Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 251
This is an archive of past discussions on 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 245 | ← | Archive 249 | Archive 250 | Archive 251 |
Tuner (radio)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as being resolved by an RFC. Discussion can continue in the RFC discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Are WP:GALLERY and other images appropriate to illustrate the progress and development of tuners over time and their varying design considerations? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Tuner_(radio)#Image_gallery How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Users are arguing policy that doesn't exist or doesn't apply. I am trying to improve the article and these editors are throwing weight around without a sane rational basis to remove good faith improvements. Summary of dispute by KvngWP:GALLERY is clear that these are generally undesirable. Andrevan claims that the gallery documents the development of tuners but I don't immediately get that from the pictures or captions. If we're going to try to tell that story, we need improvements but I'm not convinced telling this story is important and may introduce an WP:UNDUE issue. There is already a Commons link where these images can be perused by readers. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Fountains_of_Bryn_MawrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Andrevan seems to be unaware of consensus guidelines on image use in articles,in this case adding 10 redundant[1] images of radio tuner face-plates, some scattered across unrelated sections. Trying to explan that Wikipedia is not a repository of images and that they should have MOS:PERTINENCE, be placed in context and against descriptive text, and be readable at thumbnail resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the part of Andrevan [2] [3] and reverts of any attempted improvement [4]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC) Tuner (radio) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Tuner)I am ready to try to act as the moderator for discussion of this content dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion, as of any dispute resolution procedure, is to improve the article (not to address the conduct of the editors). Please state that you agree to follow the rules for the discussion. It appears that the main issue, or maybe the only issue, has to do with images. It seems that one editor wants to include a large number of images in the article, and two other editors disagree with the inclusion of the images. The editors have already referred to the image use policy and in particular the policy on image galleries, but please read it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC) My first question is: Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article? My second question is: Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue? My third and fourth questions are about the images. Third, are all of the images in Commons? If not, what is their copyright and fair use status? Fourth, will each editor please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images? Address all of your answers to the moderator (me) and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Tuner)
~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC) Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article? Yes, Images unreadable at thumb MOS:IMAGEQUALITY --:> showing the subject too small... so Yamaha T-420, Onkyo T-4000 are too small - unreadable at thumb. Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue? No Are all of the images in Commons? Yes Please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images? WP:IMAGEPOL - WP:IG is pretty clear:
Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC) 1. Yes, the issue is about the images.
2. No, there is no other dispute other than the value of the images and image gallery and whether it is telling a useful story or illustrating something useful.
3. All images are on Commons and there are no issues with copyright.
4. Basically my argument hinges on such text in WP:GALLERY as
First statement by moderator (Tuner)It appears that one editor wants to include a gallery of images of radio tuners, and two other editors disagree. I am asking each editor to provide a revised statement of why they think that the image gallery either is consistent with the policy on images or is not consistent with it. If there is no agreement, we will develop a Request for Comments on the yes-no question of whether to include the gallery in the article. So, in preparing your statement, develop a statement that will be included in the RFC for the attention of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Are there any other content issues? First statements by editors (Tuner)The image gallery is consistent with both the image use policy as well as the examples of many other articles which have detailed image galleries, much larger and taking up more space and more redundant than the modest image gallery on Tuner (radio). I originally created this article back in 2004 and it was in a very poor state until I started working on it again recently. I already have a detailed narrative in the works in the article with references, and a big part of that has to do with the early growth of the FM radio and TV and American consumer electronics industry after World War II, followed by the growth of electronics development and production primarily in Japan and the production of cheap, miniaturized transistors and the growth of digital electronics. That is illustrated by the photos which show the evolution of the tuner from the days of the vacuum tube to solid state circuit boards. You do not need to be an expert to understand what a tube is and what a board is and see the little capacitors and filters and stuff and then see how the analog knobs give way to digital, tape deck looking, black, plastic hi-fi. If the specific images look a bit bad to someone, I am open to swapping out the images for better-looking images, but there's absolutely no policy basis that categorically rules out having image galleries. I do not at all see how it is a constructive or consensus building activity to just come along and remove image galleries when many many other pages have them. The images I have selected for the page are a small sampling of the many images on Commons for this topic, the ones that have decent lighting and a well-framed subject that clearly shows what it is without bad framing, reflections or weird shadows or darkness. I've chosen a chronology from 1960 to 1990, and several American units, a German unit, and a Japanese unit, one of each showing the guts, ie tube, board, or another kind of board. In some cases it's the front and back of the same thing to show a different angle and give a better idea of what you're looking at. All of this to me is reasonable to try to show what a tuner is, which shows you something you don't get from the text. You wouldn't know that a vacuum tube is a weird round thingy like a tin can or that a ceramic filter is a tiny diode that solders onto a small lead, but you do actually kind of get that from the images. You wouldn't necessarily understand the idea of turning a dial to manipulate a radio if you never saw one in real life. There are kids on this website who were born in 2005 let's say, who have never seen one of these. I think they improve the article and improve Wikipedia. Andre🚐 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Per WP:IG Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery of images must explain (something). Images should not be redundant such as a 1960 dial with knobs, a 1977 dial with knobs and a 1978 dial with knobs. Parts on a circuit board are by their very nature hidden in clutter, ambiguous, and the subject is too small to be read at thumb. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments are not a good reason to keep something. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC) I am on vacation this week and won't participate again until next week. Hopefully you can keep this moving based on what I've already said. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Tuner)I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Tuner (radio)/Gallery RFC. I am asking the proponent of including the image gallery to put the proposed image gallery in the draft RFC. It will go live after we review and discuss it. Do the editors want to include statements for and against the inclusion of the image gallery in the RFC, or are they satisfied to make their cases in the Discussion section when the RFC is live? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Tuner)I'm back. My primary objection is that the gallery doesn't tell the story it is purported to tell. Deletion is not the only option. Improving the gallery may address my objection. I'm willing to help make improvements to see where that goes. In the spirit of WP:ATD I think we should give due consideration to non-deletion alternatives. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Tuner)I would like to include two concise statements, one in support of an image gallery, and one opposed to an image gallery for this article. Since one of the editors who opposes the image gallery is on break, probably the other one can compose the statement. After that is done, the RFC can be activated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Tuner)Fourth statement by moderator (Tuner)I am ready to activate the RFC if there is still an impasse. However, one of the editors who had previously disagreed with the addition of the image gallery says that they are willing to discuss changes to the image gallery or compromise. So I will ask each of the editors who has disagreed with the image gallery what changes, if any, they think should be made. I will also ask the editor who has proposed the image gallery whether they have any ideas for changes to the gallery. We will keep the RFC in draft to activate if it becomes necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Tuner)I'd be happy to compromise by advancing more constructive changes to the image gallery such as swapping out individual images if some are less liked for whatever reason, reducing the number or otherwise making adjustments. I'm also still working on, though I haven't been in the last few days, expanding the article narrative to explain more of the detail around the history of consumer electronics and stereo equipment with an eye to radio tuners specifically and the evolution of vintage hi-fi vis globalization, miniaturization, and the evolution of user interfaces, or collaborate on how we might do that. Andre🚐 04:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:V -->All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. WP:IG --> Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. We are not reinventing the wheel here, policy and consensus guidelines already cover this. It looks to me that there is not much more to "history of tuners" that can't be told in 3 or 4 images. The gallery as it stands now has no context and is primary sourced. There would have to be secondary sources backing up an intro and making these comparisons, in photographs you can read. None of that exists now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Tuner)Do we have continued disagreement about whether to include the image gallery? Please take another look at the RFC, because if we still have disagreement, I will activate the RFC and close this discussion. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Tuner)Sixth statement by moderator (Tuner)I have activated the RFC, which will run for thirty days. If there are no other issues, I will close this thread as being resolved by the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Tuner)
|
Egusi
Closed. There has not been discussion on the article's talk page regarding this dispute. Please discuss the edits on the talk page. If the other editor doesn't discuss, please read Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The page has been vandalized by: TochukwuEzi. The user provides no evidence for their edits, while editing the references of other editors. I decided not to restore the page to avoid edit warring. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The page be temporarily locked from vandalism. Summary of dispute by TochukwuEziPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Egusi discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Khwarazmian Empire
