether the label of "pseudo-science" is accurate, the fringe theory noticeboard can say either that a theory is fringe or that a theory is not fringe. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2023 (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.

South India

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Bobwikia on 02:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC).

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 South India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rasnaboy (talk · contribs) Bobwikia (talk · contribs) Dispute overview "Dakshina Bharata" is a synonym in Hindi and sanskrit and an organization name which imposes Hindi in non-hindi speaking regions. An editor pushed this crap into the article "South India". South India has Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, and Tulu like spoken languages. All these languages have its own synonym for "South India". Most South Indians speak in these languages only. Not Hindi and Sanskrit. Due to this, many users were reverting the "Dakshina Bharata" term. Historians use "Peninsular India and Deccan" to address south Indian on their writings. None of them widely use "Dakshina Bharata". An editor keeps pushing his agenda without valid references and sources. He's not even understand what other users says. The term should be removed from the article's aka name to avoid misleading. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_India#Dakshin_Bharat 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_India#Dakshina_Bharath_pov_pushing How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe if uninvolved & unbiased editors check the authenticity and reliability of the Pov injection "Dakshina Bharata", the issue may resolve soon. Summary of dispute by Rasnaboy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This actually began as a simple issue (if it were an issue at all). One editor asked me why the term should be retained without a source and I added one found in the article itself. We then went on to discuss regarding the term's transliteration and usage and came to a consensus to add it with the addition of a terminal schwa as used by the South Indian languages [11]. Since then the article was vandalized several times, with many IPs removing the term (despite the discussion on the talk page) which we kept reverting. When User:Bobwikia started deleting this term, I reverted twice asking them to discuss first. When another editor reverted it, User:Bobwikia accused both of us of being socks and of belonging to certain community. They also accused me for pushing my POV [12]. I only asked User:Bobwikia to seek consensus with other editors before removing it. Nevertheless, my reason for retaining the term is that it is used primarily by both Kannada and Telugu people (even the people of Kerala use the term "Dhakshina") and that South India's culture is not solely dominated by the Dravidian party ideologies of the Tamil land (which oppose anything that originates from Sanskrit or Hindi as being anti-Tamil). That would be another politically motivated POV push on Non-Tamil people of South India. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC) South India discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Rasnaboy accuses others of vandalism. I see no evidence of vandalism. Maproom (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC) I did not accuse any user in particular of vandalism. I meant different IPs making the same deletion despite the talk page discussion without discussing further. It continued even after consensus was reached, which we kept reverting. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "vandalized" here. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing of this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2023 (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.

Disclose.tv

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Isi96 on 04:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Disclose.tv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SenorCar (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User SenorCar has created a deletion request for the Disclose.tv article, with their rationale being that a lot of content is sourced to two sources, Logically and Deutsche Welle. The article includes plenty of other sources as well, including Snopes and PolitiFact. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I discussed with the editor on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disclose.tv regarding the article's sourcing. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Feedback on whether the article should be kept in its current state would be welcome. Summary of dispute by SenorCar Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Disclose.tv 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.

Jessica Nabongo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2600:8802:3A12:E700:802A:4EAA:3C49:BC36 on 15:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Jessica Nabongo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved K.Nevelsteen (talk · contribs) David10244 (talk · contribs) Tacyarg (talk · contribs) Kuru (talk · contribs) Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) universalsunset (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The editors, User David10244, User Tacyarg, User Kuru, User Hey man im josh, and User universalsunset came to a consensus that Jessica Nabongo was the second Black woman to travel to every country after Woni Spotts. For months, Jessica Nabongo has used Wikipedia to falsely state another woman's achievement. The above editors caught on the what was happening and corrected it. It was discussed in the Teahouse months ago, now their work is being reversed. User K.Nevelsteen and others keep reverting the page to say Nabongo is first and he added promotional material. Citations show that Woni Spotts is first and that Jessica Nabongo is not even second because she did not visit Syria. She visited Golan Heights, Israel, and was unable to enter Syria. She claims Guinness books said Golan Heights is Syria but Guinness is not a reliable source, according to Wikipedia. The United States and Brittanica say it's Israel. What can be done to stabilize this page? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jessica_Nabongo History https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Nabongo&action=history&offset=&limit=100 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please look at the facts. Credible citations are provided unless K.Nevelsteen reverts the editor's work again. Citations show that Woni Spotts is first and that Jessica Nabongo is not even second because she did not visit Syria. She visited Golan Heights, Israel, and was unable to enter Syria. She claims Guinness books said Golan Heights is Syria but Guinness is not a reliable source, according to Wikipedia. The United States and Brittanica say it's Israel. Summary of dispute by K.Nevelsteen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by David10244 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Tacyarg Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Kuru Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hey man im josh Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by and universalsunset Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jessica Nabongo 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.

