This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
North East_Delhi_riots
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Unbiasedpov on 04:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC).
No other involved editors listed or notified on their talk pages. In addition, we do not make decisions on content. We moderate disputes only. So I encourage you to engage in further discussion on each of these issues on the article talk page. There is limited discussion of several of these issues. Finally, with an article as contested as this one, I'm not sure the DRN will be able to moderate three disputes with dozens of users involved. Splitting them up would be preferred.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Article suffers from several peculiar omission violating NPOV and ends up creating original research narrative due to following reasons:
1) Wrong Timeline:
Editors are insisting that timeline must start on Feb 23rd 2020. Incidents which happened in same locality with same issue & same set of actors,before Feb 23rd 2020 should not be included in the article. There is no explanation on Feb 23 2020. For example,Editor wrote "This is not the article relating to all riots, only the ones from 23 February." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_East_Delhi_riots#Extended-confirmed-prot Further POV-pushing will result in sanctions." In another example, Editor wrote "timeline section is designated for February 23-future".
2) Truncated Geography:
All wikipedia articles about india riots cover entire geographic area which comes under jurisdiction. Examples: "1992 Bombay riots" or "2002 Gujarat Riots" but "2020 New Delhi violence" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_Muslims_in_India#2020_New_Delhi_violence redirects to "North East Delhi riots"; Thus, Omitting major riots incidents which occurred in South delhi & other areas.All this riots have same underlying cause and same set of protesters, counter-protesters and organizer under same delhi commissioner jurisdiction. Even the persons arrested in south delhi riots are connected with north-east delhi protest/counter-protest and vice-verse.
1) Does the choice of smaller geography, arbitrary timeline, and name of article meet wikipedia standard of NPOV & "No original Research"?
2) Is the timeline meeting the dictionary meaning of word timeline?
3) Should "2020 Delhi Riots" redirect to "North East Delhi Riots"? If not either current-article should be expanded and renamed to "Delhi Violence" or a new article titled "Delhi Violence" should be created.
Summary of dispute by
The dispute is that the article should be renamed? If yes why and if not why so? Also there is dispute regarding the timeline, the riots did not start on 23 Feb there was just some scuffle, many believe that riots started as a result of hate speeches and violence by anti-caa protestors after the CAA was passed. Is it true? Should this be added? Also is it fair to present the article as the riots were only one sided and one side dominated over the other? Provide relevant sources.
North East_Delhi_riots discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cirta
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Gre regiment on 21:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC).
All editors must be notified on their talk page, a notice on the article talk page is not enough. However, instead of just asking you to notify them, I am closing this because 1) DRN does not make decisions on content disputes. We mediate disagreements- meaning we help editors compromise. Since you have stated neither of you intends to compromise, this really isn't the right place for you to request help. A more appropriate place would be doing a WP:RFC and let other editors interested in this topic and familiar with it weigh in until a consensus is reached.Nightenbelle (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Decide if the provided sources are enough to justify the addition of the Greek name of the city or not.
Both the users agree that they disagree, and they also both agree that they have nothing else to add.
It is a minor dispute and the discussion is on a civilized manner so there is no hurry to resolve it.
Summary of dispute by M.Bitton
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cirta discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. An RFC is being used to obtain rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is about whether sex between humans and animals without the use of force is legal in Germany.
In Germany, everything is legal unless it is explicitly prohibited. The only German prohibition concerning sex with animals says: "Es ist verboten, […] ein Tier für eigene sexuelle Handlungen zu nutzen oder für sexuelle Handlungen Dritter abzurichten oder zur Verfügung zu stellen und dadurch zu artwidrigem Verhalten zu zwingen." (§ 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG) Note: zwingen = to force.
Some Wikipedians claim that the restriction to forced behaviour within that law either does not apply to the whole sentence or that it is just meant as a comment to say that all sex would always be forced.
But we do not have to resort to such speculation, since the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has explained what the law means. The primary source is available for everyone to read [1][2]. Multiple secondary sources have also been provided [3][4][5][6]. According to the court, the criterion of force is an additional criterion that applies to the whole thing and limits the scope of the law. Furthermore, the court explained that force means physical force or something equivalent.
Two Wikipedians choose to ignore the court's explanation, one of them even claiming that the Federal Constitutional Court is not allowed to explain what a law means.
The above is what I see as the relevant part of the discussion.
Besides you will find talk about the Federal Constitutional Court having dismissed a complaint against the law. This is true, undisputed and not relevant for the discussed question. The dismissal is only interesting in so far as it was in context of this dismissal, that the court explained how the law is to be interpreted correctly.
You will also be presented newspaper articles reporting about said dismissal and/or writing that bestiality in Germany would stay illegal, failing to communicate the restriction to forced behaviour. Superficial coverage is unfortunate, but happens.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Ideally you could make Wikipedians agree on the correct legal situation in Germany as clarified by the constitutional court, i.e. bestiality only being illegal when forced.
The second best option would be to make at least Wikipedia report the correct situation again.
The worst still acceptable outcome would be to represent the legal situation as being disputed in Wikipedia and Wikipedia not being able to determine the correct situation.
Summary of dispute by Shiloh6555
I have edited my previous overview summary due to its length. I also wanted to cut to the chase as it were.
Firstly Ocolon incorrectly stated in his edit, that the 2013 law only prohibited "forced" sexual acts with animals. However the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture's own webpage proves otherwise. I refer all to section 6, Further amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. There it clearly states, "Zoophilia will likewise be banned on the grounds of animal welfare." Animal Welfare So the reliability of assertions clearly cannot just be taken at face value.
Ocolon also asserts that in 2015, The Federal constitutional court "clarified" the existing 2013 zoophilia law to read as, only "forced" sex was illegal. However what Ocolon, or I think or believes is irrelevant. Its up to each editor to provide reputable and unbiased news sources that back claims as to the legal status. We can't rely on "personal interpretation or opinions. "My interpretation is correct, and yours is wrong." Shouldn't be the basis on which to decide on what edit should prevail. All I can do is provide links to some well known, reputable news sources that back my particular assertion. Ocolon must do the same, and it'll be up to others. To come to a consensus on what edit should, at least for now, be accepted.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ocolon is using original research, interpreting the law (“to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species") their own way when all of the reports on the ruling, including the associated press, say that they threw out the challenge and kept bestiality illegal. There are no actual reports explicitly stating that “consensual bestiality” is now legal in Germany. --Delderd (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
in addition to the ap, here are other news reports saying Germany kept the ban on bestiality.
meanwhile, none of ocolon’s sources actually state that the courts ruled that “consensual bestiality” was legal. Delderd (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Even though Ocolon got Rosguill to reverse their decision because they said they had sources (though Rosguill also said they were still "skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation") WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS still applies here with "[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal. --Delderd (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Senegambianamestudy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As far as I can see, a big problem that has derailed the issue and led to reverts is that @Shiloh6555:, the OP of that tread does not seem to understand that we don't accept WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, We don't also go by what they think the sources should say but what reliable sources actually say. Another confusion as far as I can see is, they seem to think that Wikipedia is here to report the truth, rather than what verifiable and RS sources say. They also resulted to deleting source/content and reverting others which washn't helping. Nothing else to add, as I've stated everything I needed to in that tread. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Terrorist96
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't have much more to add than what I've mentioned on the talk page. Terrorist96 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Legality of bestiality by country or territory discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This discussion has been moved from the noticeboard talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No Ocolon, hasn't provided a single major news source that backs his claims. It's been over 4 years now, yet no news sources have reported anything about how the Federal constitutional court clarified the law to mean that only "forced" sex was prohibited. There isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence for Ocolon's clams. this. Personal interpretations isn't fact. His link to the "JaraForum" is a perfect example. The authors "opinion" is just that, his interpretation. "The Federal Constitutional Court further emphasized that the law does not generally prohibit sexual acts with animals" That statement. has no basis in fact, and is just the authors own interpretation. (Forum and blogs is not an acceptable source.) But regardless, Ocelon or other has to show some well known (major) news sources that support is claims that the 2013 law only prohibited "forced" sex, thus consensual sex was legal. Which would be the total opposite of the parliament's intent. The widely accepted, majority consensus is that the 2013 law banned outlawed sex with with animals.