Closed for two reasons. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. If that were the only problem, I would remind them to notify the other editors. Second, this appears to be a dispute over the reliability of a source. Questions about the reliability of sources can be answered by volunteers who have experience with such issues at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Also, the unregistered editor is advised that the IP addresses assigned by Internet Service Providers often shift, which may complicate dispute resolution So the unregistered editor is advised to register an account. The question or questions about the reliability of sources should be asked at the reliable source noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2024 (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 narrated already-cited author's article in an WP:RSOPINION format. 3 others are sabotaging my edit even as far as accusing me of deliberately misunderstanding WP:RSP+"not reliable for author's opinion How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Khwarazmian Empire#On_the_reliability_of_Bunyadov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khwarazmian_Empire#CLEAN_DISCUSSION_FOR_THIRD_OPINION:_WP:RSOPINION,_HISTORY_AND_ETHNOLOGY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khwarazmian_Empire#Quoting_Buniyatov_and_WP:RSOPINION https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&oldid=1254698909#Active_disagreements (got rejected) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 1. Assess if my contribution fell under WP:RSOPINION. 2. Asses if the official website of a district governorship I cited is eligible as a corraboration to my edit (the two came together). 3. The book I quoted is already cited with-in the article but the adversaries even argue that "the source is not reliable for statemetns as to their author's opinion." - assess if a book is reliable or not for statements as to their author's opinion Summary of dispute by AirshipJungleman29Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RemsensePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HistoryofIranPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Khwarazmian Empire discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Genocide
Closed. The filing editor has submitted a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (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 issue concerns examples used in Genocide studies, History and Methods sections. (Primarily, removal of examples about Americas Bogazicili (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 1) Help with resolving potential WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issues 2) Help with representing the sources in the best possible way Summary of dispute by BuidhePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To be honest, I have not found DR helpful before. And in this case, I'm not sure what the dispute is, so I will have a hard time summarizing it. Does BG still want to reinstate all of his edits? If so, I already explained on the talk page why I don't think they are beneficial to the encyclopedia, so I'm not sure it would be helpful to rehash. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Genocide discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Genocide)I am ready to act as the moderator if two (or more) editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to those rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. (The purpose of any dispute resolution procedure is to improve the encyclopedia.) Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. It is not necessary at this point to explain why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged; we will discuss that later. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Genocide)It appears that the filing editor has posted at length. Another editor has posted two brief statements that they don't think that discussion will be effective. I will be closing this case as sort-of-declined, and not going anywhere. The editors should resume discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Genocide. The filing editor may edit the article while discussing their edits. If the edits are reverted, the next step is more discussion, either at the article talk page or at a WikiProject talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Genocide)Zeroth statements by editors (Genocide)I agree to moderated discussion subject to those rules.
These issues are mainly the difference in this diff. These are: To show WP:DUE for those examples, I provided quotes from the introduction chapters in WP:Secondary sources, such as The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2 and in Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. I also gave examples from genocide entries in WP:Tertiary sources, such as The Social Science Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, and Encyclopedia of Global Justice. I tried to accommodate wording concerns (for example: [6][7]). But we've been unable to resolve the issues. Overall, my main concern is examples mentioning Americas or indigenous people are being removed in the article. This concern is amplified by this journal article: Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia Bogazicili (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Genocide)It appears that the filing editor has posted at length. Another editor has posted two brief statements that they don't think that discussion will be effective. I will be closing this case as declined, and not going anywhere. The editors should resume discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Genocide. The filing editor may edit the article while discussing their edits. If the edits are reverted, the next step is more discussion, either at the article talk page or at a WikiProject talk page. The filing editor says that they have moved to other dispute resolution methods. I would like to know what other methods. This dispute will be closed shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Genocide)
|
Double-slit experiment
Closed as apparently abandoned. After the suggestion was made by the moderator that an RFC be used, there has been no subsequent discussion. Continue or resume discussion on the talk page. If an RFC is used, please be sure that it is neutrally worded. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2024 (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 think a diagram in the article should be deleted. Three other editors agree, one does not. I tried applying the suggested compromise by Chetvorno but it was reverted. I asked for input on the Physics wiki project. I don't know what to do next. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Double-slit_experiment#Photon_animation_is_not_correct. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Do you have any suggestions? Summary of dispute by XOR'easterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by QuondumPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ChetvornoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by TercerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It seems Johnjbarton is no longer interested in DR. If that's not the case I can summarize the dispute here. Tercer (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Double-slit experiment discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Double-slit experiment)On the one hand, there is probably not much to be gained by moderated discussion. On the other hand, the way to resolve this content issue appears to be a Request for Comments. I am ready to work with one or more editors to develop a neutrally worded RFC on the diagram in question. If anyone wants assistance with a Request for Comments, please read DRN Rule A, only because it summarizes the need for civility. I don't think that anyone has been uncivil, but a reminder about civility is often useful. Do any editors want to work on an RFC about a questionable illustration? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Double-slit experiment)
|
Wolf
Closed due to inaction. It appears that the dispute does not permit compromise, but the parties do not want assistance in formulating an RFC. Discuss at the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2024 (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 attempted to add a sentence on the Wolf Wikipedia page citing a report from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of one wolf eating 181 Payette's Short-Winged Grasshoppers. Unfortunately, I encountered unexpected resistance, despite there having been no such disputes regarding this report in the citing literature. I was told to bring it up to the talk page, which I did. I was told to justify my edit, which I tried to do, citing precedent for similar dietary detail in other Wikipedia articles. An anonymous user concurred that it seemed worthy of inclusion, but I did not receive a rebuttal. After waiting for several weeks, I believed the support from a third party and lack of response otherwise might justify reverting the reversion. However, my edit was reverted again. Upon requesting reasons why this occurred on the talk page, I was told there was no context for the fact I was trying to add to the article. However, the citation provides this context, and upon mentioning this I received no response. After some days, I tried again to add this fact to the article, but after a few more days it was reverted again, with no new arguments given. As far as I can tell, this edit does not violate Wikipedia guidelines, so I am at a loss. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I was told to open a topic about this on the Wolf talk page, so I acquiesced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolf#Including_a_note_about_a_paper_reporting_a_lone_wolf_that_ate_181_grasshoppers When objections were raised, I made good faith attempts to address them in this topic. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully, I would like to be able to add this observation to the article, as it is such a surprising report. It neatly demonstrates the dietary breadth mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded this edit. Failing that, I would like robust reasons why this should be excluded. I hope moderation can encourage either the addition of this fact or meaningful dialogue about why it shouldn't be added. Summary of dispute by Wolverine_XIPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