Amritpal Singh (activist)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ThethPunjabi on 18:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Amritpal Singh (activist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ThethPunjabi (talk · contribs) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Extorc (talk · contribs) Mixmon (talk · contribs) Dilpreet Singh (talk · contribs) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk · contribs) Solblaze (talk · contribs) CalicoMo (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute is regarding the bias about a contentious BLP article that has been involved in recent notable news events. I noticed the article overwhelmingly used Indian media outlets as sources, which gave the article a certain biased viewpoint and therefore promoted an unbalanced summary of the individual in-question. Therefore, I attempted to edit the article [see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amritpal_Singh_(activist)&oldid=1145853786 for the largest of my edits out of a series of them] to give the other side of the story (from Sikh sources, specifically Baaz News), yet I found my inclusion first reverted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amritpal_Singh_(activist)&oldid=1145855730) and after I pushed back and questioned the reversion, I reinstated the edit and it was then tagged as unreliable. We have been discussing whether or not the source is reliable or unreliable and I find that the users have not made any real convincing arguments as to why the source should not be permitted. They have used red herrings, attempted character assassinations, and made up random requirements (like saying a notable Sikh organization is not democratically elected as their views cannot represent the entire Sikh community and therefore should not be quoted). This seems like an attempt to only allow sources promoting a certain viewpoint to be used in the article to steer readers to a certain understanding of the individual. This is a clear WP:NPOV issue and the article desperately needs outside review from 3rd party and uninvolved users, who are well-versed in WP rules and guidelines, to analyze it from a more objective viewpoint as currently the article is mostly being edited by people who may have a certain ideological bend or affiliation (currently the article is mostly being edited by Indian users, we need outside views). Note: A RfC was first attempted by me but it was removed so this is not currently being discussed at any other resolution method. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amritpal_Singh_(activist)#Very_clear_pro-Indian_government_narrative_bias_in_this_article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We need 3rd party opinions from uninvolved users who are well-versed in judging an article for bias, who can make a judgement on the reliability of sources, and who can help improve the article's current balance and WP:NPOV issues. We have already discussed the issue at hand but have been unable to come to an agreement on our own and require outside eyes. Summary of dispute by Kautilya3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is not a content dispute. It is a debate as to whether the so-called "Baaz News", a substack newsletter, is a reliable source. It should go to WP:RSN. I decline to paricipate here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Threaded response that does not belong in this section signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. It is a content dispute as well as I am also commenting on the WP:NPOV issues of the content of the article based on its editing patterns and sources. The discussion was not limited to whether Baaz News is reliable or not but also extends to the editing practices and patterns of the article in-general, which are promoting one side of the story. As I stated in the original comment on the talk page: "Very clear narratives and a one-sided story being pushed in the article." I am requesting the content of the article to be reviewed for bias and balance issues. I would like to also point out that me and Kautilya3 had worked on a draft article together in the very recent past, specifically Draft:Waris Panjab De, where I had cited Baaz News twice there, and he raised no objection to the media outlet back then but now suddenly he is deeming it as an unreliable source when it goes against his personal views. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Extorc Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This discussion doesn't belong here. As correctly pointed out by Kautilya3, it belongs to WP:RSN because the debate is exclusive to sources. ThethPunjabi aims to include the source Baaznews which is a newsletter that, just by the examination of the cited article, is not even vaguely reliable. I have attempted to get this through in a long discussion but the OP refuses to understand that if a source widely fails to report the most basic facts like That NSA [1980] and Section 144 [1973] are not colonial era acts That Police has provided sufficient explanation for this manhunt That the diaspora wasn't leading a protests but were attacking embassies in the form of a mob. Then this is not the best source to use in this BLP article. OP wants us to believe that including this source is going to do some sort of justice to the Sikhs and that is where the "democratically elected" comment was made about the Sikh newsletters, that they don't represent an all-encompassing view of the Sikhs. This WP:DR discussion should be closed and prescribed to be re-opened in WP:RS. Summary of the dispute by Mixmon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I don't think there is a need to comment on Baaz news which is an entirely unreliable source as it must be clear from the talk page discussion. Not only reliable Indian Media like The Indian Express, The Hindu but also non-Indian media like Al Jazeera, BBC, (all considered reliable by Wikipedia) calls Ampritpal Singh radical/separatist/pro-khalistani but this fake news portal with no credibility ( it calls its article - "Original Reporting" ) refers to this person as Bhai (Brother) and it also failed to mention violent acts committed by that person. This is not a dispute but an attempt to use fringe sources to whitewash criminal records. Intelligence reports are also covered by many reliable media sources (not only Hindustan Times) WP:RSPSS like - [13][14] and these are not stated as a fact in wiki article but as reported statements. Comparing these reliable sources (with history of publication) with a website like Baaz news which is publishing a biased version of fully pro-khalistan articles (and no credibility) is entirely unfair. The user who raised this dispute is also attacking other editors by calling them pro-govt/biased/ideologically affiliated (just like in summary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mixmon (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC) This discussion, as per me, should be closed because there is nothing to discuss here. Mixmon (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dilpreet Singh Issue is not just limited to the sources provided however it is more than that, as of now state media is running a propaganda against sikhs and to suppress the voice they have blocked the internet for last many days now. state is using media(social/TV/paper) to build a narrative to misinform public which included most of the sources which pro-hindutva lobby is citing in this article. Sikhs have very limited resources and if any they are blocked or banned in Punjab. It's important to understand it is a conflict between sikhs and pro-hindutva lobby. For.eg. with in last 72 hrs or more, Amritpal Singh is declared an ISI agent and someone who is involved in hurting hindu and involved in drugs etc , this narrative build by state and people are using the state media to confirm that, this is total nonsense. there's no such information available until last week. Rather, he was welcomed by hindus in phagwara (now arrested), heeling drug addicted & running many camps around punjab. We need a balanced article which reflect actual ground reality rather than state's fake narrative. we shouldn't allow any information which is propagated by state until cross checked with sikhs sources. Summary of dispute by CrusaderForTruth2023 The article is not disputed inherently because it uses verified credible sources of both national and international media. The versions used are of established media houses with extensive experience of journalism, some extending over 100 years and having a vast network of journalists in India as well as in Punjab State of India. These include Hindustan Times (founded in 1924), India Today (founded 1975), Indian Express (founded 1932), Al Jazeera, BBC etc. The article was stable and doing good with credible content and proper citations of credible sources mentioned above till some people claiming to be supporters of the person in the article raised a dispute. (Now that is not good/acceptable because a supporter of a the person who is the subject of the article is de-facto biased). They want to present their version in the article without any source or reference (which is again unacceptable because biased personal opinions of 'supporters' of the subject of an article cannot be used in the article without reference). To justify their version, the people raising the dispute are quoting a singular online 'blog' by the name of Baaz News. As we research, this Blog has No History, No Team Members Name, No Founder and NO GROUND REPORTER/BUREAU and it's very existence in Punjab is questionable. The about page of the blog just writes a collection of 'writers, actors, journalists' where the identity and credibility of the same is unknown. The blog is not even operated from India where the subject of the article or the incidents are based. The blog is not accredited to any national or international authority/body/agency or media/journalist association. Nor is any article written by any accredited journalist. Hence we can safely say that it is an 'UNAUTHENTICATED NON CREDIBLE SOURCE'. A mere online blog cannot be used to do dispute the references of several accredited, licensed, experienced and reputed International and National Media and Journalism Houses and Newspapers of repute. Hence the dispute does not arise, it's a case where a dispute is trying to be generated to fulfil personal biases or 'support' the subject of the article. (Bear in mind that the subject of the article is a radical separatist and a fugitive currently absconding with unknown whereabouts) Summary of dispute by Solblaze Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CalicoMo It is clear that there are a number of active editors on this article that are strongly motivated by their personal biases, and as a result they're reverting sourced information on an arbitrary basis. As an example, they will delete information sourced from Baaz News, but will keep information sourced from Hindustan Times, when there is no discernable difference in quality or journalistic rigor between the two. They fault Baaz for citing anonymous sources, but then turn around and say Hindustan Times is reputable because they cite intelligence officials, even though these "intelligence officials" that Hindustan Times cites are **also** anonymous. It's obvious based on a quick glance at the user and talk pages of these editors, that they both have an obvious political bias and their purpose in editing this article is first and foremost to push their politicial bias. That is the only reason they're scrutinizing the sources for information that does not align with their narrative, while citing sources of similar quality themselves. I believe the only way to move forward on this topic is to compel these bad-faith editors to stop reverting sourced edits. Both Baaz News and Hindustan Times present opposing narratives that have merit on their own, and it's very easy to present both narratives in an impartial way. The only problem is that the most active editors on that articles are not interested in presenting impartial information. CalicoMo (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Threaded rebuttals by other editors that don't belong in this section signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. A very poor argument. Hindustan Times is a trusted and reputed media house which has been in publishing for 100 years now (since 1924) and has a vast network of accredited and licensed journalists with decades of journalistic experience. Whereas Baaz News is an online blogging website which claims to be a collection of people (journalists, actors, writers etc as they claim) with no licence, no history, hell nobody knows who is it's founder, has no registered office, nothing. Hence it cannot be taken to be a source of any information or news. (Imagine if I open a blog website tomorrow, will that be counted as a source? Hilarious). Journalism involves rigour, experience, ground presence (Hindustan Times has bureaus and offices in every state and major city of Punjab, show me even one person of this Baaz News based in Punjab, let alone office). It's just an attempt to create a dispute where there is none by people of vested interests supporting a criminal fugitive. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Having a publication for 100 years doesn't make them liable to report correctly, how come whole media has changed over last 72 hrs of window? it's a state sponsor propaganda who want to destroy the image of Amritpal singh. all pro-hindutva machinery is against sikhs and all sources which you claimed are just breaking the journalism ethics. this is not about rigour or experience journalist , it's about how honest they are reporting on sikhs. all they are doing is spreading states narrative instead of reporting ground reality. Dilpreet Singh ping  20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Ok so you haven't found anything better than that substack newsletter called Baaz "News"? I don't understand what this dispute is about, even if you want to add any other perspective which source exactly you're going to cite? Some newsletters and blogging websites? According to me, this dispute should just be closed. Mixmon (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC) You can also use the reputable SikhPA as a source to counter media bias. Here is a link: https://www.sikhpa.com/passionate-global-protests-take-place-in-response-to-siege-of-panjab/ Usingh0663 (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC) HT is several folds more reliable than Baaz. That is not up for debate. >>> Extorc.talk 20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Amritpal Singh (activist) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. CrusaderForTruth2023, Mixmon, Usingh0663, Extorc, ThethPunjabi, please stick to your own subsections for opening statements. The purpose of DRN is to give participants some breathing room and to allow uninvolved editors to mediate the discussion. At this time, you should only be describing your perspective of what is at dispute, and doing it in your own subsections. There will be more than enough opportunities to rebut others' arguments if the case proceeds. signed, Rosguill talk 21:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC) @Rosguill Hey, my apologies. This is my first DRN posting so I may have made some errors. May I post here for further information or should I reply to myself in my original posting above? Thank you, ThethPunjabi (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC) ThethPunjabi, If you need to give further context, do it in the WP:DRN#Armitpal Singh (Activist)#Dispute overview section, but I would caution you against adding much more. It's best to wait until ALL parties have had a chance to respond to the initial dispute overview. If you have comments about the other editors' descriptions of the dispute: I'd refer you to what Rosguill already said: There will be more than enough opportunities to rebut others' arguments if the case proceeds.. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2023 (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.