The law was unsuccessfully challenged in 2015. Again no news sources in the last 4 years have reported that consensual beastily is still legal, as it was since 1969. So again, until Ocelon can provide a reputable news agency that backs his assertions. My edit, should continue to be the accepted one.
In closing, the courts own press release summed up the complaint and why it was rejected. "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals."
it doesn't get any clearer than that. So again, until Ocelon can provide a reputable news agency that backs his assertions. My edit, should continue to be the accepted one. Shiloh6555 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Shiloh6555, the TAZ is a major nation-wide distributed newspaper in Germany as you would know, if you had any connection to Germany. Furthermore, Legal Tribune Online is a major news source for legal matters. The link to JuraForum may not have the same weight as these major publications, but you make it sound as if this was some bulletin board post, which is incorrect. It is a news article and it itself names www.juragentur.de, a news agency specializing in legal matters, as their source. This is not just someone's opinion.
Please don't say there would not be "a single shred of verifiable evidence" for the claim. This makes you look insincere, since I have provided six sources [7][8][9][10][11][12] (actually, one of these was provided by yourself) and even quoted the relevant parts in five cases:
Jedoch greift der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
Jedoch greift der Tatbestand nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
Der Tatbestand greife jedoch nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
Die Richter klärten die Kläger also auf, dass gar nicht jeder Sex mit Tieren verboten ist, sondern nur der erzwungene.
Werden Tiere hingegen nicht zu den sexuellen Handlungen gezwungen, sondern ist davon auszugehen, dass sie sich der Situation jederzeit entziehen können, keine Schmerzen erleiden und nicht zu "artwidrigem Verhalten" genötigt werden, so ist Zoophilie laut Gesetzesformulierung nicht strafbar.
All of these say that the ban only applies to forced sex. This can't be mistaken by anyone who understands German, it is not a personal interpretation of mine.
You come back repeatedly to the point that the law in question has been challenged unsuccessfully. Please stop this – it is a needless distraction, because we all agree on this. I suspect that your focus on this one point clouds your judgement of the real question: what exactly is forbidden?
However, I do agree that the press release you speak of is indeed a relevant source! However, the relevant part for the Wikipedia article is not in the headline of the press release. The relevant part is where the court explains that:
Zwar greift § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG in die sexuelle Selbstbestimmung der Beschwerdeführer ein. Jedoch greift der Tatbestand nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.
The very same press release that you use to defend your opinion literally says that the ban only applies, if the animal is forced. I do not understand how you can miss this important fact except that you do not understand the language. How can you say that I have no credible source, if your own favorite source says exactly what I say? The very same press release also says this:
die Bedeutung etwa des Begriffs des „Zwingens“ ergibt sich im Zusammenhang des Gesetzes in Abgrenzung zu einem bloßen „Abverlangen“ und setzt ein Verhalten voraus, welches mit der Anwendung von körperlicher Gewalt vergleichbar ist.
explaining further what forcing means: something on par with physical force, but not just demanding the behaviour from the animal. This is not some weird interpretation of mine. Your own source literally says this.
---
Finally I want to point out something about the TAZ webpage I linked to in one of the sources ([13]), because it may give you an idea why other newspapers fail to report that the law only applies to forced behaviour. At the top, the TAZ webpage contains an article like you will find many, saying that a complaint against the bestiality law has been unsuccessful and that bestiality would stay prohibited. That's exactly the kind of article you use to back up your stance. Dozens of these articles appeared after the court rejected the appeal (again, there is no dispute about the rejection). However, the editors of the TAZ website added an official comment by their legal reporter below said article later on the same day. This comment includes the full text of the printed newspaper article they would publish on the following morning. This printed newspaper article reads quite differently. Where the online article's heading was "Sex mit Tieren bleibt verboten", the printed newspaper article of the following day received the heading "Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren". The online article's heading didn't mention the restriction of force yet, but the heading of the printed article from the following day includes it. Furthermore, the printed article is very explicit that the law really applies to forced sex only and what that means:
Jedenfalls sei es nur verboten, das Tier zu etwas zu "zwingen". Erforderlich sei dabei, so die Richter, körperliche Gewalt oder ähnliches. Die Richter klärten die Kläger also auf, dass gar nicht jeder Sex mit Tieren verboten ist, sondern nur der erzwungene.
Why do the quick TAZ online article and their printed article from the next day differ so much? Well, their online article is based on a short note by the biggest German news agency dpa (not my theory, the article says this). And their printed article was authored later by a reporter for legal matters Christian Rath (not my theory, the official comment says this) who had both the knowledge of the dpa release, but also the time to investigate the issue himself, read what the court actually wrote etc.
So from what's documented on the TAZ page (you can get around the pop-up by saying that you don't want to pay "GERADE NICHT") we learn that the newspaper changed its story within half a day from something that would seemingly back up your position to what I am saying.
This may give you an explanation why you will find many other newspaper articles that seemingly back up your stance. Like any note by the biggest German news agency dpa, this superficial note about an unseccessful complaint against the law spread world-wide. Based on it, any newspaper in the world that doesn't task a reporter to investigate the issue further itself like the TAZ did, ended up with an equally superficial article.
I hope this helps you understand why you will find many article that fail to mention that the ban is limited to forced sex. My position, however, is not based on claiming that a dpa note was superficial. You don't have to agree with this. My stance is based on reliable sources, secondary ones and in particular also the court's own publication, which you yourself brought into the discussion and which literally says what I say, and what you would also see if you read past the heading and would understand the language. – Ocolon (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
---
Shiloh6555, in your description of the dispute you ask about zoophiles' response. I do not think that they are an unbiased source. But there is actually a zoophiles' association in Germany and, since you asked, they also say about the legal situation in Germany in broken English that the Federal Constitutional Court
… made clear that anchored in the Animal Welfare Act prohibition grab only if the animal is forced to species-contrary behavior. Thus, the sex with animals is not in principle prohibited.
Here is one more source lawblog.de by the way, which says:
Vielmehr sind sexuelle Kontakte mit Tieren, bei denen kein Zwang ausgeübt wird, nach wie vor erlaubt. Und das auch dann, wenn die Handlung „artwidrig“ ist.