One wolf eating 181 grasshoppers is hardly surprising. Why this user keeps on pushing this useless fact is beyond me. I'd like to hear what others have to say. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MoxyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Odd random trivia about ONE wolf WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Moxy🍁 11:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by board volunteer (NotAGenious)I am willing to act as a meditator in this dispute. I have no connection to the article or any of the users involved. DRN is a voluntary process, and further meditation is on hold pending a summary to be provided by User:Wolverine XI. Should he not respond by next Monday, the dispute will be moderated between only you two. In the meantime, please confirm in the respective sections below that you agree on having a moderated dispute and will follow WP:DRNA. NotAGenious (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by Nagging Prawn (agreement on a moderated dispute and the ground rules)I agree to a moderated dispute and accept the ground rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagging Prawn (talk • contribs) 03:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by Moxy (agreement on a moderated dispute and the ground rules)First statement by volunteer (Wolf)I will, at least temporarily, act as the moderator. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not explain why you want that, at this time. I am only asking "What?", because "Why?" can come later. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Wolf)I would like to add an example of wolves' dietary breadth; namely a wolf consuming 181 grasshoppers. The two other editors involved here do not want this added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagging Prawn (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC) Wolf discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Second statement by volunteer (Wolf)It appears that one editor wants to include a mention of a wolf who was found to have eaten 181 grasshoppers, and other editors think that its inclusion is unnecessary. I am asking the editor who wants to insert the paragraph to provide the exact text that they want to insert. I am also asking each editor to make a concise statement, reflecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as to why they want to include or not include the paragraph. Are there any other content issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Wolf)This is the sentence I wish to include: One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a single sitting.[1] As to why I wish to include it, I believe it provides an interesting example of the dietary breadth wolves exhibit, as mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded it: "When such foods are insufficient, they prey on lizards, snakes, frogs, and large insects when available." It was said that this is hardly unsurprising, but this does not comport with the response in the edit summary upon reversion for the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf&diff=1244332979&oldid=1244306429 Additionally, while it is true Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, this does not necessarily count as indiscriminate, as precedent for single occurrence observations of prey exists on other featured articles, such as the [bald eagle] article. Nagging Prawn (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Third statement by volunteer (Wolf)There doesn't seem to be any room for compromise. Either the mention of the wolf eating the 181 grasshoppers can be included in the article (as it is included in the article about Melanoplus payettei), or it can be excluded. Since the local consensus appears to be two-to-one against inclusion, the two options are to omit the statement, or to have a Request for Comments. That is up to the filing editor. If they want an RFC, they should provide the exact text that they want to include, with source, so that it can be included in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Wolf)Duly noted. Thank you for taking the time to participate everyone! Nagging Prawn (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC) References
|
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed by agreement between filing party and moderator. This may be a question about the reliability of a source or an error in a source. Resume discussion at the article talk page. The filing party may open a new case request in the future, if there has been extensive inconclusive discussion at the article talk page, and if there is a specific content issue about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This is my first extensive talking through a semi-controversial dispute, so forgive me if I wasn't perfect. So, for the past month, I've had a bit of a problem with the articles wording. I edited it, it was reverted, discussion ensued. Eventually, we settled on a consensus for about a month from Mid-September to October of 2024. It was on a dispute between findings from source C and this source J, which cites source P. This is reflected in Special:Permalink/1245461692 on September 13th. In the meantime, I decided to post some information I'd found for readers to see. I was not warned about this behavior at the time, but I feel it necessary, because I don't censor my own thoughts and biases. On October 17th, I noticed that there were text-source integrity issues with source C, first documented at Special:Permalink/1251618081. As a result I felt the need to rephrase certain parts of the article to better reflect the newly found reliability problems. As I said, I'm inexperienced, but I feel there might be a content problem here, especially after seeing the referencing problems in Special:Permalink/1251618081, and the use of sources by the review that have been rejected. Anyways, I hope working through DRN will help us improve dispute resolution in the future, and highlight areas where I, and we, need improvement. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarifying policy, and also, what to do about this article, with regards to how it treats its references, linked here (archived) Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
(involved; apologies if I am not getting the formatting right) The fundamental problem here is that Randomstaplers is engaging in what another editor succinctly labeled Yet, Randomstaplers is insisting on this edit. It contains the text That previous edit also has at least some other problems. It states about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that Comment by Bon courageThe proposed edit(s) seem to be a long and elaborate way of not simply saying with the best sources say (specifically, a Cochrane Review). I think we should just summarize the best sources faithfully. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Face masks)The filing editor has not listed and notified the other editors. One of the other editors has replied, and so does not need to be notified, but should be listed. Other editors who were involved in the discussion on the article talk page must be listed and notified. The filing editor and the editor who has replied should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on COVID controversies, and should acknowledge that they have read those rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Face masks)When I said that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor, I meant that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor. I meant that they should be listed, regardless of whether they had responded without being notified, and regardless of whether they had declined to participate in moderated discussion. The filing editor should still list all of the other editors. I said that the editors should acknowledge that they have read the ArbCom decision that COVID is a contentious topic. I did not ask for an 800-word history, which I do not need. Since two editors have posted, we can continue, although the listing of other editors is still required, and is the responsibility of the filing editor. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to make a concise statement about what part of the article they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not important to explain why you want to change the article or leave it the same. We can discuss that later. Just tell what in the article is the subject of the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Face masks)I'll ignore the previous issues that got consensus last month. The issue right now is that this contribution, which I implemented following noticing issues with Source C. It was reverted by Crossroads, and then we agreed to implement in stages. The first paragraph got added. The second paragraph then got reverted by Bon
Late addition: It just occurred to me: I'd like to also discuss the addition of {{unbalanced}} to the relevant section. I posited the analogy of life jackets earlier (with regards to regulation), since for some reason, no paper has decided to cite the relevant regulation they are following for their RCT (this drove me nuts, given how much I have written on respirators). Although we can't conduct original research, I feel we do have an obligation to let viewers know what research needs to be conducted to improve the article, because RCTs... also show that a lot of scientists read Wikipedia first. See [9] (linked paper) and particularly this paper (which is cited by the former). I apologize for not making it clear earlier that I had read these papers earlier with regards to my copyright work, which inevitably influenced my judgement on my talk page.⸺(Random)staplers 20:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Conyo14 So I thought about this a little more, and it's occurred to me why our OR perspectives seem to differ. I wrote the part on the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, which was caused by voluntary respirator regulations. So... nobody in the disaster wore respirators. There is also the 2001 DOL study, plus papers like this one from 2024 and this one from 2011, and this one exploring the reasons why. [11], which I mentioned on the talk page, is one of the few RCTs that actually takes usage into account, but they don't cite 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(a) when it comes to why they excluded people with facial hair. Like, these connections seem obvious to me as someone who has written about respirators a lot. But obviously, I can't (and haven't) mention (or mentioned) all of this directly in the article, because this is an article about the pandemic, and I can't draw conclusions about the paper from 2024, because it just presents data. Sidenote: A lot more papers have been published about this pandemic than any other, so it is possible that someone with my POV has written something. On the other hand, a lot of the AIHA's perspective is very much locked behind paywalls.⸺(Random)staplers 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Face masks)Maybe you didn't notice that DRN Rule A says that there should not be any back-and-forth discussion between the editors. However, because there has been extended back-and-forth discussion, and it has been civil, we don't need that restriction, so I am changing to DRN Rule B, and I will allow the discussion to continue. We have one editor who wasn't listed. I am adding their name. Continue discussion. If you (the participating editors) conclude that discussion is not making any progress, I will try to refocus it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Face masks)@Crossroads @Conyo14 - Crossroads, your continuous comments on WP:OR annoyed me, so after more searching, yes, policy design RCT is indeed a missing POV - from Policy Design for COVID-19:
The following is more... anecdotal, but I feel it's worth mentioning:
Isn't that weird? The POV slant of over-focusing on 1910.134 doesn't seem unheard of. I would be careful, Crossroads, about mentioning "OR" over and over and over again without considering the situations in Wikipedia:These are not original research, or the fact people might not have the forethought of looking things up at the moment if they are busy arguing their point. I would also suggest asking for sources respectfully before making a claim about an editor.⸺(Random)staplers 09:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Proposal I'm going to borrow an idea from copypatrol - creating a '/Temp' page, normally used to rewrite copyright violations. This time, the page will be used to rewrite the lead and the Efficacy sections, as these are in dispute. This will be done outside (main), since the last attempt to rewrite in (main) failed due to reverting. Everyone (including those not listed on DRN) will be allowed to edit the /Temp page, subject to the following: Set up Since I was the one to do the initial edit, I will set this up, subject to these steps: 1. Cleaning up the talk page - All current threads will be archived. We'll be starting fresh to avoid biasing new editors. 2. I will set up the temp page with my proposed changes, along with the section headings Lead, Efficacy, and Pinned section. The pinned section will be a place where editors can briefly state policy concerns, or links to articles or odd verification failures that might change a readers point of view, but would break the flow of the article. This will be linked to by {{Unbalanced}} in the Efficacy section, so the issue is made visible to readers with minimal editorializing. If there are any concerns about editor statements, discuss on the talk page.