Carlton (disambiguation)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by BurgeoningContracting on 10:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Carlton (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BurgeoningContracting (talk · contribs) Clarityfiend (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I would not be requesting dispute resolution if it were not for the fact that either of those pages is quite slow and quick response is needed in uncertain issues like this, in which there is no precise policy when it comes up to this, as well as the fact that user is seemingly changing every page he or she comes across to the way they see fit without receiving a third party response. I suggested the other editor view WP:MOSDAB and WP:LONGDAB for reference, but they refused to listen and "were that confident" that they were correct in their editing without yet receiving an answer as to how the People section should be named, which leads me to the point of contention. User:Clarityfiend believes that the People section of DAB pages should be changed to People and fictional characters. I tried to show precedent that it was not the way it had been done, but the user "corrected" them to include "fictional characters". It should be worth noting that this appears to be the only user to be making such changes to the subtitle People in DAB pages where names are involved. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? This discussion has not occurred on the talk page of the DAB article itself, but begain in User talk:Clarityfiend#Carlton - People. It was taken to a [[Help talk:Section#Section title dispute ]], but I suppose the other user must have believed it was better to delete it and moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Section title dispute. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A third party person or people making comment on this or possibly citing existing policy neither Clarityfiend or I could find when making our arguments. Summary of dispute by Clarityfiend Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Does accuracy not count for anything anymore? None of the policies or guidelines BurgeoningContracting keeps referring to support their position that it doesn't. This is the way it's been done is not a valid reason to keep perpetuating an error. Carlton (disambiguation) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The discussion has, at this time, taken less than 24 hours, and has been on the other editor's talk page. Also, it is not clear to a volunteer at this board what the issue is. Try discussing on the article talk page for another 24 hours, and see if agreement can be reached, or if at least the parties can figure out what they disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Clarification: The disagreement is simple. BurgeoningContracting objects to my renaming a section from "People" to "People and fictional characters". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - A Third Opinion as to the headings in the disambiguation list would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2023 (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.