I suppose the blog format makes this source inacceptable according to Wikipedia's standard. Note, however, that the website has been awarded the most prestigous Grimme Online Award for its quality online journalism on legal matters [14]. – Ocolon (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Volunteer Note - Is a volunteer available to mediate this dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
It has been a while since I have volunteered at DRN, but I'm hoping to become more active again. I could take a crack at it if you'd like. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion of Dispute
Moderator's Opening Statement - I'll take this case and see if I can help the involved editors find a clear consensus. I'll start by addressing User:Ocolon's statements for how we could resolve it, because there seems to be a misunderstanding of DRN's purpose there. We can't "make Wikipedians" do anything; we don't set policy here any more than other project pages do. We can't "make Wikipedia" do anything either - Wikipedia evolves around the community's consensus, and that's what we're here to find. It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to represent the situation as "disputed" unless outside, independent sources also represent the situation as "disputed" (doing so would violate WP:NOR and WP:V). As I understand things, the locus of the dispute seems to be over the exact usage of "forced" in the legal context. Ocolon contends that "forced" only includes physical force and does not include training animals to willingly do things they normally would not. The others contend that that is not the case, and that "forced" does not only refer to physical force. The translation of the German word seems to imply physical force, but the preponderance of sources provided by User:Shiloh6555 seem to suggest otherwise. User:Ocolon, you have provided sources about the translation of the word - just so I can understand your position clearly, do you think that all of the sources Shiloh linked (including a fair number of reputable news sources) are also misinterpreting the law? If so, what sources do you have that say so? (Also, as a side note, it might be worth it for the involved editors to consider having a discussion at WP:RSN - while the reliability of the various sources doesn't seem to be a main point of contention here, it does seem to have come up in the talk page discussion at least a few times.) Sleddog116 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ocolon – Thanks for the clarification of what DRN can (not) do. As for your question, I actually think that some sources Shiloh6555 provided are correct and can be a basis for finding a consensus. Only some of his/her sources are misrepresenting the current situation. Here is what I can say about each of the eight sources provided by Shiloh6555 above:
BMEL – The source does not describe the current legal situation. It says: "Beyond this, further amendments to the Animal Welfare Act are planned: […] Zoophilia will likewise be banned on the grounds of animal welfare." So this is an announcement for future actions that have not been passed into law in such a general form as suggested here. The BMEL – a ministry, part of the executive branch – may suggest laws, but it is the legislative branch who passes them and can always change them before doing so; it is the judicial branch who interprets and applies them in verdicts.
AP News – This source uses somewhat ambiguous wording like sexual assault that could make it difficult for us to find a consensus. I understand sexual assault as a sexual act physically or similarly forced upon the victim. If that's what the source means, then the source is correct.
NY Times – The source translates the law fully in its third paragraph. However, the source is from 2013, predating the Federal Constitutional Court's 2015/2016 clarification of the law. Based on the 2015/2016 explanation (see sources 2. and 8.) that the NY Times authors could not possibly know in 2013, the source misinterpreted the law in its first paragraph.
BBC – The source is correct, but is even older and predates the final voting and enactment of the law. It says so itself.
The Guardian – Interesting article, but it also predates the law and says so itself. I think we should not use sources that are older than what they are supposed to prove.
The Local – The article does not represent the current situation correctly. Since the article also predates the voting on and enactment of the law and says so itself, it is no valid source for the current situation.
Case Summary BvR 1864 14 2015 at Harvard – This summary misrepresents the situation. The proof is in Havard's own full translation of the Federal Constitutional Court's writings of the case at [15] which states: "Although § 3 clause 1 Nr. 13 APL does infringe upon the sexual self-determination of the complainants, the offense in § 3 clause 1 Nr. 13 APL only applies if the animal is coerced to a species-inappropriate behavior" and "Per the reasoning of the law, the 'coercion' is possible through both force and other means […]. A reading of the law per § 3 APL and with respect to the aim of the law shows that these other means must refer to acts which are comparable to that of the coercion through physical force." The summary failed to incorporate this for our dispute essential detail. Maybe this detail was not relevant for what the summary was for.
Please let me know in case this did not answer your question sufficiently, so that I can add what's missing. – Ocolon (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
User:Ocolon, thank you for your clarification of your feelings towards the sources. You say that some of Shiloh's sources "are misrepresenting the current situation," but that is not for us on Wikipedia to decide. We can only report what the sources say - it's not our job to discern whether they are interpreting the current situation correctly. If the preponderance of sources are reporting the situation one particular way, then that is what we give the most weight to, especially when they are secondary sources like the Associated Press and the BBC. You say "I understand sexual assault as ..." and that falls under the same issue. What you understand it as is not important; what secondary sources report it as is important. I don't say that to be dismissive, but merely to frame clearly what WP:NOR means. Having said that, the currency of sources does indeed matter to at least some degree. User:Shiloh6555, are any of the sources you listed (and/or are there other sources you haven't listed) that are newer than 2013? Sleddog116 (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Shiloh6555 – The only issue here, is to determine the official legal status in Germany as of 2020. In this situation, all any editor can do.Is to provide citations to well known, reputable news reports to back up claims. It's abundantly clear that the 2013 law was a complete ban on sex with animals. The fact that Germany was in the process of amending the Animal Welfare Act, to include a complete prohibition on bestiality was widely reported. The Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture's own website clearly shows the amendment would make all sex with animals illegal.
The only documented challenge to the 2013 bestiality law, was in 2015. It came in the form of a "Constitutional complaint." By two people who asserted they were sexually attracted to animals, and that the 2013 law. Violated their constitutional right to sexual-self determination. However, that complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional court. "The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision." The courts own press release states, "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals.
Yet Ocolon asserts that in the above mentioned constitutional complaint. The court had "clarified" the law to read as only "forced" sexual acts was illegal. But this would've completely changed the original intent of the 2013 law. As the court would've said that consensual sex was still legal in Germany. But if this was in fact true, Surely it wouldn't made the headlines. So Ocolon should be to cite news sources that can confirm this assertion. Official statements from Parliament, the government and/or the court itself, that back Oclon's assertion. Using personal opinions and interpretations by other individuals posted on forum's or blog sites doesn't help us here.
Sleddog116 Yes, all the news sources I've cited regarding the 2015 court challenge are from 2016.
But because the law was unsuccessfully challenged in 2015. Its up to Ocolon to provide links to more recent developments (after 2015) that back up his/her claims.
Just for the record. Denmark also revised their bestiality law in 2015. "Finland and Romania are now the only EU countries where bestiality, or zoophilia, is legal." www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/ And "The only EU nations where bestiality remains legal are now Finland, Romania and Hungary. www.icenews.isShiloh6555 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Statement by Ocolon – The sources Shiloh6555 asks me to provide have been provided above (in the section that was copied from the talk page by Robert McClenon) in this discussion already. In particular, I have quoted the very same press release by the constitutional court which Shiloh6555 refers to and it says that the law only applies to forced sexual behaviour and that simply demanding sex from the animal is no such forced behaviour. In fact this limited scope of the law, which only forbids forced behaviour, is given by the court as a reason why it rejected the challenge against the law. I have also supplied multiple secondary sources from judicial publications and a nation-wide newspaper for this. The fact that Shiloh6555 does not understand German does not make these sources invalid. This is about a German law and the decision of the highest German court. German happens to be the language spoken in Germany and used for all official documents.