3. {{in use|two weeks}} will be placed in the Efficacy section on (main), and a comment will be added to the lead warning editors that the lead will be overwritten, and to go to the relevant /Temp page instead. 4. I will link to this DRN thread, and will copy first and second statements from the DRN thread (not involving this proposal) and collapse them. (Doing it this way should prevent any more controversial statements being made while the page is being set up, while providing accessible but optional context.) The proposal will be collapsed separately, and titled "/Temp editing rules." Once that's done, people can begin editing for two weeks (around November 17th or later). The deadline can also be extended if necessary if /Temp is still not stale. Editing Because the /Temp page is already obscured from the public, reverting other users is discouraged. Please let it be and talk it out--contents will not be merged if not settled. If any unwanted reverting occurs, dispassionately point it out and ask to self-revert. Edits should be continually improved under Wikipedia:Bold-refine. Once set up is done, copy-pasting will be discouraged, due to potential copyvio problems, plus the fact that verifying sources is important. Merging to (main) Some time after the two week mark, around (November 17th or later), if /Temp is stable, I will decide if /Temp, as it stands from the last edit that is not mine is stable enough to merge into (main). If it is, I will do the merging with the required attribution. If I miss an attribution, a minor dummy edit can be inserted after the fact. Pinned section with editor statements will be added to the talk page, and pinned. All sections will be then be closed two weeks later, around December 1st or later. In the event no one happens to edit the '/Temp' page, or if it is not clear to me that '/Temp' is stable, or if there are any other doubts, I will ask @Robert McClennan, or someone else, to do the merging.
If you understand point 4, and there are no questions or statements to the contrary, the process will begin sometime on or after November 3rd (UTC). Once the process in Set up has been implemented, we can close this DRN request. @Crossroads @Conyo14 @Bon courage⸺(Random)staplers 00:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Face masks)Discussion has stalled. We will go back to DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Answer questions by the moderator. Address your answers to the moderator and to the community. Comment on content, not contributors. I will repeat the starting question. State concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave alone, or what you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Face masks)I'd like to implement contribution, with some changes (not shown in this diff):
Summary of what will need to be added, in addition to contribution:
Clarify second bullet point in additions section.⸺(Random)staplers 19:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Late addition: The "for example" phrasing might problematic, and why people might think it is OR, despite not being OR (thread mode consolidation was my focus at the time). That will be removed in a future revision.⸺(Random)staplers 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Late(r) possible expansion: I had a look through Retraction Watch and found this paper with an expression of concern. News coverage on Australian ABC. In case there are concerns about non-RCT studies being perfectly done or something, this could serve as an interesting counterpoint in the "efficacy" section. This non-RCT was conducted in Australia. Coupled with this paper on regulation above, this could be the impetus of a more extensive rewrite, which would negate the need for having to include {{unbalanced}}.⸺(Random)staplers 06:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC) A late connection... I cited [21] (the one on the talk page, wondering about the lack of 1910.134) and wondered where I got it from... turns out, it's linked in the CIDRAP news article.⸺(Random)staplers 07:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Another late (and hopefully the last) expansion: The NIOSH TB guide mentioned alternative respirators, like Powered air-purifying respirators instead of disposables for use in healthcare. Maybe we shouldn't be over-focusing on disposables. Here's some 2020-and-later era reviews I found for a revision future revision of the diff above: PAPRs: [22] [23] Elastomerics: [24] Compared to disposables: (rapid) Regulation: [25] ⸺(Random)staplers 05:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Fourth statement by editors (Face mask)I've said what I can. Unfortunately, the content at this point is borderline OR and should not proceed. It feels like an essay or a research paper based on the content, which is not what Wikipedia is. I do know the language can be altered a bit better. Regardless of where the language falls, I shall accept the outcome based on the moderator's judgment. Conyo14 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Face masks)There are concerns being expressed that one editor wants to add content that other editors think is original research. Wikipedia has a noticeboard to try to answer questions about original research, which is the Original Research Noticeboard. My experience has been that questions posted there very seldom get answered. If any editor is willing to try posting a query there, we can put this discussion on hold while seeing if there is an answer. Alternatively, there is a more active Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, which is also a reasonable place to ask about original research. I suggest that one of the editors identify what the content is that is questioned, and that one of the editors post an inquiry either at the Original Research Noticeboard or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. If we try ORN with no results, someone can then raise the issue that that noticeboard is inactive, but that isn't the issue here. The article is. Will someone please summarize what the original research issue is? Either someone can post an inquiry to a noticeboard, or I will post an inquiry to a noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Face masks)Statements by CrossroadsI'm honestly not sure what Randomstaplers exactly wants to add or change at this point. Their proposal seems to keep changing, and I find their comments hard to follow. They above, under "Third statements", seemingly want to add an "unbalanced" tag indefinitely to the article, as well as a news article as though it is a MEDRS. These are clearly inappropriate. But then they seemingly walk some of this back subsequently, so who knows at this point. All I ask is that they cease (if not already) trying to add any news articles and any attempts to personally deconstruct the Cochrane review (via tag or in text), and represent sources accurately. Crossroads -talk- 22:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Randomstaplers, WP:Inaccuracy is an essay and Statement by RandomstaplersI still don't know what the original research issue is. The edits, if they are problematic, could be sorted speedily if I was given actual, pointed, quoted criticism, instead of this hand-waving-point-to-policy. Then I could have something to work from when I'm trying to created a revised edit. As for the way I edit, and the constant changing of what I want to change in the article... look: information does not magically come all at once, especially since this is a volunteer effort. If the criticism is that the way I present this information is problematic... well, in the future, please just say it. We can always strike things out and self-collapse irrelevant information.