Bill D'Arcy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gladiator-Citizen on 09:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Bill D'Arcy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Gladiator-Citizen (talk · contribs) The Drover's Wife (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The attempts to reconcile the dispute have ended in failure. Bill D'Arcy was jailed for sexual offences against children and served seven years jail. In the civil case when the victims went to sue for money the judge decided that his case could not be proved. This stayed on the site for several years but the "Drovers Wife" has disallowed it. He also disallowed a publicised effort by a practising psychologist to hold a forum on the D'Arcy, the notion of "recovered memory" etc. I personally discovered that two years before he was charged with any crime, he was publicly reported in the Queensland Courier Mail as having had sex with a 15 year old, had a baby with her, and had the baby adopted out. This was categorically denied by D'Arcy and the minor involved (in a remote report)but by this time his reputation had been ruined. I extensively studied these newspaper reports and concluded (as anyone would) that D'Arcy was ill, his safe Labor seat was coveted within the Labor Party, that the Liberal opposition went along with the false reports, that over enthusiastic campaigners against child sexual abuse jumped on the bandwagon. The lawyer who vehemently defended D'Arcy, though given publicity for his views, had a negative story ran against him as a lawyer. The newspaper published D'Arcy's name against all convention and on arguably specious grounds etc. This I documented most painstakingly from the Newspaper reports. Drover's Wife wiped out the lot despite my efforts to respect his views and negotiate. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Bill D'Arcy How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Assist me to find a way I can report the facts on Bill D'Arcy - especially a report on the period Aug- Sept 1998 when he was the victim of unsubstantiated allegations which ruined his reputation two years before he was accused and tried on a different charge. I have copies of the reports which I can scan and forward to anyone who is able to help Summary of dispute by The Drover's Wife Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bill D'Arcy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing party has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Also, the filing editor has not really attempted to discuss with the other editor, because posting walls of text is not discussion. However, that isn't reason in itself for not accepting a case. It is only a reason why the filing party should slow down and be willing to discuss. Waiting for notice to other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - This appears to be an effort to remove unfavorable material from a biography of a living person. The Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard might be an even better forum for this matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2023 (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.

