Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 238
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Archive 235 | Archive 236 | Archive 237 | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | → | Archive 245 |
2023 Manipur violence
Closed. An RFC is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The editors active on that page have ignored my request to edit the lines "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19,[50] by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state.". I have brought several pieces to the talk page showing that it is factually wrong, but they have fallen on deaf ears. They have also deleted a topic on the talk page without settling the dispute. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Deleting the lines or replacing it with "After the Anglo-Manipur war of 1891, the administration of Manipur was taken over by the British. They continued to administer the hill areas directly even after establishing a form of native rule in 1907. They justified this hill-valley administrative divide on their plea that the peoples were different. Scholars believe this divide had far-reaching effects on the relation of the hill-valley peoples.". Summary of dispute by Kautilya3The page is on 2023 Manipur violence which started on 3 May and is still ongoing even after four months. The line that the filing party disputes is taken from a journal article written by a well-recognised JNU scholar, Thongkholal Haokip, with a long record of high-quality scholarship. Contrary to their claim, the filing party did not bring forward any sources that proved it to be "factually wrong". I am happy to participate in the dispute resolution discussion, provided the original disputing party Roman3141, and the editing party Chaipau also participate. (I am not sure why Roman3141 has not been invited here. If they do not dispute the content any more, they need to say so, either here or on the talk page.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ChaipauKautilya3 has stated the situation correctly. In addition, Haokip's claim is supported not just by his scholarship but also by a pattern of valley-hills relationships in Assam, Manipur and Southeast Asia that has been widely reported in scholarship and has support across multiple academic disciplines. Thus any objection has to very specifically show academic support that the Kuki/Naga regions were not part of this pattern. Though the issue was raised by Roman3141 they have not cited any reference to support the objection. Tms369, on the other hand, has cited some references. u:Kautilya3 has addressed each of the citations, and found no support for the objection. Also, u:Kautilya3 has cited additional references that support Haokip's claim. Furthermore, I have found that the material cited by u:Tms369 conversely supports Haokip instead. If this DR process is instituted, I will participate. Chaipau (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC) 2023 Manipur violence discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Manipur)User:Kautilya3 says that they will participate in moderated discussion if User:Chaipau and User:Roman3141 participate. All editors have been notified. Roman3141 has not edited in ten days. Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary. Please read DRN Rule D. We can begin moderated discussion with the editors who have responded, or we can close this case with instructions to resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Manipur)I am ok to participate without Roman3141, assuming they have no further interest. I think it would be best to start with understanding the perceived issues with the version of the content on the page. Can the filing party state what is "factually wrong" about it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Manipur)Please read DRN Rule D again. This is the rule that is used when the topic is contentious, and this dispute is about a state in India. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the community, and to the moderator, who represents the community. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I am asking each of the editors what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary at this time to explain why you want to make a change; we can discuss reasons after we know what language in the article is being disputed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Manipur)I am to reiterate that I want either the removal of the lines "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia inhabited by "non-state" peoples. They came to be administered only after the Kuki rebellion of 1917–19,[50] by British administrators without the involvement of the Meitei state." or replacement of it with more factually correct statements that we can all come to an agreement upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tms369 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC) I am satisfied that the line is fine as it is. But I am open to be persuaded otherwise. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC) I am satisfied that the line reflects the academic consensus at this point based on the evidence provided by the objectors and additional readings. I am open to be persuaded, and I shall seek reconciliation of new findings with the current findings. Chaipau (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Manipur)User:Tms369 wishes to rewrite these sentences to read: Is this rewrite agreeable to the other editors? If not, please either explain why that is not acceptable, or discuss how to rework it in the section that I am providing for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Manipur)
In the first place, we normally include in the "Background" section of a page only those aspects of the background that are mentioned in the reliable sources on the main topic. (That is the case for the current line.) Consulting disparate sources and constructing our narrative of what the background is, is considered WP:OR. The filing party's proposal is very much of this kind. It talks about Manipur getting taken over by the British, then something about 1907, and then blames the British for creating a "hill-valley administrative divide". No doubt some scholars blame the British, but this is not a consensus view, because the fact that the hill people and valley people have separate histories, cultural norms and administrative/social structures is well-recognized. The cited source says, rather, that an "intractable hills-valley divide" has been created in this decade by the valley people's attempts to erase the constitutional protections granted to the hill people and the hill people's opposition to these measures. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Comment from ChaipauThe alternative statement is not acceptable for the following reasons:
References
Third statement by moderator (Manipur)It appears that each editor disagrees with the other's preferred language for the Background section. I have previously asked the editors not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, but I think that back-and-forth discussion will be useful at this point to see if a compromise wording can be reached. So please discuss in the section for that purpose, for two or three days. If compromise wording cannot be agreed on, we will give the community a choice between the two versions above via a Request for Comments, but we should try to compromise first. So please discuss in the section for back-and-forth discussion. Be concise. Overly long statements are not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Manipur)Back-and-forth discussion (Manipur)I suggest that the current phrasing " Administration I will try to be as concise as possible:
I had already submitted these to the editors but they have ignored it, deleted the topics it was presented in (including the one linked in this talk page) without settling the issue, and are now accusing these suggestions as being original research. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Listed below are the administrative changes after the Kuki Rebellion of 1917-1919 for the reference of the community and the moderator:
(Sitlhou, pp 72)[1](Dena, p83-84)[3](Kshetri, p5)[2] All these show there was a re-organisation in the prevailing administrative system of the British - which is in contrast to the current narrative of the line in the article. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the Zomia reference: The article the other editors are referencing, i.e. Mr. T. Haokip's, cites J.C. Scott. According to J.C. Scott, Zomia includes "all the lands at altitudes above 300 meters stretching from the Central Highlands of Vietnam to northeastern India".[5][6] As per his definition, the Imphal valley is very much a part of the Zomia landmass. Manipur is in northeastern India and lowest elevation of the Imphal Valley is 746m above MSL.[7] The current line "The hill regions are noted by scholars as forming part of Zomia" is therefore misleading at best, since it implies exclusion of the Imphal Valley. Tms369 (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Fourth statement by moderator (Manipur)It appears that back-and-forth discussion is not getting closer to resolution. So back-and-forth may continue in the section for the purpose, but I will also ask the editors to resume answering my questions. First, is the only area of disagreement the Background section about the historical context concerning the cultural differences between the valley people and the hill people? Knowing nothing of northeastern Indian history, I am deeply skeptical of any claim that there was no difference between the hill people and the valley people before the conquest by the British. There are always cultural differences between hill culture and valley culture, reflecting geography, and they are usually significant. Conquerors, including European colonialists, exploited (and often worsened) existing differences much more often than they created differences. The question should be what the differences were and who is a mutually acceptable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC) However, second, if the editors cannot agree on what to say about the historical differences between the hill culture and the valley culture, can we agree either to a vague handwave, or to saying nothing? Third, am I correct that it is two-to-one in favor of retaining the current language or something close to the current language? Fourth, if there is no agreement, an RFC will be used, and each editor should be ready to propose the wording that they would like to be a choice in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Manipur)Tms369 Robert, first, the disagreement is about the historical context of British administration in the hill areas. All sources point to the start of it being 1891 but the current narrative is 1919. Second, I have no objection about the cultural differences. There are cultural differences even between the hill tribes themselves. The materials cited claim, and as you have pointed out, the administrative setup of the colonials created a big chasm by widening the divide.Tms369 (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
My reply to the four queries/observations from the moderator:
Chaipau (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Manipur)Two editors want to use the existing wording. The filing editor wants to change the wording about the Background. The other editors have said that the proposed revised wording is original research. The filing editor can either agree that they are in the minority, in which case this dispute will be closed, or they can explain how their proposed wording is directly based on sources. It may be directly based on primary, secondary, or tertiary sources, but it must be based on the sources, or it is synthesis. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Manipur)Tms369 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tms369 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC) My proposed wording is based on the three sources I referenced in the back-and-forth section. I will put the references here again: After the Anglo-Manipuri war of 1891, the hill areas were brought under British rule and the hill administration became the personal responsibility of the political agent... In 1893, the hill areas were divided for the first time into five sub-divisions. The sub-divisions were looked after by lamsubedars and lambus... Even after the institution of Native Rule in 1907 under raja Churachand Singh, the hill areas continued to be administered by the British.[1][2][3] The British justified the exclusion of the hill administration from Native Rule on the plea that the peoples were different. This was a "divide and rule" policy [1][3] Kshetri, R. (2006) made no mention of the "divide and rule" policy, but all three sources agree on the start of British administration at 1891. Tms369 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC) References
I beg to differ with the moderator about the issue of "OR". When we discuss the content that should go into the "Background" section of a page, the term is often used to label disparate facts that editors want to bring which do not have an impact on the main topic. WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT would be better policies to consult for this purpose. The filing party's excessive focus on 1891 and on what happened between then and 1919 seems intended to suggest that the British took over the hill areas in 1891 and separated it from the valley. It completely ignores the fact that prior to 1891, the valley's rulers had not administered the hill areas. The hill areas were "independent and sovereign" in the words of Lal Dena, a senior professor of history who studied the British policy in Manipur. So, if the British instituted different administration for the hills and the valley, it was not a new division that they created. That division was already present. Kshetri, a professor of public administration, states that whatever administration was introduced in 1819 was not substantial. In any case, whether it was 1891 or 1919, the main point is that it was only the British that introduced state administration into the hill areas. Prior to that it was a "free country" (in the words of Haokip). So, as a compromise, I am fine to replace the references to 1917–1919 by 1891 in the present text, and add Lal Dena's current magazine article[1] as the support for it. I don't see any need for additional changes in the text regarding times that are long gone. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC) So, the new text would be something along the lines of
References
I agree with u:Kautilya3's suggested text, with some minor changes (given below in bold).