Sixth statement by moderator (Face masks)I think that the best way to resolve the question of original research requires that I suspend the rule against editing the article. The filing editor should insert the content that they want to add to the article, or at least one of the statements that they want to add. Rather than reverting it, the other editor should then ask the original research noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard for an opinion on whether it is original research. If the question is asked at ORN, be ready not to get an answer, and then to go to NPOVN. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Face masks)Statement by RandomstaplersAlright, I'll try to think of another way to rewrite both sections this weekend, incorporating the new sources I just discovered. By the way, just as a sanity check for myself, @Robert McClenon, how much of the article should be edited at once? Should I do one paragraph at a time, or... should I rewrite a section in my sandbox and wait for statements first before incorporating? ⸺(Random)staplers 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (Face masks)The size of the edit that I am recommending should be the edit that you want to refer to a noticeboard. Include no more in the edit than you think that the volunteers at the noticeboard can understand and respond to. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Face masks)Statement by CrossroadsSince whatever they want to say about the Cochrane review has been the biggest sticking point, I'd suggest they focus only on whatever they want to propose that is specifically about that at this point (if anything) rather than try to rewrite multiple entire sections again. Adding/changing a bunch of stuff all together, even including stuff that is unlikely to be controversial, is confusing and creates intractable discussions. I'd rather do an RfC than another noticeboard discussion so we get a final consensus and closure. I don't want to discuss this issue perpetually. Crossroads -talk- 23:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Statement by RandomstaplersSince I cited Special:PermanentLink/1251723011 as the edit the initial edit I intended to make, and since most of the changes in the section "Efficacy", I'll limit myself to that section. (The changes to the lead can come later). I've made some changes since that diff- the differences can be seen in my sandbox at Basically, I made some changes to up the neutrality of the language used, correct some errors in the refs after checking them, rearranging paragraphs that were not properly arranged earlier, since AFAIK, that is not the main concern regarding this edit (and I haven't yet received a pointed criticism with regards to solving article problems per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode.) Due to the Source C's (Cochrane's) controversy by (not cited or added in this diff) refs in source J and source P, it is placed in it's own line.
I've also added the relevant quote to the main ref criticizing Source C. I think that just about covers it.⸺(Random)staplers 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Bon courageSo Randomstaplers has started editing the article again, in a problematic way. So I assume the DRN is over. There seems to be an attempt to hide the substantive changes (misrepresenting the Cochrane source) behind some gnome work afterwards. This is getting very tedious. I have reverted. I still haven't seen any concise statement of what the problem is that Staplers is trying to fix. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Face masks)User:Randomstaplers - Stop edit-warring. My instructions about the original research were sloppy. I did not mean that you should obvert any reverted edits, but that you should ask about them at a noticeboard. Do not lecture User:Bon courage about addressing the moderator. They erased the notice of this DRN. They didn't agree to the rules, and really are an interrupter, but that does not mean that you can take on my role of lecturing them. User:Bon courage - Do you want to take part in this moderated discussion that you previously declined by erasing the notice? I see that the article has been restored to its status quo. We will go back to DRN Rule D. Leave the article alone. My experiment in allowing editing was a failure. User:Randomstaplers - If there is one paragraph or section that you want to add to the article, ask for an opinion as to whether it is original research at a noticeboard. Do not add it and then request permission. User:Randomstaplers - The next time that I ask a question and ask for a concise answer, I want a concise answer, and will fail this discussion if the answer is as long as the previous answers have been. Propose one addition, and ask at a noticeboard whether it is original research. Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Face masks)Statement by RandomstaplersOkay, let's start with this addition. This will be added at the end of source C, the Cochrane source <ref>:
Ninth statement by moderator (Face masks)User:Bon courage - I apologize. I see that the template is on your talk page, and that User:Randomstaplers said that you deleted it. Maybe they had two views of your talk page and added it to one view, and then didn't see it on the other view because the previous version was cached. User:Randomstaplers - Are you questioning the reliability of a source? What exactly do you want to add to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (Face masks)Statement by Randomstaplers
I've been trying to think about the best way to address this, per WP:inaccuracy - from inserting text (not great, but again, keeping all these consensus in mind is not ideal), to {{unbalanced}}, to what has been done in this edit, a small footnote in the references. This last approach I think is the best at the moment. By the way, I looked through whether peer reviewers skipping references is a thing - it turns out it is. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/09/09/an-isolated-incident-should-reviewers-check-references/ scratches the surface, but there are more substantial papers. Ultimately, it's an annoying Wikipedia:Verifiability problem. When combined with the sources above, well, that shows you the reasons for my initial reaction on the talk page. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (Face masks)It appears that User:Randomstaplers is questioning the reliability of sources rather than proposing specific changes to the article. If any editor wants to make any changes to the article that can be stated concisely, please state what you want to change. If any editor is questioning the reliability of a source, the Reliable Source Noticeboard is thataway. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Tenth statements by editors (Face masks)Statement by Randomstaplers@Robert McClenon Clarification: Should I move on from this addition to something else?
Break request I think this matter might be better handled in a future village pump. In the meantime, I need to take a mental break for reasons I described on Robert's talk page. If no one wants to continue this DRN, I'll give you the go ahead to close it. And I'll go ahead and archive the remaining talk pages following closure. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
|
List of musicals filmed live on stage
Closed as probably being dealt with elsewhere, and anyway not being discussed here. There have been no comments here in three days, and a case request was opened at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Discuss on the article talk page or at RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User EncreViolette and I seem to be stuck (much discussed on the talk page) on what constitute reliable sources and notable sources, as well as what items (and their relevant sources) should be included or not on this kind of a list page. I think it's time for some outside and better understanding of WP guidelines--speaking for myself here. Encre has stated
Talk:List of musicals filmed live on stage
Can you straightforwardly explain to us all the relevant WP policy or guidelines that can allow us next steps to move forward? Summary of dispute by EncreViolettePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
A list of verifiably professionally filmed stage musicals is not too broad. If the list is limited to works that already have English Wikipedia pages, it becomes redundant. There are far too many non-English works that don't have pages even if they are notable. Also, by list rules, this seems like a list that should be open to all professional, major, verifiable entries even if they aren't notable enough for pages. If the list is too dominated by one or another category, dividing it is a better solution than cutting information that could be useful to someone (either someone casually looking for what to watch next, or someone trying to get a picture of the industry worldwide). (Only a small portion of the entries removed were from Takarazuka, but they do film everything, and have for decades. People interested in the topic might want to know that.) EncreViolette (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DeputyBeagleThis dispute has been going on for quite a while now. It's really about how broad we keep the criteria for inclusion. IMO it's far too broad right now to be genuinely useful as a page. Either the scope of the page should be limited, or we should agree on some notability criteria. Especially given the large amount of Takarazuka Revue productions that are part of the dispute, who as far as I can tell seem to film large swathes of their output List of musicals filmed live on stage discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
- @Robert McClenon: I'm confused why this was closed. Part of the reason you mention was that
there have been no comments here in three days
, but isn't an administrator supposed to leave the next comments? None has yet fully answered the questions being asked and the dispute potentially remains. I appreciate you pointing to the policy on reliable sources but part of the dispute is on how that policy's being interpreted. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this works. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Ryan T._Anderson
Closed due to lack of recent discussion. There has been no discussion on the article talk page in more than four months, so that the discussion on the article talk page is stale. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In debate over large content edits made to the page of Ryan T. Anderson. I am promoting this version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_T._Anderson&oldid=1230369906 Ttarta promotes this version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_T._Anderson&oldid=1244307532 See the line-by-line critique of his edit that I wrote here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_T._Anderson#Line-By-Line_Critique_of_Edit_Promoted_by_Ttarta Ttarta has threatened my account with action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marspe1#Warnings I am newish to Wikipedia and would appreciate assistance from experienced editors. I have tried to maintain the article in ideological neutrality and I sincerely believe that I have followed Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my abilities. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? We have engaged on the talk page with more heat than light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_T._Anderson#Line-By-Line_Critique_of_Edit_Promoted_by_Ttarta. I have added my concerns in detail to the edit he promotes. He claims that I am engaged in mere edit warring, am implementing a biased version of the article, and am in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. I am unsure of the validity of or deny the validity of each of these claims. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Calling balls and strikes on policy violations whether by myself or Ttarta, providing advice for future engagement and editing on Wikipedia whether or not I am indeed in violation, recommendations for how we can achieve greater consensus on the article content, and any other action that will ultimately place accurate information, free from loaded language and innuendo, on the text of Ryan's page. Summary of dispute by TtartaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ryan T._Anderson discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka
Closed as declined by the other editors. The other editors were notified of this thread four days ago but have not responded. DRN is voluntary, and they appear to be declining to take part. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, an RFC may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (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 Few users are changing the political party of former SriLankan PM Dinesh Gunawardene to his initial minor political party. but when he was appointed he was the leader of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna which has won the 2020 Sri Lankan general election. Reliable sources suggest that he is a member of then ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna but these users insists that his initial political party MEP as his party as the PM. However for the next PM Harini Amarasuriya the major political coalition she has contested is given as her party in the next entry. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Specifying a consistent policy considering reliable sources to name the political party of the prime minister in this page Summary of dispute by IDB.SPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Obi2canibePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Not WlwtnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Isles of_Scilly
Closed as not discussed in the proper place, and as possibly pending in another forum. The filing party has also started an RFC on the question. The RFC is not neutrally worded and is being contested, but DRN does not open a case while there is an RFC open. Also, the discussion on the article talk page only began less than 12 hours ago. Previous discussion on user talk pages was useful but not sufficient to be a prerequisite for DRN. Decide whether to use a neutrally worded RFC, or DRN. If you are using a neutrally worded RFC, DRN will defer to the RFC. If you want to conduct moderated discussion at DRN, close the non-neutral RFC. In the meantime, discuss at the article talk page. Do not edit-war/ Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (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 Two editors are adding unsourced material to claim that the Isles of Scilly are subtropical. I have provided well sourced material to demonstrate the Isles of Scilly are not subtropical, which is being reverted. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uness232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Isles_of_Scilly#Climate_section_(2019) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Assess the sourced material vs the unsourced claims. Summary of dispute by RandomIntriguePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Uness232Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Isles of_Scilly discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Berbers
Closed as declined by other editor. The other editor has deleted the notice of this case, which is a way of declining to participate, and participation is voluntary. Continue discussion at the article talk page. If the other party does not discuss, see the discussion failure essay. However, the other editor is restating their position, which meets the minimum requirement of discussion. If there is an impasse, consider a Request for Comments. A Request for Comments should be neutrally worded. You may ask here for assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC (even though that is not the primary purpose of this noticeboard) or may ask at the Teahouse. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview A long-standing unresolved issue regarding including Arabic terms in an ethnic group article, particularly involving M.Bitton and me, has persisted on the page. Despite ongoing discussions, the argument has never reached a consensus. Recently, I re-added Neo-Tifinagh to the Berbers' Wikipedia page, as it is an ethnic script. However, M.Bitton moved the Arabic term to the first section of the right sidebar, claiming this aligns with the "COMMONNAME" guideline. They also deleted the endonym term that had been present in the article for months, alleging it was added by a "Berberist." Here are the relevant edits for those reference: How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have opened a discussion page. but it didn't seem to have become fruitful [[31]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The dispute resolution board can facilitate a neutral consensus on the inclusion and placement of Tamazight names in the ethnic article, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia guidelines while preventing the discussion from veering into personal conflicts. Summary of dispute by M.BittonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Berbers discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Willow Smith
Closed as premature. I have changed the topic to Willow Smith, the article in question, but the discussion at Talk:Willow Smith has been inadequate. Continue discussion at Talk:Willow Smith. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, consider asking for assistance at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2024 (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 Hi, the user 162 etc. has come onto my user talk page to discuss recent edits I made to pages involving Willow Smith (I'm not sure why they came onto my user talk page rather than the Willow Smith talk page) regarding a source on Smith's pronouns. We have thus far been unable to come up with a compromise on the verifiability of the source, or on what to do with the article with regards to reverting it back to its original state or to changing it to something that meets in the middle. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussion primarily occurred at User_talk:The-demon-next-door. Also briefly mentioned at Talk:Willow_Smith after the discussion was taken up. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A third-party opinion on whether this source counts as verifiable and whether it should be included in the article (and if so, how) would be helpful. Summary of dispute by 162 etc.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
See Talk:Willow Smith. Two words on an Insta bio is not sufficient verification. 162 etc. (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC) User talk:The-demon-next-door discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf
Closed as pending in another forum. One of the editors has filed a complaint at WP:ANI against the other editor. DRN does not consider any dispute that is also pending in another content forum or in a conduct forum. Discuss conduct at WP:ANI. After the WP:ANI discussion is closed, survivors should resume discussing content at the article talk page, Talk:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2024 (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 SheriffIsInTown added a large paragraph on the May 9 riots section under the History section of PTI, talking about one court order by a judge who implicated PTI's founder Imran Khan in starting the riots. I believe it is not WP:DUE, as it is lengthy and is not a significant event in PTI's history and is backed up by only one source. I have suggested either removing it entirely or heavily trimming it down. Sheriff has argued that it is to "balance" one of PTI's claims of a false flag operation in May 9, though the thing he is trying to balance is one sentence, while he is adding a heavyweight paragraph to "balance" it which is clearly an imbalance. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf#May 9 riots ATC order How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The dispute has reached a deadlock and SheriffIsInTown is arguing that removing it is simply 'censorship', so it would request an implementation/enforcement of WP:DUE, as well as a resolution, with an action taken with consensus to fix this lengthy, imbalanced and not due paragraph. Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTownPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In August, they added a one-sided and unbalanced section titled “Crackdown against PTI,” which lacked neutrality. My aim was to add balance and neutrality to that section as a whole, not just one sentence. In my view, if the section includes details of the crackdown, it should also address the reasons behind it. They seem to want to keep only the details of the crackdown while excluding the context, which I believe is an attempt to censor information. I will oppose the removal of any reliably sourced content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Pakistan)I am ready to act as moderator if the editors are requesting moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and agree that you recognize that this is a contentious topic because the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan is applicable to Pakistani politics. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Pakistan)I agree to Rule D and recognize that this is a contentious topic because of the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. While the moderator was waiting for their response, instead of replying here, they very conveniently went to ANI against me here, I want to draw moderator's attention to that to see if it invalidates this DRN under rule D. That being said, I would not like to concede anything at this point as I already has given enough concessions during the discussion at the article talk. I see this demand regarding the removal of the presumably negative content a tantamount to an attempt to censor information. The decision to remove content will set a wrong precedent and will encourage supporters of political parties to remove negative information at will. This will have far reaching consequences. The article legnth at this point is a little over 6,000 readable prose words and there is still a room for article to safely grow up to 10,000 words. The article can further expand and contain more information. As the saying goes, no information is too much information. The content is fully supported by sources and goes into detail about the activities of the founder of party and other members which led to the crackdown. It is essential to mention that riots were pre-planned in case of arrest, and prior instructions for riots were there by the founder. The reference to Sri Lamka's unrest, the quote "real jihad for real freedom", and criminal conspiracy to attack military installations are necessary parts for the reader to understand the gravity of the situation which led to the crackdown. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC) References
|
Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Timeline_of_UFOs