Schloss Fuschl

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jamesluckard on 00:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Schloss Fuschl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jamesluckard (talk · contribs) Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Twice, on 9/12/22 and 12/27/22, I attempted to expand the article on the Schloss Fuschl. The first time, user Justlettersandnumbers reverted my additions for being "ill-sourced." The second time, I found more sources, but Justlettersandnumbers again reverted my changes, claiming my edits were "Promotion," that a portion failed the "Crystal Ball" rules, and criticizing my additional sources. I attempted to open a dispute resolution previously, on January 18, but it was closed because I failed to mention the request on the subject talk page and the user's talk page. I then did so, and have given two months now for a reply. I believe the sources I found are the best available. The primary source is a booklet written by a legitimate local historian. It was published by the hotel, but only contains historical data, no opinion about or endorsement of the business. I also cited multiple news articles. Wikipedia says Promotion consists of "advocacy, opinion, scandal mongering, self-promotion, or advertising." I can't find evidence of that in what I wrote. The Crystal Ball rule feels like it is being applied incorrectly. I provided sources for statements about the near future. The Crystal Ball page here says it's okay to include things about the future if they are "almost certain to take place." Also, almost everything in my two revisions is also in the German-language article, which has virtually no sources listed. I asked two other members here to add their thoughts. You'll see their comments on the Talk page. One is a friend, the other is a stranger I found on a page I frequently edit, the St. Regis New York hotel. I am requesting a dispute resolution because the other user has not replied recently, and the page is fairly obscure, so it hasn't attracted any other Talk page comments. I hope a fair resolution can be found. Perhaps I just need to find more sources for my text, but it's all historical information, it seems a shame to delete it entirely. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Schloss Fuschl, User talk:Justlettersandnumbers How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like an impartial moderator or moderators to look at my revisions of 9/12/22 and 12/27/22, then review the comments on the Talk pages, and decide what the best course of action is. Thanks! Summary of dispute by Justlettersandnumbers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Schloss Fuschl 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 Busan (1592), Battle of Myeongnyang

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by John21716 on 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Battle of Busan (1592) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Battle of Myeongnyang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved John21716 (talk · contribs) たたたたたたたたったポンタ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the talk page of two battles, which are Battle of Busan (1592), Battle of Myeongnyang, I frequently requested たたたたたたたたったポンタ to suggest the evidence that prove the following two points to resolve, which are the proof of the Japanese navy conquering the west coast of Jeolla-do during the second Japanese invasion of Korea (1597~1598), and the proof of the Japanese advancing and conquering Hanseong as well as the northern part of Korea after the battle of Busan. However, たたたたたたたたったポンタ is stiil refusing to provide such evidence, and he is repeating his argument that the two battles are the victory of the Japanese as well as the war itself. Contrary to his argument, I am against of admitting his argument, and the stalemate of the debate is still not being resolved. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Busan_(1592) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Busan_(1592) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think you can help two users,including me by facilitating both users to provide reliable and clear sources, rather than original researches and mere arguments, to make a breakthrough and, if necessary, by providing third opinion or mediation. Summary of dispute by たたたたたたたたったポンタ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Battle of Busan (1592), Battle of Myeongnyang discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2023 (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.

East Palestine train derailment

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Grinhelm on 16:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC).

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 East Palestine train derailment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Muboshgu (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I removed a section of the East Palestine Train derailment Wiki page due to a lack of relevance. User Muboshgu reverted my good faith edits without justification. The user stated that I should use the talk page. I posted in the talk page and undid Muboshgu's edit. Again Muboshgu undid my edit and said to use the talk page. I responded by undoing their edit and said "Then reply on the talk page". Muboshgu responded with I don't have to or want to. Revert again and I'll block you for edit warring. I would like dispute resolution to Muboshgu and my editing. I think that a user should back up their undoing of an edit. Additionally, how do you resolve a dispute with someone that refuses to discuss the issue and issues threats. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Ohio_train_derailment&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? If Muboshgu wants to undo my edits is fine. But they should be willing to talk and back up their rational. Summary of dispute by Muboshgu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. East Palestine train derailment 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.