I am suggesting these changes because of the direct quote of Haokip (2015) that is cited. The quote is "
References
Tms369 It seems user Kautilya3, through my sources and through his own research, seems to be warmer to my suggestion. We seem to agree that administration did start in 1891. We may differ on some areas and the sources used. He suggests adding Lal Dena's magazine article (dated 7 Sep 2023), but I prefer what Dena's textbook and the other peer-reviewed sources I presented say, since Dena's current magazine is not peer-reviewed and is co-written by some unknown. I think we can work something out ultimately. But user Chaipau seems to not have budged. What should be the way forward, Robert? Tms369 (talk) 05:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Manipur)If the progress is between two editors but not a third, the content dispute will have to be resolved by a Request for Comments. It will be simpler if the RFC gives the community two choices on the Background wording. So the two editors who are about to reach agreement should continue to try to reach agreement on "their" version. Each editor may provide "their" version of the Background material in the space for sixth statements. Back-and-forth discussion, especially to arrive at agreement between two editors, may take place in the section below for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Manipur)Tms369 My preferred statement, which I believe will be more in-line with Kautilay3's, would be along the lines of the following:
I'll give my thoughts on why references on J.C.Scott's Zomia should be avoided in the new back-and-forth section. Tms369 (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I do not agree with the characterization of u:Tms369. The only issue that needs to be sorted out between u:Kautilya3 and I is whether to use the year 1891 or 1917-19. Both of us agree that we should retain the reference to Zomia and the rest of the wording. I am agreeable to the moderator's suggestion that if Kautilya3 and I are unable to come to an agreement on the year, then we will have to go to an RFC on this point. Chaipau (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC) References
I am revising my proposed text in the light of Chaipau's objections:
References
The rationale for the adjustment is bascially the WP:NPOV policy. There is no consensus among scholars about the date when the administration became effect. Some say 1891 and others 1919. So we are trying to cover both the viewpoints. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Manipur)It doesn't appear that there has been agreement, so it appears that we should use an RFC. Will each editor please provide the wording that they want to propose for the Background? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Are there any other issues? Seventh statements by editors (Manipur)All sources point to the start of administration as 1891, but they also talked about the administrative changes that occured after 1919. So I am fine with including that in my final proposal. My final proposal will, therefore, be something like:
The only differences with Chaipau now seem to be the mention of J.C.Scott's Zomia. I stand by what Kamei[4] said on that issue. I also believe the above lines massively improve the current Background section- as it not only succinctly describes the complex relation between the hill tribes and the meiteis, but also mentions that deeper divisions were created during colonial administration. I am happy to go to RfC with this statement. More back-and-forth discussion (Manipur)I suggest completely dropping references to J.C.Scott's Zomia in relation to discussion of North-East India.
As A.L.Kamei states[4]:
In its stead, I have suggested mentioning that the tribes were largely left to be self-administered through their respective chiefs/Khullakpas in the pre-colonial era. I hope this is agreeable to both the other editors. Tms369 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Addendum: You have used the quote above selectively. The author himself admits that the framework is widely used. The only specific example Kamei provides is the lack of support in the valley, which is not being claimed here at all. That it is not applicable in the hills as well, is his opinion, which is FRINGE. Chaipau (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
References
Eighth statement by moderator (Manipur)I have created a draft RFC at Talk:2023 Manipur violence/RFC on Background and am trying to capture A and B, or A, B, and C as the options for the community to choose between. Please update options A and B if they are not as I tried to capture them, and please add option C with text if there is an option C. Once we agree on what the choices are, we can start the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Manipur)
Thank you for setting up the survey. I have synced the version B to the consensus text (between Kautilya3 and me). I made a good faith attempt in the seventh round of statements and discussions to demonstrate that the very author/reference Tms369 has been citing, Kamei (2023/24), had himself admitted that the dominant formalism adopted by most scholars in the study of Northeast India is Scott's Zomia; and Kamei is using a different formalism, Foucault's counter-construct, which is a novel application that is yet to be endorsed in the literature. Given the evidence so far and the fact that Tms369 has not come around to accepting the dominant scholarship in this issue, I do not see any possibility that they will every come around. You have rightly identified that there is no point in attempting further convergence. Nevertheless, based on the discovery so far Kautilya3 and I have come to a consensus text, which is the version B in the survey, which differs only slightly with version A, the original text. Request 1: Since Kautilya3 is away this week, could we please wait for him so all of us are on board regarding the next steps? Tms369 Added option C to the draft. Since option B was originally proposed by user Kautilya3 in the Sixth Statement by Editors, I assume it's safe we go ahead with the RfC. We don't want to waste any more of the moderator's time. Tms369 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Manipur)The RFC is now running, and should run for another 29 days. Are there any other issues, or should I close this dispute because it will be decided by the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (Manipur)No issues on my end. Thank you for your time, Robert. Tms369 (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
|
Kmart
Closed as incompletely entered, and as slightly stale. There were other editors besides the one listed by the filing party, who have not been listed, and the discussion all took place a week ago. Please resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion remains inconclusive, a new case can be filed here, and the other editors all should be notified (which has not yet happened). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There has been a dispute going on between a couple auto confirmed users who are reverting edits that in my opinion are valid and factual. The issue revolves around store count and proper sourcing regarding it. The few seem to be very picky on what they find acceptable and are the majority of reverts for this thing. Most other edits on the page try to fix the store count which hasn’t been updated since 2022 because these two editors revert anyone who tries even with evidence or logical reasoning. The users seem to take it upon themselves to be the police of the Wikipedia page and I would like other peoples opinions on whether some of the edits that were reverted were reverted wrongly or rightly regarding store count, as well as an opinion on if an article stating “store will close on Sept 30th is a good enough source to conclude a store has closed when it passed the date. I could be wrong in my thinking but to have the same people undo so many edits of yours and others is getting to the point where I want other opinions. I just want feedback from a third party to make sure that if I am wrong why and what I need to look for further or if I’m correct. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Kmart#WP:Crystal, Talk:Kmart#August 7 2023 Kmart Update How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I just want some other opinions on this to make sure it’s not me who’s getting this wrong. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kmart discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Football Season articles and football results articles
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed to be discussed elsewhere. There are at least two issues being raised here, the first of which is out of scope for DRN, and the second of which can be discussed at least as well in a different location. The first issue is that two editors have stated that there are competency, article ownership, and battleground issues and edit-warring at WikiProject Football, making it a toxic environment. Those concerns are out of scope for DRN, and should be discussed at a conduct forum. The second set of issues has to do with accessibility-compliance of various templates that are being used to display association football results. Some of the templates are being used in tens of thousands of articles. Due to the large number of articles, changing to use accessibility-compliant templates is not feasible, so the templates should be fixed to make them compliant. The Accessibility talk page is probably the best forum for that discussion. Concerns about conduct at a WikiProject should be discussed at WP:ANI. If they cannot be resolved at WP:ANI, then they can be taken to arbitration, but arbitration is a last resort, and should only be requested after alternatives, including WP:ANI, have failed. Discuss accessibility issues at the accessibility talk page. Discuss conduct issues about WikiProject Football at WP:ANI if anywhere.`Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | |||
---|---|---|---|
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute regarding the use of Wikipedia tables or a Wikipedia template to display the results of football matches. There is an ongoing discussion which has reached an impasse. It is claimed on one side that only Wikipedia tables are acceptable for of displaying football results. On the other side, other users are saying it is perfectly acceptable and fine to use a Wikipedia template to display the results. The template in question is Template:Football box. It is getting very circular and is ink by the barrel style contributions. Some editors claim this or that policy or guideline supports their preferred version. There are claims of 'consensus' existing already but this has not been shown by those claiming such a consensus. It is claimed this RfC following a previous dispute resolution, established a consensus, There was also this discussion which is cited but it expressly is resolved as ‘No consensus to move from the template’, other non-consensus discussions are also referenced to try and support the table only position and the scrapping of the use of templates. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There needs to be fresh input, opening up to the widest possible audience and uninvolved editors to look at this without having a side in this. This is needed as it is currently preventing actual progress from being made on the articles. it is bogging down in the process and not building an encyclopaedia. Fresh eyes, a wide audience & definition here greater than just the local consensus which is not known about and widely unenforced except by a few in a few circumstance. It's the only way out. Summary of dispute by Stevie fae ScotlandPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Basically, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons was changed without discussion. I reverted based on previous consensus (the links are in the discussions listed above and here). I had thought this was settled based on this RfC following a previous dispute resolution but I guess not. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PeeJayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Due to disagreements about the format that football club season articles should take, discussions took place at WT:FOOTY to help codify a consistent format. This format can now be found here. User:PicturePerfect666 seems to be of the opinion that because we haven't been able to roll out that format across the several thousand articles it should apply to, we should simply accept that we're never going to be able to stamp out the other format and allow for both in the MOS. Considering discussions took place in order to standardise these articles, I don't see why we should simply give in to those who are unwilling to accept the agreed-upon format (or are unaware of it). – PeeJay 23:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GovvyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Style guide should be able to show alternatives, I don't know why you would remove one. There is no direct consensus, but as per stated in conversation, overall usage does suggest there is a degree of consensus by usage. One can not enforce their will on others and one should not enforce their will on others. And frankly, I am more bothered that some people are using Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons as a BATTLEGROUND. Per page history, but it's a shitshow, Stevie fae Scotland broke 3RR, and now PeeJay is playing enforcer, but for what. Something that doesn't exist. I haven't seen much competence around this issue. Using WP:ACCESS for removal is just an excuse. Govvy (talk) 07:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Seasider53Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Football Season articles and football results articles discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator on football season articlesThis appears to be a content dispute that is not about one article but a large number of articles. DRN is usually for content disputes about one article, or occasionally a small group of articles. There has been discussion at WikiProject Football. There should be more discussion there. If this were one article, I would probably start moderated discussion here. If there should be moderated discussion, I am willing to act as a moderator at WikiProject Football, the association football talk page. First, while we are here, I would like to identify the issues. Is the main issue whether to use wikitables or a template as the primary means to display results? Both are reasonable uses of the wiki software. Is there a reason why we cannot allow a choice? Are there any other issues? Are some editors being obstinate? Please read DRN Rule A. I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the issues are. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Be civil and concise. After I read the statements, I will decide whether to have continued discussion here or whether to open new moderated discussion at WikiProject Football. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors on football articlesThe main issue for me was that the style guide was edited without discussion. That really should've triggered WP:BRD when I reverted it particularly as it says
First statement by moderator on football season articlesI thought that my previous statement was clear, but maybe it wasn't. When I said Is the main issue whether to use wikitables or a template as the means to display results? If so, is there a reason that we cannot allow a choice? Please read DRN Rule A again. I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the style or content issues are. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Do not tell me who did what in the past. Be civil and concise. I have asked a question, which is whether the issue is the template or the table. I have also asked what the style and content issues are. After the questions are answered, we can decide where further discussion can take place. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors on football articlesPicturePerfect666Simply put there is a move by a small number of editors at Wikiproject Football to require the use of tables to show match results on club season articles and prevent the use of the template. There is no reason both cannot be used, and the style guide should reflect that it is openly acceptable for both to be used. I would like to make clear National Team Season articles, use the templates, and most (I am talking the vast majority) of Club Season articles for modern seasons (which are edited by the vast majority of new and casual users), use the template. If anything there is little reason to keep using the table in my opinion, it is complicated to edit for the uninitiated, and clunky on a page. The Template is what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG), plug-and-play style. However, I am happy to compromise that both are as acceptable as the other and for this to be reflected in the style guide and disseminated widely that both are acceptable. This however is a compromise and in my opinion, the clear use case is for the template as it is considerably easier. The compromise is for the acceptance that the Template and the Table are fine. There are bizarre claims of; MOS:Collapse, and MOS:ACCESS in particular a roundly ignored section on how to design tables, being violated, this is not supported in any way and is the worst kind of strawman wikilawyering. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Stevie fae ScotlandThe footballbox does not meet MOS:ACCESS, specifically WP:DTT so should not be used in articles which list match results. If editors prefer using a template, Template:Football result list is available and is fully compliant with ACCESS. I would be happy to create additional templates in a similar style that would work on club articles if that would be an acceptable compromise. That would then allow editors a choice, make converting articles easier as many of the parameters are the same and ensure that we comply with Wikipedia policy. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Second statement by moderator on football season articlesDo not edit Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. It is the article (or project space page) under discussion, and one purpose of dispute resolution is to avoid edit-warring. Also, when I said to be civil, I also meant to be civil in edit summaries and to Assume Good Faith. One editor is casting aspersions in edit summaries. It appears that one issue is that there is a template that does not satisfy accessibility guidelines, but that there is another template that does satisfy those guidelines. It then seems that the most reasonable compromise is to allow either a table, which is access-compliant, or the template that is access-compliant. Is that correct? Is there any reason that cannot be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors on football articlesStevie fae ScotlandYeah, that is correct. I have no issues with the access-complaint template's use and would be happy if it was incorporated into the style guide. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC) PicturePerfect666As far as I am aware there are no genuine access issues with the template and if those issues apply to the template then they apply equally to the table, I assume the colour is one of the access issues. The template is also widely used in a whole host of articles over 24,000 and to come along now and say there are access issues sounds like phishing for a problem which doesn't exist. If genuine access issues can be shown and not the weird rule on collapse, and not the weird MOS on how to do tables (which is widely ignored and enforcing it only here would be ridiculous) then I am happy to engage. Until then I have not seen or been shown any genuine access issues with the table. I would like to point out that there have been discussions of National Team results and there were no such concerns on the use of the same template there which resulted in the template not being used, infact the template on those articles is nigh on the exclusive presentation of results. Until the so-called access issues are shown to be genuine and something universally (or genuinely widely and not selectively) enforced then I cannot get behind this sideshow argumentation and reject it as not genuine. Any compromise about modifications to the existing template or even worse creating a new template in relation to meet these ludicrous and non-enforced so-called access requirements are totally and utterly spurious and should be left in the garbage from where they were dredged up from. TL;DR - Access issues are a red herring and a total non-issue. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator on football season articlesI have requested neutral opinions on this accessibility issue at two accessibility forums. I have not yet received an answer that is clearly from either forum, but we have a comment by User:Rjjiii. I would like to ask User:PicturePerfect666 to clarify their comment: Second statements by editors on football articlesSecond statement by PicturePerfect666Access issue claimsIt does not mean I intend to pay no attention to the guidelines. It is just a guide and not a policy. It is clear a consensus by use has formed (which is grounded in the policy of consensus). I simply have not seen any evidence to suggest that the access issues raised are anything other than total red herrings. The claims being made are not genuine as far as I can see or at best are disputed. Some people are screaming screenreaders this and that while others are going the template causes zero screen reader issues. There is no specificity in the parts of the guideline which are being violated. As such I am unable to make any comment on the specifics, as there are no specifics being raised. Other users on the original discussion have weighed in to raise similar opinions as myself but have not commented here. There needs to be significant and greater detail than, "It is this guideline", this guideline and this guideline." What in those guidelines is the issue and how does it relate to the template? Where are the specific repeatable examples? As for the comments by Rjjiii, I have no idea what they are talking about with HTML and other such things. In short, they are talking like a textbook written in a foreign language. For example, I have no idea what they mean by "semantic column". These issues if they were genuine would have been raised in a serious manner before, and the templates use in 24,000 or so articles, would have been curtailed a long time ago. The issues they raise are non-issues as far as I am concerned. I firmly believe the comments are not serious (although I do not doubt their good faith nature) with the line "The template-generated table is considerably harder to understand", which is 100% codswallop. From an editing point of view, the table is a minefield and disaster waiting to happen which requires one to be an expert in wiki-syntax. Whereas the template is WYSIWYG plug-and-play style. In conclusion, the accessibility guideline is just that a guideline. It is clear, even if the issues are genuine, that the guide is not being followed by the majority of editors. Common sense dictates that consensus by use is occurring. The policy of consensus through editing as set out at WP:EDITCON clearly applies here, and the use in over 24,000 articles by a considerable number of varied and different editors shows consensus by use is clear. TL;DR:
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Template v TableMoving to other so-called issues raised, which are a complete fop, in particular the detritus claims of violations of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, of which no specifics are given as to how that is violated. It is clear the template is nothing of the sort. Couple that stance with the claims of 'irrelevant information' that has been roundly rejected previously in a previously widely participated discussion. Shows the substantive claims which are being synthetically generated are not genuine (even if they are made in good faith). The discussion in question is here. The discussion sets out specific criteria for moving from the template to the table which have been roundly ignored by those advocating for the discontinuation of the template in favour of the table. As a result nigh on all national team results use the collapsible template, which seems to hold no meaning to those pushing the 'template should be binned' position. (Also on an aside of irony here the question posed at that discussion is the mediator of this discussion.) Moving to the to the table itself, there is so little information included and it is laied out so illogically, that it renders it a complete mess. For example, own goals scored for the opposition are not included. Only goals for the club the season article is for are included. The temas are not listed in a way which is done commonly in football, with the home team first when recording results. It always lists the subject of the article first. Why it is like this? I have no idea, but never have I seen a result of a football match not include the goals scores for both sides or not list the result as home and away. The table contents are so limited in value as to be completely useless to the casual or uninformed (on the subject) user of Wikipedia. The above discussion exhausted both sides of this discussion. There are claims of internal discussion on the wikiproject, setting the consensus, which expressly violates