The moderator of this dispute resolution has disappeared ten days ago. No other moderator has volunteered. Some days ago the discussion had already been archived away without being closed. It has been taken back here from the archive after requests by me on the DRN talk page and someone else on the article talk page, but since then nothing happened again for days. Sadly, WP:DRN has not been helpful. Obviously, this request for dispute resolution has failed. – Ocolon (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Closing Statement by Volunteer
I am willing to re-open this dispute in order to formulate a Request for Comments. What exactly in the article is the subject of a content dispute? Please answer below. Do not refer to other editors, only to what the article should say. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
whether or not bestiality is legal in Germany. Delderd (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The dispute is over the current legal status of Bestiality in Germany. Shiloh6555 (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Reply to Closing Statement by Editors
There is no dispute about forced bestiality being illegal. The dispute is only about whether bestiality where the animal is not forced into the act is legal in Germany. In particular, the dispute is about whether the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany clarified in its rejection of a complaint against the animal protection law that only physically or similarly forced bestiality is prohibited.
The article should say that bestiality is legal in Germany unless it is forced, in which case it is fined with up to €25,000. – Ocolon (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The section in question should read that Bestiality was made illegal in 2013.
In 2013, Germany made all acts of bestiality illegal. This was widely reported by multiple independent news sources. The only documented challenge to the statute was in 2015, brought through a "constitutional complaint" lodged by two unnamed individuals. The complaint was dismissed by the German federal constitutional court. "The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision". This was also widely reported.
So, should the RFC ask whether the article should state (A) bestiality is illegal in Germany (B) bestiality is illegal in Germany only if it is forced ? Is that the issue? If so, I will write the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Statements by Editors
Yes, that's precisely the issue to be determined. Shiloh6555 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer option (B) to be reworded, Robert McClenon. The article is called Legality of bestiality by country or territory and the format is a table where legality is marked with an followed by a word such as legal, with a followed by a word such as illegal or by a followed by a word such as unknown. The way you worded the options, emphasis is put on illegality in both options. I would argue that if only forced bestiality is forbidden, the emphasis should be on bestiality being legal in the article, followed by the restriction that it is illegal when forced. As an analogy, consider an article about the legality of adultery among humans and a country such as Germany where adultery without the use of force is not legally prohibited. We would not write " illegal but only when it is rape" to describe the situation – we would much rather say " legal unless it is rape" or simply that it is legal. My suggestion for the wording of option (B) is that the article should state that in Germany bestiality is " legal when it is not forced and illegal when it is forced" for clarity or " legal unless it is forced" for brevity. I would prefer the former version for clarity. An example how this could look in practice is Germany in this version of the article, which also contains an array of sources for exactly this situation by the way. – Ocolon (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Third Closing Statement by Moderator
It will be a choice between a simple X for illegal, and User:Ocolon's proposal for Check if legal but X if forced.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Third Round if Any of Replies by Editors
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Coonass
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 74.80.25.21 on 23:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC).
Closed as improperly filed. The filing unregistered editor has failed to list other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here, listing and notifying the parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
An unknown editor from California keeps insisting that the ethnic slur “coonass” is not an offensive word. Actual Cajuns, like myself in S. Louisiana find it to be highly offensive, especially is used by someone from outside the Cajun community.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Coonass discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer comment The filing editor has not listed any other parties to this dispute. If no other parties are identified and notified, this discussion will need to be procedurally closed. Note that the role of this noticeboard is not to hand down judgments or to directly correct anything. Rather, our role is to facilitate discussions between editors in active dispute. As an added note, while there has been discussion of this issue in the past on the article's talk page, the most recent discussion has been quite minimal, and probably doesn't justify coming to DRN just yet. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since one side has declined to participate, I have opened an RfC to resolve the issue. signed, Rosguilltalk 05:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Hi, in the section of Arabic culture Template many Islamic categories are written Arabic (like Islamic philosophy to Arabic philosophy), I wanted them to be cleansed because of the achievement of other Muslim people like Persians, Turks, and Berber, Ascribed to the Arabs. But a user won't let me do that and even threatened to block me from Wikipedia. So I am requesting to edit this Wikipedia Impartially, thanks
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please remove the Islamic sections that were written "Arabic" wrong (like Islamic medicine to Arabic medicine) and those related to other ethnics like Avicennism and the Mamluks.
Summary of dispute by إيان
Hello, I first saw RedEye98 blanking Template:Arab culture, a redirect to Template:Arabic culture. Forgoing consensus at the talk page discussion I started, this user continued to revert or delete large sections of the template. I issued the warnings as RedEye98 repeatedly broke WP editing etiquette, and has a history of doing so according to his/her talk page. Input from other users at the template talk page would be welcome. إيان (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Arabic Culture discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer comment – It appears that the filing editor has failed to notify إيان about this discussion. Also, note that the purpose of this noticeboard is to facilitate discussion between disputing parties: we do not enforce arbitration or otherwise pass binding judgments. signed, Rosguilltalk 00:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
(Arabic Culture) Preliminary moderator comment
I'm willing to help moderate this case. However, before we begin, I want to make sure that the editors involved understand the purpose of DRN. RedEye98, إيان, please read WP:DRN Rule A, then indicate here whether you intend to participate in this process. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@Rosguill: Thank you for offering to moderate. I agree, though I don't have time for or interest in a long and protracted debate about this template. There are a lot of abstract and complicated assumptions about nationalism, ethnicity, and history involved, which need to be deconstructed with nuance. I think should be clear from the edit history and the talk page discussions that I was protecting the template from disruptive edits. إيان (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
إيان, that's fair. In that case, RedEye98, if you want to dispute this issue further, the appropriate path would be to start a request for comment on this issue to get other editors to weigh in. signed, Rosguilltalk 19:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2020 South_Carolina_Democratic_primary
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jiminyhcricket on 03:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC).
Closed. A Request for Comments has been started at the article talk page. A Request for Comments (RFC) takes precedence over moderated discussion at this noticeboard. Discussion can be at the article talk page. Report disruption of the RFC at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but don't disrupt the RFC. Express your position once in the RFC and let it run. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is over which candidates to include in each infobox for the individual pages for the 2020 United States presidential primary. A consensus was reached on the 2020 Nevada caucus page to only include candidates polling over 5% in the infobox, which included 6 of the 7 active candidates. Some editors want this consensus used as a policy for all future primary contests, while other editors want to include all 7 candidates. The dispute boils down to consistency and undue weight considerations versus fairness and impartiality, especially because the choice may influence voters.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Clarify Wikipedia rules and policies? Propose a new solution?
Summary of dispute by WittyRecluse
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Wikiditm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrX
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ZombieZombi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Smith0124
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by David O. Johnson
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Wigbate
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mirek2
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Serenity18
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Devonian Wombat
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DaveMoth
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2020 South_Carolina_Democratic_primary discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Moderated dispute resolution with twelve participants is seldom effective. It may resemble herding seven cats, three rabbits, a terrier, and a goat. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:28, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: How do I notify the other editors? There were 12 people discussing this on the talk page, is there a good way of choosing which ones to exclude? --Jiminyhcricket (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - You notify them by putting {{DRN-notice}} on their user talk pages. There isn't a good way of choosing which ones to exclude because there isn't a good way of choosing which ones to include, because moderated discussion with a large number of editors does not usually work well. Continuing the discussion on the article talk page is likely to be the simplest option. If the discussion on the article talk page is clearly stuck with multiple users, a Request for Comments may be effective. If two or three editors are doing most of the discussing and are at an impasse, that is when moderated discussion here is likely to be effective. At this point, I suggest continued discussion on the article talk page, but it is your call. You can try to request moderated discussion, but I am not optimistic about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Islam and domestic violence
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 58.111.223.65 on 03:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC).