Talk:Xenia Goodwin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by PokeFan10025 on 04:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Talk:Xenia Goodwin (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved PokeFan10025 (talk · contribs) IJBall (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I added a two sentence trivia regarding the inspiration for Xenia Goodwin to pursue dance and mentioned how an idol of hers would later co-star with her on a television show which is her only notable feature. IJBall reverted my edit as I used a YouTube video as a source with UNDUE as a source. However, even after providing approved website sources, he continued to remain steadfast in keeping my edit to how he had written it despite not citing any guidelines, rules, etc that would of justified his edit. For instance, I asked whether he could expand on what part of DUE I was supposedly continuously in violation of but he did not answer my question directly. He instead argued on what is largely personal opinion rather than ones rooted in the rules of Wikipedia. I am absolutely willing to change my edit however I disagree that it needs to be changed altogether; for this, I do believe he is in violation of OWN (Ownership of content). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Xenia_Goodwin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xenia_Goodwin&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe it could be resolved simply through exploring whether his edit is reasonable in contrast to mine, with context of his reasoning behind why his edit is preferable. I am absolutely willing to change my edit however I disagree that it needs to be changed altogether - or in other words, that his edit is 'superior' or more reasonable over mine. Summary of dispute by IJBall Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. One, this should have gone to WP:3O rather than here (where it's a huge waste of time). Second, two sentences on who "inspired" a WP:BLP in an article this short is WP:UNDUE. The article was, I believe, 6 sentences (i.e. a WP:STUB) before the additions. The primary purpose of WP:BLPs on Wikipedia is to demonstrate why/how they are notable (i.e. WP:NOTFANSITE). Subjects that are demonstrated to be unquestionably "notable" often are then filled out with additional "personal detail" information like "who inspired" them. Information like this at a short WP:BLP stub is very likely, UNDUE – two additional sentences is 25% of the article's content! – but I compromised, allowing a one-sentence addition (properly sourced) on the subject's "inspiration". Any more focus on this topic than that at this article is an UNDUE focus away from why/how they are notable. I have no idea why the original editor is insisting on pursuing this, as the basic information they wanted has now been added to the article in an acceptable manner. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC) P.S. "WP:OWN" is when you don't compromise. I compromised. It's the original poster who seems totally unwilling to alter their original addition (again, I have no idea why...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Talk:Xenia Goodwin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by moderator (Xenia Goodwin) The editors are asked to read the usual rules and state whether they would like moderated discussion under these rules. If so, please state what part of the article you want changed, or what part of the article you want left the same when another editor wants it changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC) I would like a moderated discussion, namely on what I believe is Ball prioritising his edit despite his concerns surrounding my edit being satisfied. As stated, the basis of the changes that they made was UNDUE, which he originally stated was because of the source used. I changed it and added in reliable sources but he continued to state UNDUE despite my interpretation of UNDUE being about minority viewpoints in controversial topics and the idea of 'if it's not cited in a reliable source, it's not worth adding' - I have tried to have him elaborate on how it is UNDUE but he did not do so. He mentioned notable and the length of the article, but I disagree that it's 'taking away' from why they are notable as it's directly related to how they got their Wikipedia page in the first place (that is, dance). With that said, I compromised by saying I am willing to shorten it - but he was only willing to accept changes that met his satisfaction, to a sentence that he wrote (he implied that if I wrote it in a similar manner to how I did, he'd 'oppose it' which I assume is just outright reverting it). I believe his insistence on his edit being final and any compromise should be around his edit is an example of WP:OWN: 'An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version'. Again, unlike what his unfair and unnecessary character attacks on me suggests, I am willing to compromise and have openly said so in our talk age. However, he did not engage further (stating that 'his work is done') nor was willing to accept any changes to the sentence's structure that he wrote. PS I do not think Ball's characterisation of me is fair either considering his attitude throughout this whole ordeal and unwillingness to accept friendly terms. PokeFan10025 (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Xenia Goodwin) Personally, I see no need for a moderated discussion. As far as I am concerned, there has been a discussion, the content was added (adequately sourced), and I am full satisfied with the current situation. If desired, the current singly-added sentence can be (copy)edited. I do not support a second sentence being added, or the original formulation of the addition, as I have explained both on the talk page and here. As long as this addition isn't expanded to a second sentence (or too long in the form of one sentence), I consider the matter closed... And, again, I strongly believe this should have gone to WP:3O over this forum, though I think even that is unnecessary, as I consider the matter essentially already resolved. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 29 March 2023 (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:Australian elections

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by GMH Melbourne on 07:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Template:Australian elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) Aréat (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am suggesting that a navbar about the election history of Australia separate referendums and plebiscites into two sections as such. The other user (Aréat) is suggesting that the referendum and plebiscites be merged with one another (like the current version). Other people have given their input but the dispute (the discussion between Aréat and I) keeps going around in circles and is going nowhere. Our arguments for and against are in the discussion location. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Template_talk:Australian_elections#Inclusion_of_the_2017_Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide a fresh set of eyes, provide your input on the best solution, suggest what is best. Summary of dispute by Aréat Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Template:Australian elections discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: - GMH Melbourne, please notify the other parties of this discussion through the talkpage using {{DRN-notice}}. I think in any case this dispute would be best addressed via an RFC, which I can help draft but could just as easily be drafted in the talk page of the article. I notice Number 57 was part of the discussion and I'm sure they would be open to helping draft an RFC as well if parties believe it necessary. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC) @Ixtal: No worries, I am happy to close this and I can start an RfC. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Volunteer Note - User:GMH Melbourne - Please be sure that the RFC is worded neutrally, If you are not sure that it will be worded neutrally, please ask a volunteer to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC) No worries, Thank you // GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2023 (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.

2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dieselkeough on 03:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC).