Closed as pending in another forum. See the notice at the top of this noticeboard that says: We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.DRN does not accept a dispute about a deletion discussion, because the community discusses and makes its decision in the AFD. Conducting two discussions about the same article would cause confusion and complicate the decision-making process. Continue discussion at the deletion discussion. The filing editor can request the participation of additional editors in the AFD by posting neutrally worded notices of the AFD in appropriate WikiProjects, such as WikiProject Spaceflight. The filing editor may ask questions about deletion discussions at the Teahouse. Continue discussion at the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2024 (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 tried to construct a timeline article primarily on the modern investigations of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), previously called unidentified flying objects (UFOs), because of the recent developments in the field that has led it gradually outside the shadow of controversies. Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article with such a timeline, but has articles for ufo conspiracies and hoaxes. The article was automatically assigned to the fringe topic discussion board and got into some unwelcoming discussion. The topic of uap studies should also be assigned to at least to the astronomy/aviation noticeboard for others to adjudicate on the content. I feel very much being misjudged by the numerous editors frequenting the fringe community, who are really focusing on the pre-historic (e.g. pre-2000s) aspect of the topic. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I tried to reason with the editors in discussion and continuously update the timeline article to steer away from fringe community topics. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By bringing in editors from other noticeboards (astronomy, aviation, physics, psychology, neuroscience, etc) that have stakes on this interdisciplinary topic. Given the developments in the past couple of years, the topic on UFOs/UAPs shouldn't be handled solely by the group of anti-fringe activists in the fringe community. Wikipedia:Articles for_deletion/Timeline_of_UFOs discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
First Chechen War
Closed due to failure to notify the other editor. A note stated, three days ago, that the filing editor needed to notify the other editor. This has not been done. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If there is a question about the reliability of a source, post the question at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a process of discussing one source, the question is being decided whether to include it in the article or not, at the moment the dispute has reached an impasse, so we need a third party's opinion on this, please. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:First Chechen War#Grodnensky's book How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To propose a solution that will satisfy both sides, or to resolve the right side, since the dispute has reached an impasse Summary of dispute by lask1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
First Chechen War discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor
Closed as possibly answered and as not being discussed further. The comments at the Reliable Source Noticeboard are that Gabor's reports of the sexual involvement with Ataturk may be reported in the article on Gabor. There were questions about reliability and about due weight about including that account in the article on Ataturk. Continue discussion at the article talk pages, Talk:Zsa Zsa Gabor and Talk:Kemal Ataturk. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It's never been resolved. Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 and 1991 autobiographies. Some additional references:
A few editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. I brought this to the NPOV noticeboard and was stonewalled. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? In the past the dispute has gone unresolved due to mass unwillingness to even participate in discussion. In order for a firm consensus to finally be reached, many editors need to engage. Summary of dispute by RemsensePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two parties agree, and if at least two parties disagree about article content. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. I see two related but different questions about policies and guidelines that apply to the articles. The first is whether Gabor's autobiography is a reliable source for her account of the sexual encounter with Ataturk. That question can be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. This discussion will be paused if necessary to wait for an answer from RSN. The second is whether a mention of the reported affair is undue weight in the article about Ataturk. An editor who had not originally been listed has made a statement, and so has been added to the list of parties to this dispute. Are there any questions about policies, or about how this discussion may be conducted? If not, my questions are whether the editors agree to the ground rules, and what changes to the article are in controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)First statement by moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)It appears that there is agreement that Gabor's account stating that she had a sexual involvement with Ataturk can be included in the article on Gabor. It also appears that there is agreement that that statement should be attributed to Gabor, not in Wikivoice. Is that correct? It appears that there is disagreement about whether Gabor's account of the affair should be mentioned at all in the article on Ataturk, both because Gabor's account should not be considered a reliable source except about herself, and because it would be undue weight. Is that correct? If so, I will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)Second statement by moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)I have posted questions about the reliability of Gabor's account as a source about an affair between Gabor and Ataturk at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_Kemal_Ataturk and discuss there. We will resume discussion here after the volunteers at RSN have provided their opinions. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)Third statement by moderator (Ataturk and Gabor)There have been several answers at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, that are consistent that Gabor is not a reliable source except as to the fact that she says she had a sexual encounter with Ataturk. Some of the editors have said that whether the report should be included in the biography of Ataturk is not a question of reliability but of due weight. I would like each of the editors to comment on what they think should be included in the biography of Gabor, and what if anything they think should be included in the biography of Ataturk. Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Ataturk and Gabor)
|
References
- ^ " Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
Genocides in history (before World War I)
Closed as unresolved. One user wants to remove all mention of the Great Irish Famine. Another possibility would be to trim the four paragraphs to one paragraph. Discussion can take place on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2024 (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 editor Cdjp1 has the Irish Famine listed as an example of a pre-WWI 'genocide' despite the fact that this is a fringe pov among academics. My position is that this topic belongs on the main Irish Famine article, and in fact there's already a detailed section there that covers the controversy quite well. Instead of participating in a dialogue on talk, this editor keeps expanding the section with obscure sources and in a way that seems to bolster the fringe view. It's been about 2 weeks since there's been any feedback and it's now clear the involved editors don't want to engage with this issue. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[36]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Ideally I'd like to come to an agreement on whether or not a genocide theory that's on the academic fringe and is more political than historical belongs in a list of historical genocides. I don't think so. Summary of dispute by The BannerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This discussion became a conflict due to the harsh words from Jonathan f1, including doubting that the added historians are worthwhile. My opinion is the same: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away. As I have no idea why I am involved in this dispute, as it is mainly a conflict between Cdjp1 and Jonathan f1, no further comment will be forthcoming from me. The Banner talk 03:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GawaonI'm not knowledgeable enough in this area, so I'll stand by. Gawaon (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I'll also notice, for what it's worth, that Jonathan f1 is permanently blocked from editing in the article namespace. Opening a dispute resolution case here might therefore be considered a case of bad faith. Gawaon (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Cdjp1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Firstly I would like to clarify that despite the insinuation, the addition of the great famine pre-dates my work on the article. As I detailed in the talk page, as part of my wider work updating the page with some recent notable publications, I was planning to update the section with recent literature. Jonathan highlighted some of the minor authors that have existed in the section for quite a while, while seeming to ignore the additional citations from respected scholars in the field of genocide studies where their assessment/commentary is published in RS. As per the criteria for the series of articles on genocides in history, they detail the varying frameworks used in defining and understanding genocides, and include various instances that are discussed within the literature. On the note of it being "politically motivated" descriptor, this argument is touched on in the section referencing Mcveigh, who highlights that at the time of his writing there had been near zero analysis of Irish history using analytical tools of genocide studies, and how the response of of previous historians who claimed the description of events in Irish history as "genocide" were responding specifically to popular claims by political groups. As has started to be shown, there has been more recent literature that analysis events in Irish history as potential cases of genocide. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
As to moving information to the great famine article, despite Jonathan's characterisation, it is based on Jonathan's suggestion that the information be moved there that it has now been moved. --Cdjp1 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Genocides in history (before World War I) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