- As found at WikiProject Function. As such, such claims must be ignored when they try to make out that the issue is already settled. TL;DR:
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Second statement by RjjiiiI found out about this issue via Robert McClenon's request on MOS:ACCESS; I didn't think to announce that with my first comment. My initial observations were and will be technical because I am trying to provide feedback needed to address issues in the template. These issues are inherently somewhat technical. To more clearly address the accessibility question: Template:Football box collapsible and Template:Football box both have minor accessibility issues. Neither one complies with MOS:ACCESS. Both templates generate lists that do comply with the accessibility guidelines. Both templates generate tables that do not comply with MOS:DTAB. Template:Football box is much closer to compliance. As these templates appear on tens of thousands of pages, I would imagine the most realistic course of action is to improve them. Since my initial post, I tested out pages with each template. Here are notes on several accessibility issues with quotes from the Manual of Style:
Question: Template:Football box has fewer and easier to resolve accessibility issues compared to Template:Football box collapsible. Why is there a preference for adding the collapsible version to the Manual of Style? Feel free to ask questions about any of that, Rjjiii (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Second statement by Stevie fae ScotlandMy feeling has always been that the style guide should be an aspiration for all applicable articles to meet. That's why I advocate for the table because it meets MOS:ACCESS. It would be pointless having a style guide if it didn't live up to the standards that the community has set out with the MOS. The proposal to add footballbox collapsible to the style guide is, I think, a good faith assumption based on usage. For list articles, the footballbox is WP:INDISCRIMINATE because it includes absolutely everything about a football match that is possible to include. The collapsible version allows a lot of this extra information to be hidden while still showing the key information (date, score, competition + opposition) so I think that condensed nature is why it has become prevalent in these articles. The issue with that though is that it goes against MOS:COLLAPSE (as well as the other above-mentioned ACCESS violations). I think the footballbox has a place on Wikipedia, particularly for major tournaments where matches are more notable and individual matches which are deemed notable enough to have their own articles. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator on football season articlesI have a few questions for User:PicturePerfect666, and a few questions for all the editors. First, for all the editors, is the main issue whether to use the table or a template for match results? Will each editor please state what they want in that regard. Second, am I correct that there are multiple templates for match results? If so, do all of the templates have accessibility issues, or only some of them? Third, if there are accessibility issues with one or more templates, can they be fixed, and is there a plan to fix them in the near future? User:PicturePerfect666 writes: I will have more questions after I read the answers. Third statements by editors on football articlesStevie fae ScotlandI don't mind using a template. I personally prefer the table format but I understand other editors will have different preferences. There are templates which can be used which don't have the ACCESS issues mentioned above eg- New Zealand men's national football team results (2020–present) uses a template to produce an ACCESS-compliant results list. The footballbox is a more complicated template so I don't know if the issues can be fixed, I'll leave that to Rjjiii or someone with better knowledge. As far as I am aware though, there aren't any plans to fix it. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Third comment by RjjiiiSecond question above:
Third question above: It looks like the same folks have worked on both templates. They have previously accepted accessibility improvements that do not affect the visual appearance of the template. The largest issue with Template:Football box could be resolved by using the Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Third statement by PicturePerfect666I am not commenting on the access issues as that is not something I pay attention to. There are plenty of others who seem to look out for that so I shall not be giving my uninformed lay opinion on the subject as I have no idea on the subject and nor do I have much if any interest in the subject. To answer the direct question at me. The consensus through use is the use of the template by multiple editors over multiple years on thousands of articles of the template. Where the wikiproject keeps having discussions which are simply not known about or are ignored. The mass use by a mass of editors is consensus by use, this is a clear use case of consensus as set out in WP:EDITCON. Moving to the broader question: I have no issue with compromising to a template of the style of Template:Football box as used at New Zealand men's national football team results (2020–present) but not until the issue surrounding the content of that template is addressed. It is illogical and does not contain enough information to be completely useful. These examples are previously set out above. Why is there no listing of the results home-away, why are only goals for one team listed? These and the other issues listed, particularly those at the previously listed discussion, must be overcome. Until the issues with the content are sorted then it cannot be used as it goes against commonsense and basic football reporting of results. I personally prefer the logical and succinct layout of Template:Football box collapsible and so it would seem through use do the vast majority of editors on Wikipedia. To be blunt the table is a hot mess of wiki-syntax which the casual and new user has no interest in wasting time trying to decipher. The table is also a hot mess of user preferences which do not reflect the common reporting of match results and provide little or no benefit whatsoever in the grand scheme of things. The collapsible template is plug-and-play and contains all of the information you would expect to find in the reporting of match results. Both teams' scorers, own goals, major match events (yellow cards missed penalties etc.), and penalty shootout scorers. All that is logically and commonly reported and expected. All of this is included in the collapsible template, and none of this is in the table. The collapsible template also allows for a quick result hit and if you want more information you can get that by expanding the box. The non-collapsible template needs the content issues sorted. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator on football season articlesThank you, User:Rjjiii. What are the remaining issues, including accessibility issues, concerning the display of football results? Are we in agreement that the table and the football box template and the football box collapsible template may be used, and is there also agreement that the accessibility issues with the templates should be fixed, although there is no deadline for fixing them? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors on football articlesFourth statement by RjjiiiThe issues are somewhat different for both commonly used templates. For Template:Football box, the most confusing and largest practical concern is that a screen reader can't tell which column the penalties are in. I have tested a solution and started a discussion.[3] Minor issues that break compliance with MOS:ACCESS include:
For Template:Football box collapsible, there are both more issues and harder issues to fix. If you look at a typical usage like 2003–04 Plymouth Argyle F.C. season#Football League Division Two, the template is being used to create each of those visual rows. On an HTML level, though, each row is a separate table. I'm not sure what the best solution would be, but I don't see a quick or easy fix. Problems include:
For Template:Football result list, there are no accessibility issues, and this template is only used on a few pages. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by Stevie fae ScotlandI'm not arguing that we go and change however many thousand articles and remove Template:Football box collapsible overnight. Until the ACCESS issues are addressed though, it shouldn't be included in the style guide. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of something that doesn't comply with the MOS but I understand it won't change dramatically whatever the outcome here. As the moderator points out, there is no deadline (whether that's about fixing ACCESS concerns on an individual article and improving match result lists or fixing them directly through the template). The fact that we have started a discussion around fixing the access concerns with Template:Football box because of this discussion is fantastic. Hopefully, something similar can be done for Template:Football box collapsible but until that point, leave it out the style guide. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by PicturePerfect666Common sense must prevail. The sensible thing is to fix the issues with access. There must also be an addressing of the sheer made up content inclusions/exclusions in the table and template football box. Previous discussions have pointed out the sheer bugnuttery of the selective inclusion of information and the bizarre layout of not home-away, no penalty shoot out scorers, no major match events etc. Until those are fixed there can be no moving from the template which includes the expected information. Inclusion in the MOS of the templates is essential as they are the only ones to comply with community consensus on content. The absurd and frankly ludicrous citations of things like WP:indiscriminate hold as much water as an imaginary cup. Not including the template in the MOS is more head-in-sand burying by the small group who are active at the wikiproject and a failure to recognise they are not a rule making body, users outside the wikiproject exist and pay no attention to the wiki project. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator on football season articlesI don't think that we are getting any closer to agreement, but I am not sure what the disagreement is. What I think I have learned is that the different formats for presenting results include a table and at least three templates, {{Football box}}, {{Football box collapsible}}, and {{Football result list}}. It appears that the first two templates all have degrees of non-compliance with the accessibility guidelines, and the result list is fully compliant, but is seldom used. There are tens of thousands of page, mostly in article space, s which use the less-than-compliant templates. Going back and changing the articles is not a plausible answer. (We already have more than enough problems due to articles that are non-compliant, such as player stubs.) The templates should be fixed. It appears that an issue is whether to document the availability of the non-compliant templates. A compromise there would be to document the availability of the templates, but to note in the MOS that the templates are non-compliant and are tagged to be fixed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC) The filing editor is using picturesque language to characterize the positions of the other editors, including "sheer bugnuttery .. and bizarre layout", and Does someone have a proposal for how to close this dispute, other than by stating that the templates are in widespread use but non-compliant? Fifth statements by editors on football articlesFifth statement by Stevie fae ScotlandJust closing this dispute without resolution would, I fear, reignite the edit war that brought us here. Whilst the access issues persist, I'm not just not going to favour the inclusion of the collapsible version in the style guide - particularly when it should've been discussed first and every other discussion has found consensus against it. That being said, I am willing to compromise. The style guide currently has "(also acceptable results format for all matches)" followed by a brief list of collapsible footballboxes. I'd propose that be changed to something like this: ===Other format=== I've tried to keep the language in a manner that doesn't encourage or discourage usage but makes clear the issues highlighted in this thread (a link to which could also be useful). I'd be happy to hear other suggestions for wording but I feel something like this would be the way forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by PicturePerfect666The dispute is about three things two of which have come to crystallisation during this discussion