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 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dieselkeough (talk · contribs) TheGuardianOfTheWiki (talk · contribs) TrimeTaveler1 (talk · contribs) 25stargeneral (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue is in regards to a List of Candidates who are set to go into the 2024 Libertarian Presidential Primaries. One User is claiming that in order for an individual (even if they are notable on wikipedia) to qualify as being apart of the list, they must have had major media coverage, which in context does not ever happen. While third party sites, such as third party watch, and the candidates themselves saying that they are running, as well as FEC filings, Coverage in debates, participation in party conventions running on the ticket, does not matter. Secondly, they consider the list, and the sources the candidates used on the 2020 libertarian presidential list to be insufficient and "bad editing" They give undue weight to Joe Exotic, only allowing him to be present on the article as a result. According to the policies on Notability, individuals on Lists do not need to be notable. Despite this, The user in question is insisting that they must be. Mike Ter Maat, Jacob Hornberger, Lars Mapstead are all major players as of this time. And considering the limited media appearances of the Libertarian Party, The Limited sources at hand ought to be considered, due to it being a list of candidates, and not an article or biography for each one. In context to the LP, Joe Exotic is an extremely minor player, who was actually expelled from the party, so giving him undue weight is absolutely inaccurate in all respects. So, given the limited media surrounding it, the fact that the party is convention-nomination, the fact that each candidate is backed by multiple verifiable sources, including the FEC, The fact that there is limited media coverage, the Misinformation presented by the article, and the fact that Wikipedia's Policies are explicit about lists, some of the other candidates in the list need to be added. At the Very lest it needs to be explicitly clarified that the list is very much inaccurate and misleading. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries#major_candidate_listing_criteria How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe being able to add other candidates to the list, and to be able to loosen the restrictions an editor has been trying to enforce upon everyone, would help make the article more accurate and avoid misinformation currently presented by the article. Summary of dispute by TheGuardianOfTheWiki Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Trimetaveler1 Non-encyclopedic post by now-blocked user. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC) I had posted my FEC filing number/date/website, but the code was admittedly sloppy. I am also a major player, I recently inherited some money, and plan on having a major tour with multiple parties and working with multiple candidates within the LP as I have been doing, but I am ready to go to the next level. I know some of you think I am a joke, but I have a 65,568 page Radical Restructuring plan, funding, and connections to the music industry, and pro skateboarding industry. I was at many state conventions as Jedi Hill's VP in 2020 and Vermin Supreme's VP for part of 2019 and drove Adam Kokesh's bus, and worked with Daniel Behrman. I also am friends with the late John McAfee and his wife. I also campaigned and signed up libertarians at music festivals all over the country (during the period of the LP's largest growth ever) But whatever happens, happens... worst I could do is post some screen shots for ten people to see... right? Furthermore... Joe Exotic is the biggest name to announce so far, Vermin Supreme received more individual donations than any LP primary candidate ever, and you guys said "comedy doesn't belong in politics" but are now trying to run Dave Smith. Vermin is gone, you missed your chance. It is obvious who the players are, and whose court they think it is, but I represent the voters, not your lame af caucuses, not the right ones or the left ones you fight and don't realize you are all there is... My idea is to prune the LP platform to one plank, and argue over adding new planks later as progress is made. But please keep fighting among yourselves, it only proves how right I am that the LP has become a dysfunctional embarrassment equally by both sides labeling themselves as the right and left. Only someone like Vermin or Joe Exotic, can save it. I am just a few people's 2nd favorite candidate, if I win anything it is by accident, but any fun I have is sort of like winning... So figure it out and let me know if I am cool enough or not. Summary of dispute by 25stargeneral Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is pretty simple, all content on Wikipedia requires citations to reliable sources. I've tried to explain to these new editors that the candidates' own websites and press releases are not RS, to no avail. Independent Political Report (which also runs Third Party Watch) is also not a RS, and has been repeatedly rejected by RS/N as an "unedited link aggregator". If any of these editors are able to produce RS for the candidates they're trying to add, I'd be more than happy to add them to the article. I have never claimed that candidates must be notable under Wikipedia's notability guideline to be in the article; I have only said citations to reliable sources are required. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC) 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Corrected that mistake. All editors have been informed on their talk pages. Dieselkeough (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Libertarian Party) The editors are asked to read the usual rules and state whether they would like moderated discussion under these rules. If the issue is whether a source is reliable, the editors should ask for an opinion at the reliable source noticeboard. If the issue is one of article content, please state briefly what part of the article you want changed (or what part you want left the same if another editor wants to change it). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @Dieselkeough, TheGuardianOfTheWiki, and 25stargeneral: - Are you interested in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC) No. This is a request from brand-new editors to ignore our sourcing requirements and source directly to candidate websites. I already requested and got page protection because of their edits. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Libertarian Party) 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.