Closed as evidently resolved. No objection to closing after three days. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
>> @Arsi786: and @Doug Weller: also noted on their respective Talk Pages as per {subst:ANI-notice}
There are many Wiki articles relating to the Quran which require improvement. I have detailed those issues, as I see them, along with my rectification proposals, here: Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles[16]
Appreciate Wiki Editor(s) oversight to resolve this issue
Summary of dispute by Arsi786
His using weak sources and mistranslated sources to make a point which I refuted and I have gave sources proving my claim in the talk page. Arsi786 (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Islam and domestic violence discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - This case has not been completely filed. It does not list or notify all of the participants. The filing party says that multiple articles need improvement. This noticeboard is for the improvement of one article at a time, not for campaigns to improve large numbers of articles. This case will be closed unless its filing is improved. It is not clear whether the filing party is seeking to work on one article at this time or on multiple articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The first sentence in the "Dispute overview" is provided by way of background. It is not part of this case. I apologize if the inclusion of the sentence has caused any confusion.
The only participant (Arsi786) is listed, in the above case, and has been notified of the dispute
This case involves only one article. 'Islam and domestic violence'. Koreangauteng (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The study into Social Problems in Europe, identified a number of hadiths that appear to support domestic violence. The Hadiths are listed in the Social Problems in Europe report: Hadith Bukhari (72:715), Hadith Muslim (4:2127) and Hadith Abu Dawud (2126). Each hadith refers to husbands striking wives. Arsi786 simply refers to other (Primary Source) Hadiths. Koreangauteng (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but the discussion doesn't appear to be about article content. The discussion should be about what to change in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
My proposal (for change in the current article) is to delete all Primary Source hadith in {quotes} and reinstate the deleted paragraph. ===Hadith interpretations that support domestic violence=== referring to the study into Social Problems in Europe . . . ." Koreangauteng (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I disagree the text are enough showing non muslim scholars and christian apologists like robert spencer is quite unfair the hadith are enough you used weak hadith (sayings of the prophet) and hadith that had been tampered with especially with their summary and translation I even directly gave you hadith's that disprove you this my suggestion is keep it how it is and the last hadith you gave is a weak hadith its deemed as unauthenic https://muflihun.com/abudawood/12/2126 unless you can find a sahih (authenic) or hasan (good chain but below sahih) and the one before that hadith has a difference of translation in this hadith its translated as a nudged https://sunnah.com/urn/221270 and it fits with aisha saying the prophet never struck a women which is also deemed sahih https://sunnah.com/abudawud/43/14. The first hadith you gave isnt something the prophet agreed with he never favoured the fact she was hit by her husband the prophet rather was silent on the matter but in this hadith the prophet forbade you hitting ones wife and insulting her https://sunnah.com/abudawud/12/99Arsi786 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
The subject of the article under discussion is Islam and domestic violence. A reliable source has identified instances of domestic violence within the Hadiths. There is RS commentary on those instances. Hadith interpretations that support domestic violence
I suggest the article should also have a section containing RS commentary on Hadiths which explicitly prohibit domestic violence - as currently exists within the article for the Quran (section 2.4). Hadith interpretations that do not support domestic violence. For instance, there is content which could be included in both 'Hadith interpretations that support DV' and 'Hadith interpretations that do not support DV' in 'Combating Spousal Violence in the Muslim Community of Canada: An Overview in the context of the Province of Ontario - page 29Koreangauteng (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Fine. Ignore my last sentence, "For instance, there is content which could be included in . . . " Koreangauteng (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
IMO, the content you are trying to include probably belongs in the Incidence among Muslims table: Poland, Europe or Canada. The earlier study you provide is about Domestic violence rather than the hadith and while the institute comments on them, it is not an authority on the hadith itself, which are already discussed in the Jurisprudence section by actual scholars. Moreover, why is the study marked CONFIDENTIAL? This seems pretty shady. Recommend that the table be expanded to include incidence of domestic violence reports from Europe and Canada from actual reliable sources, if necessary, but the sections be left as they are, as there is no need to create short duplicated sections.
- Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.37.166.23 (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The article being discussed is Islam and domestic violence. It is not just the various interpretations by various "actual scholars" or by various "authorit[ies] on the hadith itself". There is contemporary analysis and reports on how these hadiths are interpreted (and are being acted upon) by "non-scholars" / "non-authorities" in 2020. Various cites are available. This 2020 analysis is legitimate Hadith interpretations that support domestic violence content for Wikipedia. Koreangauteng (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
This too is already discussed in the incidence among Muslims section. Again, going by the edit you are trying to reinstate, the edit only comments on, it does not analyze or interpret the hadith, so to claim that it provides a "hadith interpretation" and putting it under such a section would be incorrect. Oddly enough the quote is not even from the domestic violence section but from the "paradox of human rights and democracy section". I am not against introducing a proper summary of the study (domestic violence or HR section). However, the study does not, on the whole, seem very reliable to me. Other than the whole CONFIDENTIAL issue, the study also cites wikipedia (see cite 296 and elsewhere) and YouTube (see cite 302) and other social media, news and other obscure websites deemed unreliable by wikipedia itself (for example answering Islam.com, thereligionofpeace.com, this is similar to Robert Spencer who is an agreed upon unreliable source). It seems to be a collection of fairly polemical essays compiled into a book form rather than a proper study. The quality of wikipedia would be degraded by giving 'hadith interpretations' by obscure Polish institutes. Citation is illegitimate and unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.37.166.23 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The two issues being resolved here are (1) the removal of the {quoted} Primary Source hadiths currently within the article and (2) the inclusion of a section possibly headed, Hadith interpretations that support domestic violence. As with all Wiki edits, content (say as cited from [21]) can be challenged. Koreangauteng (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
(1) The hadith are provided by way of background as is a Quran verse. Both are commented upon later in the jurisprudence section.
As far as (2) is concerned, it is important to establish the contents of the section as well as the counter section (WP:NPOV). One shouldn't just push a POV and expect others to pick up the slack as you told user Arsi786 to do. When the dispute was refered here it was only about the reinstatement of the deleted content by the above-critiqued source (review talkpage). Otherwise, no specific content recommendations have been given other than saying "there should be a section". The first section (as is currently proposed) is too brief, redundant and from an unreliable source. The other is empty. Besides why weren't these additional various potential citations given/ discussed on the talk page/ included in your own edits, before the dispute was started?182.179.130.253 (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
39.37.166.23 please read WP:TPYES. Please sign your work with the four tildes. Are 39.37.166.23 and 39.37.128.82 and 182.179.130.253 socks? (all active on this issue) Does not 39.37.128.82 agree with me on (1) refer [22] Re Primary Sources used as Secondary Sources. Can't have it both ways. (2) As with all Wiki edits, content (say as cited from [23]) can be challenged. Koreangauteng (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
The 39.37 is me but very frequent dynamic IP changes by wikipedia itself is not sockpuppeting. I have not misused any address by supporting my own arguments nor given the impression that I am a different editor. My very comments give the clear indication that I am engaged on this issue and the recent edits are not "engaged in the dispute" as clarified. I obviously did not have the foresight to know that this would become a dispute on this page. In total only one edit is dispute related, which you mentioned.