If such a qualification is to be used on the templates, then an additional qualification must be included for the table to state that the content of the table is not in alignment with the wider discussion that has also taken place. I think that this should be revisited again in 3 months' time to give both the table and templates time to address the issues with both. There must be a re-look mechanism, and there must be monitoring of the pages by administrators familiar with the issue particularly the MOS to prevent edit warring from breaking out, as one user seems to have a long history of engaging in edit warring, has received multiple timed bans for such, and is currently serving a one month ban for edit warring. Other users also have blocks for edit warring and similar, but not as extensive as one user. There must also not be language which shows favour of the table over the template and vice-versa. I hope this clarifies things for the moderator. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator on football season articlesI still don't think that we are getting any closer to agreement, but I still am not sure what the disagreement is. I think that we are in agreement that:
Do we agree as to points 1, 2, and 3? Is the disagreement about what the Club seasons guideline should say? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC) I think that we agree the {{football box}} is almost compliant, and the {{football box collapsible}} has more accessibility problems, but at the same time is simpler to view. One editor has proposed a three-month plan with monitoring. I don't understand the plan, but I see that it would require community discussion and involvement. Do we want to resolve this dispute here at DRN, or do we want to throw this issue to the community for discussion? Do we want to agree that the templates should be worked on? What if anything should be done with the club seasons guideline? Will each editor please explain concisely where they think that we should go from here? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors on football articlesSixth statement by Stevie fae ScotlandI agree with the three points and yes, the disagreement was solely over the inclusion of footballbox collapsible in the Club seasons guideline. I agree the templates should be worked on to become ACCESS compliant. I think the Club seasons guideline should be restored to this version ie- as it was before the dispute and undiscussed addition of the non-compliant template but as I indicated above I would be willing to compromise here and would welcome further suggestions. I am happy for the dispute to be resolved here as I am hopeful a compromise could be reached but if you feel like we are just going round in circles I am equally happy for a discussion to be started with the aim of wider community participation to find a compromise. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC) Sixth statement by PicturePerfect666I will never agree with the false status quo being put around; "the template is not included". The inclusion of the template in the Manual of Style has been since 2021 as shown here. It is a false status quo to try and make out that not including it is the status quo. I simply cannot agree to exclude templates in the Manual of Style, removing them is the same as having the Manual of Style only recognise one type of written English and demand only the use of the term soccer. 100% ludicrous. I agree with the need for the access issues to be fixed but I view them as a low priority. If they were any higher of an issue, they would have been raised and fixes begun already. As such I agree on points 1 through 3 from the moderator. I agree 100% with the statements from the moderator about the templates, the collapsible box is the simplest to understand and best at conveying all of the expected and logically assumed information and layout. The issue which is not being touched on is the content of the table. The content of the table must be overhauled, as previous discussions have said it is not fit for purpose. If the table actually made logical sense in what it includes as per the previous discussions, I would have far fewer issues with it from a content point of view. The impenetrable wiki-syntax for editing the table remains a serious issue. As for the 3-month proposal. the sheer number of entrenched positions here and the number of editors here involved (not myself or Stevie fae Scotland) who have been banned for edit warring, mean that the chances of this not igniting back into a tit-for-tat edit war are very low. I am proposing the moderator be contacted in 3 months and assess the situation as this could easily be akin to a violated peace treaty, without a mechanism for looking back and ensuring compliance. This is also why the discussion on the template v table must be moved to a very wide arena to prevent, in the words of one editor, 'playing enforcer' and the other issues they raised in their summary of the dispute. They raise valid points of competence and battleground which are not being addressed either, which simply must be looked at, and is another reason such a review mechanism is needed. TL;DR
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator on football season articlesThe discussion here has been useful, and progress has been made, but we will not finish resolving this dispute at DRN. At this point, we can discuss the season guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons if we think it needs changes. Otherwise we can close this case and start discussion at WT:WikiProject Football. Does anyone have a last statement? Do we want to discuss the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons? Robert McClenon (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors on football articlesSeventh statement by Stevie fae ScotlandYeah, I'm happy for a discussion to be started at WT:FOOTY. A neutrally worded RfC into the inclusion of footballbox collapsible would be the best way to go. If there are other issues that editors have with the style guide or areas they see for improvement, then they are free to bring those up outwith the RfC. Thank you to the moderator for your patience and understanding throughout this process and to the other editors for their engagement. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Seventh statement by PicturePerfect666I think holding the discussion at the wikiproject will cause identical issues. There must be a neutral wide-ranging venue where this can be discussed. The problems were with the discussion being on the wikiproject. I agree that an RfC can work but I do not think it will work on the wikirpoject page. I think this discussion has been useful in demonstrating the issues which are as follows:
If this is to close then this cannot simply be kicked back to the wikiproject as this dispute will not end there and could end up back here or worse, at arbitration. I am happy for a much wider discussion away from the wikiproject. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator on football season articlesOne editor says that discussion at WikiProject Football will cause identical issues, and that discussion must be at a neutral wide-ranging venue. It is not clear why they object to discussing football at the football project, so I am asking them to explain what the reason is for their objection. Why don't you consider the WikiProject to be neutral? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC) I see that prior to this case filing there was slow-motion edit-warring over whether to add the {{Football box collapsible}} template to the club season guideline page, which is a project page. There appears to be agreement that an RFC about the collapsible template would be useful, but one editor says that it should not be on the wikiproject page. Why not? Are there any other issues that should be addressed by an RFC? Why is the project page considered by User:PicturePerfect666 to be a wrong venue? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors on football articlesEighth statement by PicturePerfect666The reason the wikiproject is not a venue where this will be resolved as set out in points 4-6 in statement seven and reproduced here:
The whole reason this is here is that there was no prospect of any willingness to accept any other position amongst the more hardline enforcer-type edit-warring editors who frequent the wikiproject and have ended up banned for edit-warring. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator on football season articlesWe have one editor, User:PicturePerfect666, who does not want to continue discussion at WikiProject Football, because they say that there are competency, edit-warring, ownership, and battleground issues. I haven't seen other editors make those complaints. Sometimes an editor who complains of a toxic environment does so because they are in a minority, and sometimes there is a toxic environment. However, DRN is not the forum to report conduct issues or competency issues. I am ready to close this DRN discussion to allow PicturePerfect666 to report the conduct issues at WP:ANI, but only if other editors do not want to discuss content issues here at this time. I am ready to open a new discussion at DRN after the conduct issues are dealt with, if that is the plan. Alternatively, do other editors have other issues that they want to address here? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors on football articlesNinth statement by PicturePerfect666Please see the initial summary of the dispute by Govvy where they also bring up the same issue I am bringing up, albeit in more colourful language than me. I am happy to discuss the content issues at DRN after the conduct issues at ANI has been concluded. As for content, the issues are as follows, and I hope that at least two of these are non-controversial
I am happy to continue discussing the content if other users are as well. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Ninth statement by Stevie fae ScotlandI don't think editors at WP:FOOTY are any worse than Wikipedia as a whole. Sometimes though, I think contributions from new or newer editors aren't always understood to be from someone who doesn't know about all the policies and guidelines so that may lead to a minor but still unnecessary conflict. But then, that can happen anywhere on Wikipedia. As we are discussing an ACCESS issue, would holding the discussion at WT:ACCESS be a suitable alternative? It might speed up improvements to the templates as well if other editors there are made aware of it. Regardless of what we do though, editors at WP:FOOTY will be involved. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
|
SpaceX Starship flight tests
Closed as resolved. The two editors say that there is no longer a content dispute. The two editors are thanked for resolving the matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview As a DRN volunteer, I am opening a case shell for a dispute that has been at WP:ANI and then sent here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests, Talk:SpaceX Starship, WP:ANI How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I will ask the editors in question what they want to change in the article. Summary of dispute by Redacted IIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