After seeing the comments left by The Banner, who's quite concerned with my tone, and Gawaon, who brings up a minor penalty I received that's got nothing to do with this article, I think it's best these two not participate in the discussion. This should be about sources and rules, not personal critiques of me. The dispute was primarily between myself and Cdjp1 anyway.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Genocide)I am ready to act as moderator for discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. See Be Specific at DRN. State in detail what you want to change about what is said about the opinions of historians on whether the Irish famine is considered to be genocide. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Jonathan f1 and Cdjp1)I agree to all the rules, and I'll try to make this brief. The section in question contains a number of scholars who lack relevant backgrounds, and should be removed on the grounds that the theory's widely rejected by historians of Britain and Ireland. Neysa King was removed from the main Irish Famine article after myself and another editor realized she wasn't a professional academic (see talk). King nevertheless acknowledges that: '"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."'[37] Mark McGowan similarly notes: ""The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."[38] Cormac O Grada: "While no academic historian continues to take the claim of genocide seriously, the issue of blame remains controversial." (p. 4 [39]). Liam Kennedy: "“In the case of the Great Famine no reputable historian believes that the British state intended the destruction of the Irish people.."[40][41] In addition to King (who is still cited in this article), Cdjp1 cited a couple of genocide scholars (who study famines in Africa), two lawyers with no academic background in Irish history (as noted in the article on the Great Famine, but not in this article), and the lonely voice of Robbie McVeigh. Cdjp1 needs to demonstrate that this view is held by more than a tiny minority of scholars with questionable backgrounds, otherwise we are dealing with WP:Fringe. Just to reiterate my position again: Equating the Irish Famine with genocide is a fringe pov, should not be listed as an example of a pre-WWI genocide, and the recent additions Cdjp1 made to the Great Famine article in the genocide section (including linking it to the pre-WW1 genocides article) are undue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Once again, my first point is to clarify that a claim that I added something to an article is plainly false. I did not add a link from the article on the Great Famine to the Genocides in history article. Scholars cited who argue it is a genocide in the article are as follows:
As Mcveigh points out (as is explained in the entry), while statements such as McGowan's on "virtually all" are correct, many of the arguments and historians have not engaged with genocide studies, it's tools, etc., and have nearly always denounced the assessment of potential genocide, due in part to the fact they were responding to activists and not scholars. As previously stated, First statement by possible moderator (Genocide)The article currently has four paragraphs on opinions as to whether the Great Irish Famine was genocide. The article clearly states that most scholars do not consider the famine to have been genocide, and a few scholars do consider it to be genocide. Please state concisely what, if anything, you want to change in the article. Please also state whether your opinion, if you want to change what is in the article, has to do with due weight, with the reliability of a source, or some other policy or guideline. Do not reply to the other editor. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Genocide)First statement by editor Jonathan f1The Great Famine section in the pre-WW1 genocides article should be completely removed on the grounds that most scholars don't regard it a genocide, and the few dissenting voices don't have any expertise in Irish or British history -so we're dealing with both due weight and reliability of a source. The list of sources supporting the genocide position is padded with two law professors, scholars with specializations in Africa and other continents, and one person who's not a professional academic. There's nothing stopping historians of Ireland and Britain from publishing in genocide studies journals, and in fact Mark McGowan did just that but only to refute the genocide theory. This theory is mainly political, not scholarly, and this controversy's already covered in the Great Irish Famine article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Genocide)The filing editor has been blocked from article space for four years. It appears that their comments in article talk space and in project space are being ignored by other editors, which is probably what can be expected. My advice to the filing editor is either to request to be unblocked in article space, or to develop a history of productive edits in article talk space and project space to support an unblock request, or to expect to continue to be ignored. The article currently has four paragraphs on opinions on the Great Irish Famine and opinions that the famine was genocide. One editor wants to remove the discussion of the Irish famine completely. The other editors have not commented. If there is to be further discussion, I would suggest that it be focused on trimming the discussion of the Irish famine to one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) If there are no further comments within about 36 hours, I will close this discussion as unresolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Second statement by Jonathan f1 (Genocide)Correct, and I've been meaning to make an unblock request but I only sporadically engage with Wikipedia these days and it hasn't been a priority. Editors who ignore the issues I raise in talk do so mainly for personal reasons (as we've seen here -my 'tone' is not to their liking) which says more about them than the quality of my contributions. Editors are not supposed to be using article space blocks to shoot down constructive editing suggestions in talk, but this is their go-to method of avoiding any engagement with content they may not want changed. The "opinions" that the Irish Famine was "genocide" come mainly from people who are not subject-matter experts. Genocide studies isn't an academic department -it's a program, and the scholars who participate in it have tenure in other departments and use their expertise to study genocides related to their specialization. There isn't a single Irish or British historian of distinction who believes the Irish Famine was a genocide, so there isn't any reason to list a fake genocide among a list of actual genocides, unless you believe that any accusation of genocide, however naive, belongs in the list (and if not, why's the Irish case so exceptional?). The Irish Famine article already covers this controversy and makes it clear that the consensus pov is against this position. But I do agree it's time to shut this discussion down. As expected, it's going nowhere.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Genocide)
|
Jani Lauzon
Closed as resolved, with thanks to User:CaptainEek and User:Pigsonthewing. If there is any further discussion, it can take place at Talk:Jani Lauzon. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2024 (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 am writing to request a dispute resolution regarding an ongoing issue with the editing of Jani Lauzon's Wikipedia page. The issue centers around the claim that Lauzon is Métis, a statement that is both factually incorrect and damaging. After thorough research and analysis of credible sources, it is clear that Jani Lauzon is not Métis, and she herself has admitted to this fact. I am requesting that the term “Métis” be removed from her Wikipedia page to accurately reflect this reality. However, my attempts to engage in a constructive discussion with *acesevenfire* have been met with resistance, bias, and harmful behaviors that I believe warrant intervention. The factual evidence proving that Jani Lauzon is not Métis nor Indigenous. Wikipedia’s core policies, particularly those on verifiability and neutrality, are being asked of in this resolution 1. Factual Evidence that Jani Lauzon is Not Métis or Indigenous According to the article published in The Walrus (2024), Lauzon's claim to Indigenous ancestry has been thoroughly questioned. It is established that Lauzon's familial background does not trace to any recognized Métis or Indigenous community. The article explicitly states that her assertion of Indigenous identity is not supported by reliable genealogical or community-based evidence(sovereign indigenous) Lauzon herself has admitted that her previous claims to being Métis were incorrect, and she has clarified that those statements were made when she was uncertain of her ancestry. This admission was noted in an interview with The Walrusand is also reflected in the correction on her own website, where she no longer identifies as Métis. These corrections, alongside genealogical records and the findings of reputable journalists, directly contradict the claim that Lauzon is Métis. Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) clearly states that only reliable, publish How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have asked open discussion in the process to getting edit made, and was told to open a talk page regarding so followed that instruction. The editor in this talk has not be open to my edit requests so far. This is the step I am taking now, (in part because some of the editors language has been racially harmful and i no longer feel safe proceeding in the talk without another measure in place) and because the change request complies with wiki standards and i don’t know how else to go about it. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I’m not very educated in wikis policies and processes, I have made a valid wiki request in compliance with wikis policies, I would like the edit be made. or support in navigating the procedure in ensuring that it can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.162.209 (talk • contribs) Summary of dispute by AceSevenFivePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have two main concerns with chronicling the accusations of Lauzon being a "Pretendian" as absolute fact: 1. The only reporting on it that I've seen derives from a single article in The Walrus, which didn't provide the records that supposedly back the claim that she isn't Métis. I've been informed that they're available on Ancestry (and I assume that's where The Walrus got them from), but I'm not sure if that would be a reliable source, and it seems improper to record things based on evidence not presented in our citations. 2. "Mixed settler and Indigenous heritage" is fundamentally what being Métis is. This self-identification is not meaningfully distinct from self-identifying as Métis; I suspect it was changed on her website in an attempt to mitigate the criticism. (I place no judgment on whether this claim is accurate; the Walrus article didn't evaluate her mother's heritage, only her father's, and the Walrus article didn't claim that she's lying outright about being Indigenous at all.) I also note that someone on Reddit attempted to invoke WP:MEATPUPPET to get supporters for their side: [43]. I don't believe it was the IP user that's counterparty here, but I think it's necessary to note for a full account of what's occurred here. I think the article as it currently stands (describing her as "Canadian" in the lede and leaving the Métis-related categories intact) is a fair splitting of the difference until we have more information from Lauzon. She's stated on her website that she intends to speak in greater detail "soon", so we can revisit once that happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceSevenFive (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Jani Lauzon discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Jani Lauzon)I thank User:CaptainEek and User:Pigsonthewing for mediating in advance. If there are no responses, or if the only responses are agreement, I will close this case in about 48 hours. If either editor will wants moderated discussion, please read WP:DRN Rule D, and the policy on biographies of living persons and the ArbCom case on editing biographies of living persons. Then please state that you agree to the rules and you want moderated discussion. If so, please also state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If you agree with the resolution, you don't need to post anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Jani Lauzon)
|