The comment about having it both ways is ironic since you were the one who introduced the lengthy hadith primary sources to begin with. You were even censured for it on the talkpage and (along with Robert Spencer edits), only then changed your position. Plus, read the edit in question carefully. Issue was made that categorization of hadith and bold text where "interpretations that support X" constitutes original research,
a position which I retiriate and other editors supported. This was not the case before your edit where only non (OR) categorized, hadith were present. My opposition to the section itself is still the same as can be seen above. Otherwise, I concede that I shifted my position too after noticing that the Quran verse was provided as well. Should the verse be deleted too?
Once again I'll also mention that all the sources you are giving (both RS and not RS) do not concern themselves with "interpretations of hadith" in particular so adding them in such a section would be quite absurd. Content can be challenged, yes, but that's precisely why were here to begin with. If the proposed included content isn't fully laid out this dispute wont be resolved and it's possible that we come full circle to another dispute.
Thank you for the information on the tildes but if you only want to make issue of my technical competence on wikipedia rather than the arguments (based on WP), this dispute isn't proceeding (at least not without any oversight).182.179.130.253 (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should be aware of this potential problem. {[religious text primary]}
182.179.130.253, you are advocating that hadiths be {[quoted]} verbatim above the discussion. You say, "The hadith are provided by way of background as is a Quran verse. Both are commented upon later in the jurisprudence section." All of the {[lengthy hadith quotes with bolding]} in the article do not support domestic violence. And they are located above the 'Quran 4:34 discussion'. However, there are hadiths that do support domestic violence.
A possible solution to this impasse
> Hadith interpretations that support domestic violence are quoted (or preferably simply cited). (Or 'Hadiths that involve domestic violence'). Then RSourced discussion.
> Hadith interpretations that do not support domestic violence are quoted (or preferably simply cited). Then RSourced discussion.
Before your hadith quotations the the hadith section was short and concise and breifly contained both interpretaions. That was fine. Now you wish to make multiple sections not only including lenghty hadith quotations but also "hadith interpretations/commentry" by what you say should be reliable sources, but most of which are not reliable and the ones that I assume are (say as cited from [24]) are not specifically about the hadith. A summary of this should go in the "Jurisprudence" section instead rather than a new section.
In the case of its location the hadith section can easily be shifted down to be above the Jurispruedence section. The bold text can be removed and possibly a few, but not many, hadith be added.
Ultimately, my main concern is with unreliable sources rather than the primary ones. Most of the sources you have provided in the past and present have been unreliable sources whether its Robert Spencer or the Polish institute. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that even your primary sources are lifted from unreliable sources, with their source however carefully obscured (presumably due to the fact that they would immediately be contested). For instance before your edits on this article you made a sandbox edit seen here ([25]. The two sources include an anti Muslim (and anti-Protestant) site and Quora, both of which are unreliable sources. Going through the Quora link ([26]), and comparing it with your edit ([27]) it is quite obvious that you simply copypasted part of the section with a few changes, exact same order, refererences and all. I'm not sure if this constitutes plagarism, but in any case Quora (and the other site) are clearly unrelible sources and relying on them, even indirectly, is not something Wikepedia should promote. This is supposed to be a reliable Encycolopaedia. Criticism of Islam which you feel strongly about shouldn't mean relying on junk sources. Coming back to the dispute topic, IMO the main edits being proposed will simply serve to degrade the quality of this article with bias and undue weight.39.37.140.150 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC) (same editor as 182.179.130.253)
39.37.140.150 / 182.179.130.253, please restrain your comments to the subject under discussion 'Islam and domestic violence' > hadiths
1 There are a number of hadiths which include domestic violence against wives
2 Men (who are not necessarily "Islamic scholars" - within this world of 2020) use those hadiths to justify their actions
3 There is RS commentary on this situation
4 This is legitimate Wikipedia content
5 In the article, the selection of anti-domestic violence hadiths, as "background" is WP:CPP
6 In the article, recommend the removal of all {quoted} hadiths
No there is not there is only one hadith that a man hit his wife while the prophet in that hadith neither condemned the man and he stayed silent about the issue even that women came to complain about something else entirely. I have shown multiple hadiths either rejecting your claim and even a hadith sahih (authentic) hadith which the prophet forbade hitting ones wife and insulting her. You have given multiple times a daif (unauthentic) hadith whuch scholars have rejected I have provided my evidence and god knows why these ip accounts just popped out off no where but the situation should of been dealt by now.
Arsi786 (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
1 Arsi786 The article is Islam and domestic violence - not an Exegesis of Quran and Hadiths. These hadiths exist. It is not an issue of which hadith may or may not abrogate some other hadith.
2 It is not what some 'scholar' or 'acedemic' might say. It is how 'non-scholars' and 'non-acedemics' view and use these hadiths, in 2020.
3 Again there are a number of hadiths involving domestic violence. Reliable Sources say these Islamic hadiths influence perpetrators of domestic violence.
4 As for, where did those IP accounts come from ? Do an IP search.
Why was my edit removed? It was 1) Relavant to the article, 2) Relevant to the hadith in particular 3) Relevant to the disputed edits about the use of weak sources. Request it be considered. Maybe it was because of the colon editing readability edit? In any case I will not give any further input without volunteer supervision. All IP edits relating to this page section are me due to frequent dynamic IP changes.
1) The hadiths as we have agreed upon are primary sources, they could be included but only a few particular ones as this is not wikiquote. There is an additional issue of the primary sources being disputed by Arsi786 claiming they are weak and/or off topic. MOS:Islam also requires hadith ratings to be noted especially if weak. It isn't an issue of abrogation at all.
2) This is discussed in detail in the "incidence among Muslims" section. No need to create duplicate sections. Again, reliable sources are needed or your claim is OR both in the case of the hadith presented and their alleged influence. Otherwise the article already discuses some hadith in the "Jurisprudence", "Undesirability of beating" and "Laws and prosecution" section, all by Rs. "scholars" and "academics" are reliable sources. Your focus on non-scholars in 2020 contradicts WP:NOTNEWS.
3) Nearly all of the sources you have provided have proven to be unreliable and not relevant to "hadith interpretations" in particular. To say that reliable sources are available on topic X is to just state the obvious. Please present the specific material to be included. Those that are proven and agreed upon to be reliable could possibly be included in the above mentioned section. Quora, Christian apologetic sites, Robert Spencer, the Polish study and others are not reliable sources.
4) No issue but WP:RS, NPOV and other policies should be kept in mind.
5) Possibly, but you could be accused of doing the same with your earlier edits. The bold text which emphasizes certain parts should be removed, but again, you also introduced this in the first place alongside a careful selection of hadith. Moreover, the anti-wife beating hadith are consistent with the "undesirability of beating" section so in light of that, they should be retained if the primary sources are kept.
6) No issue if this is what is ultimately agreed upon.
7) Is this a departure from your previous support of introducing two (or more) new sections "hadith interpretations that support/oppose/are indeterminate/etc?
It is counter-productive to yet again respond to the same issues raised by 39.37.153.54 etal. Rather, it is proposed there be two (2) additions to the article Islam and domestic violence.