On the SpaceX Starship Flight Test article, there was a debate regarding the Launch Outcome table. Death Editor 2 wanted to remove the second planned flight, with their reasoning being that since the second flight hasn't been approved, the third flight cannot be for 2023. 3 other editors commented (including myself), two of which sided against them, and one of them was indifferent. Death Editor 2, instead of accepting defeat, removed the second planned flight from the chart. I reverted this edit 3 times, but did not continue to a fourth revert. I then warned them on their talk page, which quickly became another debate. They have a history of disruptive editing, and have been warned by other users on their talk page before. Redacted II (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Death Editor 2Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The dispute started when I removed the third planned flight from the chart on the page. However Redacted decided to make things worse in my personal opinion by removing the likely 2024 thing from the second flight and removing it's sources as well, claiming it was 'vandalism' despite the fact that he himself was doing vandalism by removing it. Death Editor 2 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC) SpaceX Starship flight tests discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (SpaceX)I am opening this case shell to see if the two editors can resolve their dispute at DRN, as advised at WP:ANI. First, the editors should read DRN Rule A, and state that they agree to the rule. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement explaining what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Do not provide details about who has made what edits in the past. The purpose of this moderated discussion is to resolve an article content dispute. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Statement 0.1 by moderator (SpaceX)Read What is not vandalism and Yelling Vandalism. Vandalism is editing that is done intentionally to worsen the encyclopedia. Introducing random profanity is vandalism. Removing content without an explanation is vandalism. There has been no vandalism in this dispute. You are both acting in good faith, and vandalism is bad faith editing. Remember that the idle claim of vandalism is a personal attack. So don't yell vandalism. State concisely what you want to change in the article. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Statement 0.2 by moderator (SpaceX)Please state concisely what you want to change in the article (or what you want to leave the same). Do not, at this time, tell what edits there have been in the past, or what has happened before now. Tell what you want changed in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (SpaceX)First statement by moderator (SpaceX)Is there still an article content issue? If there is an article content issue, please state what you want to change in the article (or what you want left the same that another editor wants to change). If there isn't still an article content issue, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (SpaceX)
|
Historical reliability of the Gospels
Closed. This was discussed at length at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Tgeorgescu on 22:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The rub is I have given multiple WP:RS/AC-compliant WP:RS written by authors on the both sides of the dispute. The other editor claims that Ehrman is too The list of WP:RS "on my side" is available at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. Hint: this discussion does not concern the works of Smith and Valantasis c.s. Evidence of notification: [4]. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) References
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Reference_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Arbitrary_break How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Give an opinion whether my WP:RS/AC claims are good or bad. Since it is a content guideline, and if the WP:RS are good enough for it, it should be applied. If sources are bad, that no longer holds. Summary of dispute by Jenhawk777Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My complaint is with two things: the claim that there is "scholarly consensus" and the source for that claim. The source which makes the claim, is itself sourced to a self-published work, and neither has any data, or support, or even a cited discussion, of a scholarly consensus actually existing. It looks like a baseless claim in a heavily biased source. This is not about the veracity of the claim concerning authorship itself, which the talk page discussion kept veering off into. This is purely - imo - an issue with the claim there is such a thing as consensus concerning it. This is a big claim, and as such, it needs a better more reliable source, or imo, the claim should be removed. I am tired of asking that personal points of view not be discussed, since whether I personally agree or not is completely beside the point, and I have repeatedly stated that. I have an unwavering commitment to practicing neutrality. There's an essay on my user page on it. It's not about which individual scholars agree or don't or which "side" they are on. That doesn't prove consensus. For me, it is just about whether the claim of consensus is well sourced. If it isn't, then it should go until a better source for it can be found. That's it. That's all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC) Historical reliability of the Gospels discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Question by volunteer about historical reliability of the Gospels discussionIs the question primarily about the reliability of sources? If so (and it appears that it is), the parties might get a better answer at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
|
Talk:Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games
Closed for at least two reasons. First, this is a dispute about multiple related child articles. Discussion about multiple related child articles should be at the parent article talk page, which is Talk:2023 Pan American Games, but there has not been any discussion there, only on the child pages. Second, the overall topic is a multinational sporting event from 20 October to 5 November, and the issues have to do with articles about planned sporting events, but by the time that discussion was completed, the sporting events will have begun, and the process of normal editing for events in progress should be in process. So this discussion is late, because by the time the discussion is completed, the games will have started, and recording of their results will have started. Discuss any urgent matters on the parent article talk page, Talk:2023 Pan American Games, or wait until the games are underway and expand the articles by normal editing with discussion on the child article talk pages. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview
After some discussion, I moved the articles to draft space. That effort was reverted by Hey man im josh because the articles were more than 90 days old. Sportsfan 1234 has repeatedly reverted my attempts at tagging and cleaning up the articles, most recently reverting actions I took based on a third opinion response. Sportsfan is happy to revert my edits, but will admonish me for edit warring whenever I revert my changed back [5] [6], or accuse me of vandalism when removing blank boilerplate content [7], which further impedes communication. This content has problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK and needs to be properly managed. What's the best way to get it cleaned up?
AfD for them Talk:Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games#Cleanup tag Talk:Peru#at the 2023 Pan American Games#Removal of empty sections Talk:United States at the 2023 Pan American Games#Removal of empty sections [8] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? This content has problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK and needs to be properly cleaned up and managed going forward. What's the best path to that end?
Summary of dispute by Sportsfan 1234Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Hey man im joshPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Jennifer Connelly
Closed as no response by other editors. The three other editors named by the filing party has not responded in more than 48 hours. Discussion at DRN is voluntary, and the editors have chosen not to participate. Continue discussion at the article talk page. Be civil and cautious in any discussion of changes to category guidelines, because such discussions have too often had both combatant casualties and civilian casualties. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Should we include Connelly in Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of Jewish descent? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jennifer Connelly#Categories, User talk:Thedarkknightli#Category removal How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Consensus on this is needed. Perhaps we should expand WP:ETHNICRACECAT. Summary of dispute by Dr. Simon HurtPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TimceharrisPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by GDuwenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jennifer Connelly discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
James Veitch (comedian)
Closed as not the best forum. Since this is a request about a biography of a living person and refers to the biographies of living persons policy, this request should be made at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. However, since this filing is the only editing that has been done by this account, the filing editor is strongly advised to declare exactly what their connection is to James Veitch (comedian). Are they James Veitch? Are they an employee or agent of James Veitch? Please specify when filing at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I consider that this page contravenes the Biographies of Living Persons policy. The page contains reference in both the opening and concluding paragraphs to serious allegations which were made against the subject, to the media, over 3 years ago. The allegations are serious in nature - they are criminal allegations of a sexual nature. The subject has never stood trial in respect of these allegations, in either a criminal or civil court and there is no suggestion that these allegations were ever reported to, or investigated by authorities. Indeed, no legal proceedings have ever been initiated in respect of any of these allegations. At present therefore, the allegations are untested and have never been subject to any sort of scrutiny. I have a serious concern about the harm being caused to the subject’s life by the inclusion of these allegations and whether the content of the biography is fair. I have sought to raise this on the Talk page (as have various other Wikipedia users before me), but to no avail. My detailed concerns are set out on the Talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Numerous discussions have taken place on the Talk page. The most recent discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Veitch_(comedian)#Request_to_review_page_in_light_of_BLP_Policy How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like the content of the biography to be reviewed against the biographies of living persons policy, as I consider that the biography as presently drafted infringes the BLP policy. If this is not the correct avenue for raising this dispute, I would be grateful for some direction as to the correct place to raise my concerns. Thank you. Summary of dispute by BilorvThe article has seen much single-purpose account activity, persistent from 2020 to present. A user claiming to be James Veitch has previously made edits requesting removal of this content, and Char296 says they have "a real-life connection" to Veitch. After a sockpuppet started a thread on BLPN in 2021, an experienced editor significantly reduced the amount of weight given to the allegations, but they remain one of the most major sources of coverage of Veitch and are necessary to explain many key career events (such as having a Quibi role dropped). No new sources have come to light since then. My position continues to be that we should reinstate a description of the allegations, sourced to The Hollywood Reporter (RSP entry). — Bilorv (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC) James Veitch (comedian) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Hickory Wind