Orstkhoy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Goddard2000 on 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Orstkhoy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Goddard2000 (talk · contribs) WikiEditor1234567123 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We have had an issue with agreeing upon the earliest mention of a Vainakh tribe called "Orstkhoy". My opinion is that the earliest date is 1771 while another editor thinks it is 1770. I explain in the talk page with sources (last section of the talk page) that the oldest source is 1771 since it mentions the tribe known as Orstkhoy (Karabulak) first. The talk page is full of discussions where we came to a consensus on certain areas but couldn't come to a consensus in other areas. I believe that this "earliest date" issue is the main one and every other problem can be solved if we get a third opinion who can review the 2 sources and tell us which has the earliest mention of this certain tribe. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [15] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? In short we just need an unbiased admin to look through 2 sources (which i provided with links and pages in the last section of the talk page). It is very simple to solve but so far i haven't gotten an admin to look at both sources (even though an admin did get involved couple days ago but he went inactive and hasn't looked through the second source i posted later). Summary of dispute by WikiEditor1234567123. Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. We had an dispute with Goddard2000 regarding the earliest mention of ethnical belonging of Orstkhoy, not the earliest mention of Orstkhoy, Goddard2000 you should have clarified this. My opinion is that the earliest source which indicates Orstkhoy as Ingush is from 1770 while Goddard2000 thinks that the earliest source which indicates Orstkhoy as Chechen is from 1771. Check the talk page for more info. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Right, thank you for clarifying this. I should've pointed out that part. Goddard2000 (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Orstkhoy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - This is basically a request for a Third Opinion except that the third party probably will not be an administrator (and there is no reason why a source check needs to be done by an administrator). You might consider making this request at the Third Opinion noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statement by moderator (Orstkhoy) The editors are asked to read the usual rules and state whether they would like moderated discussion under these rules. Has the question been resolved? (It isn't clear from reading whether it has or has not been resolved.) Is there an article content issue? If so, what part of the article do you want changed (or left the same if another editor wants to change it)? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC) @Goddard2000 and WikiEditor1234567123: - Are you interested in moderated discussion? Has the issue been resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC) @Robert McClenon It has not been resolved yet, no neutral party has joined the talk page so far. We decided to postpone the discussion for later, maybe next week. Goddard2000 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Orstkhoy) 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.

Killing of Tyre Nichols

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by WikiWikiWayne on 15:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC).

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 Killing of Tyre Nichols (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WikiWikiWayne (talk · contribs) AgntOtrth (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Newbie SPA Editor insists that the content other editors make must only include exact words or wording used in the source. This good faith newbie SPA editor is rabid and militant about maintaining precise control of the article content. There are conduct issues, but that's another story, I assume good faith and give the benefit of the doubt for their content control efforts and their tenacious conduct. Possibly they are not self-aware of how their content and conduct are perceived. I am not lecturing. I feel this editor is coachable and open to that but I do not know the process to pull that off nor do I have the bandwidth to be a sole coach for content & conduct. Please refer me to WP resources to help this editor tone down their conduct. I know you will only be addressing content. Please help this newbie SPA editor as I don't wish to malign or harm them and I suspect that they are an editor with great possibilities. Thank you. They engage in copyvios, linkrot, poor grammar, misspellings, run-ons, lead too long, not using summary style, reverting content, and not understanding content essays, guidelines, policies, norms, or intent. My coming here is to help them, not harm or blame them. They add unnecessary content to talk pages by copying template content back to the talk page of the editor who templated them. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Killing_of_Tyre_Nichols Killing of Tyre Nichols:Revision history: Edit summaries & reverts & edits User talk:AgntOtrth How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Let the newbie SPA editor know what they are doing is harming the encyclopedia and coach them on how to be an awesome editor, and to stop wikilawyering to support their content edits; stop reverting the content of good edits. Provide a support team to filter their content edits maybe in a personalized "pending changes" protocol until they internalize their own direct content edits. Teach them the need and how to build out references that contain full metadata and use the citation style in place. My only goal is for AgntOtrth to slow their roll, edit content within our norms better, and be an awesome, liked, productive, and appreciated Wikimedian. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 15:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AgntOtrth Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I disagree with your claim of acted in good faith. You have engaged in edit warring on the article twice in 30 days. The first edit war you engaged, you reverted 3 edits from 3 different editors in a short period of time. You then placed a warning on my talk page accusing me of edit warring - that is not good faith, since you had just engaged in a edit war on the same article. In the last 24hr you reverted edits, even though another editor conduct copyright check that only 39% and that showed violations unlikely. You have been uncivil to me, and have not identified specific issues - you have made blanket statements. You blanked an entire article without identifying specific issues or utilizing the talk page in good faith. You blamed me for your choice to blank an entire article. You blanked section I did not edit - that is not acting in good faith. You have made almost 22% of the edits on that article, yet you accuse me of ownership - I have made less than 7% of the edits. You reverted the article 3 time before you discussed the reverts on the talk page. I asked you for help in identifying and fixing issues, you did not provide help. AgntOtrth (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC) AgntOtrth – Those are not considered reverts. My edits are encyclopedic – mainly polishing edits. MOS edits. Continuity edits. Archiving refs. Repairing refs. Fixing typos. I have not added much content to this article. Take care always. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk} 01:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC) And yet your first edit war, was about article content. You could go to temp page for the re-write and identify edits that vviolate. AgntOtrth (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Killing of Tyre Nichols 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.