(1) that under the H2 heading Islamic texts the following Bukhari hadith is {quoted}:
Narrated `Abdullah bin Zam`a: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day."[28]
Wiki credentials > Bukhari Ṣaḥīḥ hadith CHECK. Hadith stipulating that, "None of you should flog his wife" CHECK. No bolding CHECK. Currently in the article there is already a Reliable Source explanation under H2 heading Laws and prosecution CHECK.
and (2) an addition under the H2 heading Laws and prosecution
When asked why is beating a wife lightly permitted? The chairman of Pakistan's Council of Islamic Ideology, Mullah Maulana Sheerani said, "The recommendations are according to the Quran and Sunnah . . You can not ask someone to reconsider the Quran".[29]
Fair enough, but is this all? I believe that there has been a lot of back and forth here and I apologize for any confusion. I repeatedly bring up sources like the Polish study because I still don't understand your exact position on whether you think it's reliable as you never clarified, while giving alternate proposals. I don't want to get into an edit war after this dispute is closed. Since you no longer mention it I assume you think it's not.
1) Support inclusion of this primary source hadith among the presented ones, although an alternative (as you have previously suggested) would be to delete them all. Minor nitpick: It says slave (possibly male ones), not specifically related to "what your right hands possess"(Quranic term for maids/female slaves).
2) This should go specifically in the Pakistan section of the "laws and prosecution" table. The discussion there closely follows your proposed edit where the organzation's position in the past is also noted. It would be a welcome update on the issue. Update: On closer inspection a version of this cite and its summary is already given, see cite 51. If necessary his in vertabim quote can appear directly after. No issue. Much ado about nothing...
Thank you for your concrete/concise proposal. Much better than previous recommendations/edits IMO.
119.152.142.130 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC) (Same IP editor as a above)
Excuse me your forgetting their is a direct hadith that forbids beating Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: I went to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sahih) https://sunnah.com/abudawud/12/99Arsi786 (talk) 19:35 4 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Janet Jackson
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Rodneygunn on 23:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC).
Closed. There has been no discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Janet Jackson. Discuss at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The total Album sales should be updated from over 100 million to over 185 million. The over 100 million is heavily outdated. The fact of over 185 millions should reflect the actual sales.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2019–20 Coronavirus outbreak
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Sleath56 on 21:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC).
Closed again. I will close this dispute as failed yet again. I re-opened it at what I thought was the request of User:Sleath56, but they replied on their talk page, and I am not sure what to conclude from the reply except that they no longer are requesting moderated discussion. I will note that I did not say that User:FobTown was exercising more restraint, only that User:Sleath56 was more overly long. Neither editor was compliant with the rules that I tried to use for moderation. I will also comment as to the request for a Third Opinion via DRN. Very long statements requesting a Third Opinion, either here or at the Third Opinion noticeboard, are common. Some volunteers either manage to tease out the content of the wall of text and address it, or just offer an opinion on the topic. I prefer to have a concise summary of the question before offering an opinion, and do not respond to questions or statements that are too long to understand. I didn't provide a third opinion in this case because the statements by the two editors were too long. If you want an opinion, be concise. This discussion has failed because: (1) the editors were not concise; (2) the editors insisted on complaining about each other; (3) the editors insisted on replying to each other when they were told not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Fortunately, both editors were civil, and that does matter. Since the editors were civil, but excessively long-winded, perhaps they can continue to be long-winded at the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a Request for Comments may be used, but it requires that the editors be concise. If you don't want to go to WP:ANI, that is a good drama board to avoid. Resume discussion at the article talk page, knowing that overly long statements are often ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Stonewalled discussion on Talk between two editors on how to further proceed sections. Editors for reasons provided and unprovided revising section flow to preferred state only to be reversed by the other to their own preferred state. Previous appeal on DRR3 have gone unaddressed. Citation of policy concerns by sides are largely unaddressed and any compromises seem give and take to both sides.
Interactions appear to devolve to personal-derived revisions of the others edits throughout the page, by both sides, with no relevant edit summary explanations provided for why, as this is heading close to 3RR, dispute resolution is requested.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Previous entry on DRR3 unsuccessful, aim is towards providing a 3O to a stonewalled discussion. Provide guidance on resolution and offer suggestions on how to proceed further discussions on Talk with the goals of constructive and productive outcomes.
Summary of dispute by FobTown
Have tried to move towards a middle ground as Sleath56 wanted to get rid of quotes from Steve Tsang. However, Sleath56 took it further by removing my section on positive coverage from #Censorship and Police Response despite it being well cited by the Financial Times and other sources. It seems that Sleath56 is quite rigid with the section headers, as they insisted on keeping the original header for #Censorship and Police Response, which in turn allows them to restrict what goes in that section. Similar case with #WHO Response which they maintain is only for official quotes and not opposing viewpoints. FobTown (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[32]
In the latest Talk Sleath56 misrepresented another editor and used that to claim consensus for "no duplication" in the article. FobTown (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[33]@Hzh:: The point is that duplicating the information unnecessarily bloats the article. You have two places where similar information on Li Wenliang are given (and that is after other mentions had already been removed), therefore try to merge the two, then you only need to mention Li Wenliang again without repeating the information. You should also try and see if what Steve Tsang said can also be merged (he isn't important enough to warrant repeating).Sleath56 (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sleath56
The issue in my view seems to be a matter of WP:SYNTHESIS not being held to task and simply not understanding the statements of other editors with regards to duplicative entries. Another editor suggested the lack of relevance of one individual's opinion that was being added through using their opinion to framework the whole section under was tediously contested on the grounds that "they didn't really say that" despite the language being explicit and unambiguous. Sleath56 (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
From my explanation on the article Talk page:
My version of the #Censorship section, you can see that I've principally highlighted direct and notable actions such as the Li Wenliang censorships and the specific government censorship tactics that have been declared. The point throughout has been to organize it with a mind towards WP:SUMMARY. To explain, the concerns I have with in enforcing the exclusion of the Tsang passage isn't because suddenly receiving 3O means your view is irrelevant, but because I consistently felt structuring the section through his personal government theory is unnecessary, especially when the various RS argue the same. The problems with the specific hospital entry I've held is that it is a minor incident, could be construed to be more of a mistake by the RS you've cited since the hospitals were already build fast by the same RS, and is an unnecessary detail to further the idea of the government's desire for positive coverage when the CAC entry explicitly states the government's demand against "negative stories".
The point of the #WHO response section is to keep a concise area for readers to see the official WHO responses to the outbreak as it doesn't have a place anywhere else. The section should indeed be expanded, but that should be through the inclusion of more recent WHO statements. Mackenzie is the only entry of relevancy as he is a WHO official, but when it's stated that he cited his opinions in an unofficial capacity and when the RS call him the "lone voice."
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator
I will try to resolve any content disputes over this virus, whether about the template or about the article. Please read DRN Rule A. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion at this noticeboard, except in a section that I provide for the purpose. (If back-and-forth discussion were going to work, it might have worked on the article talk page.) Address your statements to me and to the community. (I represent the community.) Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may be collapsed, and uncivil statements will be collapsed with a warning (but it appears that everyone has been civil). I do not claim to be an expert on the topic. I expect the editors to provide any information that I need to understand the content dispute. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to discuss the editors, so comment on content, not contributors. (Added note: The paragraphs that I hid were a complaint about an editor. In this forum, we avoid saying who we disagree with, because it is enough to say what in the article we disagree about.)
Now: Will each editor please summarize, in one paragraph, what they think the content issues are?
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
First statements by editors
While there are conduct concerns I hold such as the refusal to stand by WP:DRNA despite reminders given, I nonetheless view this dispute as entirely solvable through a mediated discussion of content and will aim in spirit to focus my points of order through concerns of content disagreements.