Closed. A Request for Comments is being used to resolve this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The article has a subsection entitled authorship controversy which details an article written on folklinks.com dating to 2002 which claims one "Sylvia Sammons" actually authored the song. Now this whole section is dependent on that one source so that alone may be a undue weight issue. Eldanger25 added material about a 1993 article which gives information on someone named "Sylvia Sammons" and has used that information to claim refutation of the later authorship claims. This is very obviously WP:SYNTH as the two articles cannot be used to draw one single conclusion not stated in either one. Further there is no concrete evidence this is the same Sammons in both articles. Eldanger25 is repeatedly adding the information and claims on the talk page there is "strong circumstantial evidence that it is the same person" which they feel makes it valid to include. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Hickory_Wind#disputed_authorship I explained the issues with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here and pinged Eldanger25 which led to a conversation that quickly went nowhere as I found myself repeating the same policies to no avail. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We need someone to clarify if my understanding of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are correct and/or if the 1993 can be included in that section as evidence against Sammons' claims of authorship. Summary of dispute by Eldanger25Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is an admittedly unusual dispute. Ultimately, the section of the article itself - an "authorship controvery" - should be deleted as based on a single source from a broken link, i.e., undue weight given to currently unverifiable information in a currently unavailable source (EDIT - the archived source has been restored, though the undue weight issue remains). In essence - in 2002, an individual made a public claim of authorship of a work of art published in 1968, and provided certain biographical details about herself (age, region of the United States, physical disability, professional history). Some time after 2002, a 1993 news article became available online that was a profile of a person with the same first and last name, profession, region of the United States, and identifying physical disability. This article provided contradictory biographical information about the 2002 claimant - specifically, that she became a performing musician circa 1980, 12 years after the work of art at issue was published. There is a claim of synthesis/improper original research if the 1993 article is included, apparently because it did not identify the subject of the 1993 article as the same person who claimed authorship in 2002 of a song published in 1968 by a songwriter who died in 1973. To the extent this is an "authorship controversy," I submit that data in a reliable, accessible 1993 article about someone who is almost certainly the same person as the claimant who told a different story in 2002 is directly relevant to the "controversy," and should be included in some fashion, if the controversy is included at all. If this is a policy violation, then the policy should be changed, because Wikipedia is a valued, primary source for many people, and all relevant facts should be available when someone accuses a dead person of fraudulent/criminal conduct 30 years after their death, and appears to have told a different story to a newspaper just a few years earlier. In any event, I think the whole section should be deleted given the undue weight/inaccessible link issue, but if the 2002 claims are included, certainly the 1993 data should also be. Thank you for your time, and thanks to ThaddeusSholto for a sincere, vigorous, and interesting good faith discussion. Eldanger25 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldanger25 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. I do not know anything about this song or its authorship controversy, and the editors will have to explain to me and to the community what the issues are. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. I understand that this request for mediation has to do with the section on the authorship controversy. Before we get into the question of whether there is synthesis or original research, I would like each editor to provide what they think that the authorship controversy section should say. Also please say whether there are any other issues besides the authorship controversy. I want to see the alternative text versions of the authorship controversy section before considering whether either of them involves original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Hickory Wind)Statement fromEldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I have submitted a proposed draft of the section below. Other issues include: whether the section should be deleted entirely on undue weight grounds, as the "authorship controversy" is effectively premised on a single source - a 2002 article appearing roughly 35 years after 1968 publication of the song at issue, in a now-defunct website (http://folklinks.com/) - and is multiple paragraphs long. Thank you for your time and moderation. Eldanger25 (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
While there may be an undue weight situation based on the single source for the section, I don't think the fact that the website is dead is relevant. We have an archiveURL for it active right now. For me the main issue is attempting to use a 1993 article to refute the content of a 2002 when the two never directly connect to each other. It is textbook WP:SYNTH to use two references to draw a conclusion not explicitly made in either reference themselves. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Draft versions of authorship controversy sectionHello - thank you for your time and moderation. My proposed draft is below: Authorship controversyIn 2002, an article on the website www.folklinks.com controversially claimed that "Hickory Wind" was not written by Gram Parsons, but by Sylvia Sammons—a blind folksinger from Greenville, South Carolina—with Bob Buchanan later contributing an additional verse.[1] Sammons' alleged authorship of the song was first made public by traditional musician Kay Justice during a performance at a small church concert in southwest Virginia.[1] Additionally, L. Beatrice Hutzler, a former professor at Clinch Valley College (now the University of Virginia's College at Wise), recalled that she too had heard Sammons sing the song in person prior to its being recorded by The Byrds.[1] When interviewed in 2002, Sammons claimed that she had written the song and that she regularly performed "Hickory Wind" at coffeehouses and other folk venues in Greenville during 1963—a time when Parsons was also performing in Greenville with his band The Shilos—and that her song was stolen during this period.[1] She further claims that in 1969 she reached a cash settlement with a music publisher for the rights to "Hickory Wind" and agreed to turn over a tape-recorded copy of the song, which was her only physical proof of authorship.[1] A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002, profiled Sylvia Sammons, a 42 year old blind female folk singer from North Carolina who local city officials were concerned was panhandling in a Mt. Dora, Florida, public park; the article described Ms. Sammons as having been "a professional singer and guitar player for 12 years on the coffeehouse circuit," or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds. [2] Sammons's claim to the song has been rebutted by both Bob Buchanan and Chris Hillman, with the former stating "I helped him [Parsons] a little on the melody and turnaround and the second verse and he had the bulk of it . . . I was there when he wrote it," and the latter stating "As far as I know Gram and Bob Buchanan did indeed write 'Hickory Wind'. As unstable as Gram was in my brief time with him on this earth, I sincerely doubt he was a plagiarist in any of his songwriting endeavors unless his co-writer Bob brought him the idea."[1] Eldanger25 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Authorship controversy version 2In 2002, an article on the website www.folklinks.com controversially claimed that "Hickory Wind" was not written by Gram Parsons, but by Sylvia Sammons—a blind folksinger from Greenville, South Carolina—with Bob Buchanan later contributing an additional verse.[1][3] Sammons' alleged authorship of the song was first made public by traditional musician Kay Justice during a performance at a small church concert in southwest Virginia.[1] Additionally, L. Beatrice Hutzler, a former professor at Clinch Valley College (now the University of Virginia's College at Wise), recalled that she too had heard Sammons sing the song in person prior to its being recorded by The Byrds.[1] When interviewed in 2002, Sammons claimed that she had written the song and that she regularly performed "Hickory Wind" at coffeehouses and other folk venues in Greenville during 1963—a time when Parsons was also performing in Greenville with his band The Shilos—and that her song was stolen during this period.[1] She further claims that in 1969 she reached a cash settlement with a music publisher for the rights to "Hickory Wind" and agreed to turn over a tape-recorded copy of the song, which was her only physical proof of authorship.[1] Sammons' claim to the song has been rebutted by both Bob Buchanan and Chris Hillman, with the former stating "I helped him a little on the melody and turnaround and the second verse and he had the bulk of it...I was there when he wrote it," and the latter stating "As far as I know Gram and Bob Buchanan did indeed write 'Hickory Wind'. As unstable as Gram was in my brief time with him on this earth, I sincerely doubt he was a plagiarist in any of his songwriting endeavors unless his co-writer Bob brought him the idea."[1] ThaddeusSholto (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)There are two proposed versions of the Authorship Controversy section. They appear to differ in that one of them has a paragraph about a 1993 Orlando Sentinel article. Is there any other difference? I understand that the issue is whether inferring that the song was released before Sammons began performing as a singer is synthesis amounting to original research, and that is why one editor includes the paragraph in the draft and the other does not. I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to why the questioned paragraph should or should not be included. We may refer this question to the original research noticeboard, but we will try to resolve it here first. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Hickory Wind)Second statement by ThaddeusSholtoThe paragraph beginning with "A 1993 Orlando Sentinel article, published 9 years before Ms. Sammons's initial public claim of authorship in 2002" shows that this is SYNTH. You cannot use an article which precedes the 2002 claim to refute the 2002 claim. This is original research on the part of the editor who added it. References must explicitly state what is being claimed in the article and this reference does not do that because it cannot. It cannot refute what hadn't yet happened. WP:SYNTH specifically "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." This is exactly what is happening with this paragraph. The editor even adds their own conclusion with "or beginning in 1981 - 13 years after "Hickory Wind" was first released by The Byrds." This is not in the 1993 article because that article has nothing to do with Hickory Wind or its authorship. It is also OR to even claim this is the same Sylvia Sammons. There is no way to know that as the 1993 article about Sylvia Sammons and the 2002 article about Sylvia Sammons describe people of different ages; something Eldanger25 is using as "proof" Sammons cannot be the author. Drawing this conclusion is 100% original research on their part. Again, the policy states that an editor cannot combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Second Statement by Eldanger25 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC) The 1993 article is relevant to the "controversy" at issue. The very section is entitled "authorship controversy." Inconsistent statements in a news article published nearer in time to the claim itself (2002) than the work of art at issue (1968), by an individual with the same name, disability, and fairly unique occupation, provides useful and reliable context (particularly when two full paragraphs of this subsection have been dedicated to an authorship claim that is a paradigmatic minority viewpoint, i.e., the 2002 article being the sole source of the controvery). Moreover, the information in the proposed paragraph is drawn from a single source - the 1993 article - and any accompanying contrasts raised with data in the 2002 article are simple calculations (i.e., 1981 versus 1968), which is allowed. More broadly, data relevant to an event or claim sometimes predates the event/claim, and the alternate interpretation of OR that is offered would, in essence, rule out ever including such data, because apparently in order to be relevant, the source must discuss the event/claim itself. I do not think this is consistent with the policies at issue, including OR and SYNTH. Eldanger25 (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)I have referred this dispute to the original research noticeboard. You may each make one additional concise statement, but it would be better to make any statements at this time at the original research noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Statement 3.5 by moderator (Hickory Wind)I am placing this discussion on hold until there is a response to the original research noticeboard. I invite the editors here to comment at the original research noticeboard because comments might increase the likelihood of a response that resolves or partially resolves this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Hickory Wind)Fourth statement by moderator (Hickory Wind)I am put in mind of a message from an ancient pre-video text-only computer game, when one enters certain commands. "Nothing happens." Nothing has happened at the original research noticeboard, so we will not get resolution there. I have started a discussion at WP:AN about NORN being an abandoned noticeboard. I am composing a draft RFC for comments, and the community will decide. The draft RFC is at Talk:Hickory Wind/RFC on Authorship. Please enter a brief statement in the Reason to Add Paragraph or Reason Not to Add Paragraph, to explain your position. After the brief arguments are included, we can publish the RFC. Do not vote in the RFC yet. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Hickory Wind)Hickory Wind discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
References
|
Bahsahwahbee
Closed as apparently abandoned. User:DeoVindice has not edited in six days. DRN is for the resolution of disputes between editors, and involves participation by the editors. User:Reywas92 should heed the concerns raised by DeoVindic while they were editing, and should resume normal editing. If there are any further content disagreements, they should be resolved by normal discussion on the article talk page, or by RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have provided documented and substantiated evidence regarding a military action between the US army and the Native Americans at Bahsahwahbee. Reywas92 keeps reverting this evidence in preference to an unverified and anecdotal account written by one person 51 years after the event. There is no documented evidence that this person was even there. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussion on my talk page and on the Bahsahwahbee page. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please provide an objective consideration of the quality of the evidence presented on both sides. Summary of dispute by Reywas92This user continues to add unrelated primary sources to the article in order to undermine the sources that actually cover the topic. The article is about Bahsahwahbee and related events in the area, not general events between Indians and settlers and the army. While [9] discusses the site, an event recounted by Wilson, and their relationship, DeoVindice has added a primary source of an account by a Lieutenant Gay that is never discussed in relation to this site or contrasted with Wilson's account, yet that's what he's doing as original research. This previously included long quotations that were intended to be a contrast despite no independent sources doing so, as well as the OR conclusion "It is unlikely he would target a large tribe of Indians based on this report." DeoVindice insists that "Both sides should be presented", but there he is doing the research here, presenting these other primary quotations as the other side when no secondary source does so or relates it to the article's actual subject. Now he has totally reorganized this section so that the unrelated quotations are shown first at length, with the source actually about Bahsahwahbee almost entirely removed. While I agree the article should note that there is limited historical documentation for this event as well as context, it should not be rewritten to be about what may be an entirely different event, with zero secondary sources connecting it to the subject. Reywas92Talk 00:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Bahsahwahbee discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Please also read What is not vandalism, and do not refer to edits with which you disagree as vandalism. Be civil and concise. Do you both want moderated discussion? If so, do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. It appears that the controversy is about which of two accounts of the 1859 Spring Valley massacre to include in the article. Is that correct? It also appears that each editor has issues with the reliability or verifiability of a source. I would like each editor to make a brief statement including:
There does not appear to be any issue about original research. That concern may be a misinterpretation of what is meant by original research. The issues have to do either with the reliability of sources or with primary and secondary sources. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)First statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)Comment on content, not contributors. I do not want to elaborate. One editor wants to include the report of Lt. Gay to Albert Sidney Johnston and the report of Johnston to Winfield Scott. The other editor wishes to exclude those reports because they do not refer to Bahsahwahbee. The other editor wants to include the memoir by Wilson, much later. The first editor wants to exclude it both because it was much later and because they think that it is not worthy of belief. I see two possible ways to resolve this. First, we can agree to include both reports, but with comments as to reliability and applicability. Second, we can ask for the sources to be evaluated at the reliable source noticeboard. We will include both reports only if both editors agree. Otherwise, we will ask the volunteers at RSN for their assessments of source reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)Second statement by moderator (Bahsahwahbee)One editor has not edited in a few days. I will repeat what I posted three days ago. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC) It appears that the controversy is about which of two accounts of the 1859 Spring Valley massacre to include in the article. Is that correct? It also appears that each editor has issues with the reliability or verifiability of a source. I would like each editor to make a brief statement including:
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC) There does not appear to be any issue about original research. That concern may be a misinterpretation of what is meant by original research. The issues have to do either with the reliability of sources or with primary and secondary sources. If one editor has taken a break from editing, I may have to close this case, and to advise the other editor to edit, but do not edit recklessly. Second statements by editors (Bahsahwahbee)
|
V (programming_language)
Closed for now for two reasons. The less serious problem is that the filing party has not notified the other editor on their talk page. I normally would not close a case for that reason, because it can be fixed by providing the proper notification. The second problem is the tone of this filing, which is not appropriate for DRN. Editors at DRN should comment on content, not contributors, and should be aware that DRN does not discuss conduct. Reports that are largely or mostly about conduct, such as complaints of vandalism, will not be considered. An editor who thinks that there is a conflict of interest should report it at the conflict of interest noticeboard. An editor who thinks that another editor's edits are vandalism should report them at the vandalism noticeboard. An editor who is merely Yelling Vandalism in order to "win" a content dispute should be aware that the claim of vandalism is a personal attack. So I am closing this dispute statement because it is too long on conduct claims and not mainly about article content. If the filing editor wants action taken for a conflict of interest, they should report it at WP:COIN. Vandalism should be reported to a conduct forum. On the other hand, if the filing editor wants to discuss changes to the article, or changes that the other editor is making to the article that they do not want, they may file a new DRN request, describing an issue of article content. Either file at a conduct forum, or file a report that is not about conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The new article in question (just recently promoted from draft) is being rewritten (arguably vandalized), by another editor who does not want to compromise about changes. It is also my belief that this editor has a conflict of interest and appears to have a long time affiliation and is a contributor to a competing programming language (Rust). It is my opinion that the intent is to disparage and denigrate the article of the V language or find a way to completely remove it. The editor involved in the conflict, appears to be extremely and heavily invested in pushing changes that will destroy the image of the competing language. I believe that I have shown a willingness to work with editors of different opinions in the past. Even in this situation, I'm willing to discuss the individual changes with the editor in conflict. I would like to first have an agreement, then make changes that reflect a compromise. However, the editor that I'm presently in conflict with, appears to be under the belief that they can disregard what the previous editors and reviewers have done and implement whatever changes that they like. I wish the article on V to be fairly evaluated on an equal standard to what other articles on programming languages are. If you are not familiar with the subject, please refer to the articles on the Zig, Crystal, or Red programming languages. These language are relatively new and are not developed or sponsored by large corporations. Please compare those articles to V, to understand what I mean. Additionally, the editor involved in the conflict appears to have been at Wikipedia for long time and may have numerous friends and associates to aid them. If an arbitrator is selected, would like the dispute resolution noticeboard to make sure it is someone completely impartial. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Before making radical rewrites or edit wars, make a list of the intended proposed changes, on the V talk page or our talk page. Per each change that is acceptable to both parties or designated arbitrator by the dispute resolution noticeboard, those will be the accepted changes on the article. Summary of dispute by Caleb StanfordPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
V (programming_language) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Cooman
Closed as declined by other editors. The other editors have not responded after three days after they were notified. Participation in DRN is voluntary. The filing editor should resume normal discussion on the article talk page. If the discussion is inconclusive, a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The neutrality of a recently created article. Two editors have questioned the neutrality of the article. The article involves the claim that an Aboriginal man named Cooman was one of the two people who confronted James Cook at Botany Bay in 1770. This claim is seriously disputed within the local Aboriginal community and by 2 experts in the field. I argue that the article is not written from a neutral POV because it presents one side of an exceptional and seriously contested assertion as fact. There are other issues with the article using the WP voice to present the views of one person involved in the dispute. The issue has been thorougly discussed but it looks like no compromise is likely on the key issue of NPOV. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Cooman#Neutral_Point_of_View Talk:Cooman#Neutrality_dispute Talk:Cooman#Name How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarification of relevant policy. An honest opinion on whether you think any of those involved are being unreasonable. A third party looking at the dispute with fresh eyes might be able to suggest a compromise or areas of common ground we can work on. Summary of dispute by PoketamaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Michael BednarekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cooman discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|