The points of contention I hold in this content dispute is through interpretation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, alongside the philosophy of my editorial stance which have been provided above in the opening statements. This has been a relevant concern through the lack of clarification in attempted discussion of guidelines why the intended edits are appropriate in those regard. It is difficult to frame the content dispute concisely in this matter because points of order which have been already addressed and seemingly cleared are resurrected without notice or explanation through their merit under editorial guidelines.
Examples of content dispute provided:
The framework of the section has been long discussed with the compromise that the section of #Censorship and police response stands as its own level 3 independent section under #Domestic response and split off other criticisms to a level 2 section under the top level #Reactions to prevention efforts. The recent edit conducted in the midst of this DRN has elevated it out of the section, without explanation, and with the title of change to “Censorship, propaganda and police response”. This is a clear title addition with NPOV concerns discussed numerous times 12 without engagement and resurrected without notice.
Under my view of maintaining WP:PROPORTION in the merit of additional entries and in attempts to control bloat under WP:SUMMARY There is particular interest in the inclusion of a professor, Tsang, under the section and to frame the section flow under his theory of opinion. First, the concerns of WP:DUE have been brought up, especially since at insistence, his views have already been incorporated elsewhere in another section as well. The duplicative utility of this individual is clearly not due, and others have expressed similar sentiments. This third opinion statement, which is plainly supportive has been the source of bizarre obfuscation on its ‘meaning’. Second, I view the section as perfectly able to stand on its own and express the same points made by that individual, which is essentially Tsang saying that there exists a “positive cover drive,” as other RS state the same and report government sources explicitly declaring towards that objective. This dispute is bizarre as responses of "Steve Tsang has been dealt with.” were merely the entry being apparently shuffled to the end of a paragraph, which is wholly not the point I made.
Paragraph and sentence order is also somehow a point of contention. The difference between them, where I attempted to trim the section, can be examined here along with the other points of contention discussed: 1 The result as I see it was that the version I restructured had fundamental problems of WP:SYNTHESIS along with WP:IMPARTIAL with the line attributable to Tsang of "As part of the central government's "bifurcated approach to diffuse discontent", while the propaganda machinery was going into "overdrive...to protect [Xi Jinping's] reputation", citizens were permitted to criticize local officials so long as they did not "question the basic legitimacy of the party”. I view through my edit, the same argument is quite explicitly maintained through the other entries provided, and that it solves the problem of undue weight towards coverage of that individual.
Overall, there is fundamentally a disagreement in the merit of WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUE in the addition of entries. It’s my view they should be abided and attempts to argue those grounds under guideline discussions have gone not rebutted but unresponded under policy frameworks. Sleath56 (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
General complaint aside from content-specific
Comment on content, not contributors. It isn't necessary to say who you disagree with if you say what you disagree with them about. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
is how Sleath56 buries my contributions, claiming that they are duplications (even though it was only barely mentioned in other section) or not suited to that particular section. I've worked to address such concerns, for instance positive coverage can be better explained in #Censorship, propoganda, and police response rather than #Criticism of local response. In #WHO response, while I've expanded beyond the original source of Mackenzie with other viewpoints, he keeps saying the rest of them are irrelevant.
Some complaints from another editor who has since stopped working on this article[34]
Let me restart that then. NPOV concerns should be addressed within the section rather than burying. Daniel.Cardenas
The same applies to your edits to the WHO response. That section is meant for official responses. The three edits entries you made are a university professor's opinion, which is not relevant; an anonymous UN, I'm not sure if you understand not all UN officials are WHO officials; Mackenzie is the only entry that holds some merit, but who by his the very RS that quote him cite him as a lone voice in his theory within the WHO, meaning this is WP:FRINGE. If you want to expand the section to include criticism, then by WP:PROPORTION, support for the WHO's response would necessitate inclusion, which would bloat the section unnecessarily. Sleath56 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The same applies to your edits to the WHO response. That section is meant for official responses. The three edits entries you made are a university professor's opinion, which is not relevant; an anonymous UN, I'm not sure if you understand not all UN officials are WHO officials; Mackenzie is the only entry that holds some merit, but who by his the very RS that quote him cite him as a lone voice in his theory within the WHO, meaning this is WP:FRINGE. If you want to expand the section to include criticism, then by WP:PROPORTION, support for the WHO's response would necessitate inclusion, which would bloat the section unnecessarily. Sleath56 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Steve Tsang is no longer the "lead", as there are also plenty of other sources that agree with his view. That being said he still has the best way of summing it up, so that is why numerous sources have quoted him.
Fine to have the CAC quote against negative articles, followed by the actual examples of blocking of articles and directives to new outlets, and the effect was social media users initially evading censors using "Trump" or "Chernobyl" as well as an outpouring of calls for freedom of speech after Li Wenliang's death. By that precedent Xi Jinping was quoted on emphasis on stories fighting the epidemic (positive coverage) and I've included actual examples; not only making a big deal of hospital construction but also the Wuhan lockdown and the provincial quarantine, particularly with the FT noting that such selective coverage was effective enough to fool observers domestic and international. Due to a quote from an official stating that propaganda about the epidemic response will be high priority, I'm keen to expand the title to #Censorship, propaganda, and police response (there is so many examples of censorship and propaganda that no other title fits the bill).
I expanded the WHO section so it is not only Mackenzie's view and the UN diplomat's quote there, there are several sources who have noted criticism/justification for the WHO approach. And there is the petition calling on WHO director's resignation. I am also expanding it to note Taiwan's exclusion/inclusion as per the One China Policy.[36][37] Do you want to have a separate section called #Criticism of WHO handling? FobTown (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
04:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Content has been entirely removed on the claim of duplication (even though it was only barely mentioned in other section), the quoted expert is an irrelevant nobody, or not suited to that particular section. I've worked to address such concerns, for instance positive coverage can be better explained in #Censorship, propoganda, and police response rather than #Criticism of local response. In #WHO response, while I've expanded beyond the original source of Mackenzie with other viewpoints, that entire paragraph still gets removed because the added experts are also irrelevant. NPOV concerns should be addressed within the section rather than burying, as by burying that means that other editors/readers won't have a hint that it ever existed unless they check page history.
Steve Tsang is no longer the "lead", as there are also plenty of other sources that agree with his view. That being said he still has the best way of summing it up, so that is why numerous sources have quoted him. "As part of the central government's "bifurcated approach to diffuse discontent", while the propaganda machinery was going into "overdrive...to protect [Xi Jinping's] reputation", citizens were permitted to criticize local officials so long as they did not "question the basic legitimacy of the party”. The National Post puts it in the following manner of "Communist Party circling protective wagons around Xi Jinping", which is less explicit than ' propaganda machinery was going into "overdrive...to protect [Xi Jinping's] reputation"'.
Fine to have the CAC quote against negative articles, followed by the actual examples of blocking of articles and directives to new outlets, and the effect was social media users initially evading censors using "Trump" or "Chernobyl" as well as an outpouring of calls for freedom of speech after Li Wenliang's death. By that precedent Xi Jinping was quoted on emphasis on stories fighting the epidemic (positive coverage) and I've included actual examples; not only making a big deal of hospital construction but also the Wuhan lockdown and the provincial quarantine, particularly with the FT noting that such selective coverage was effective enough to fool observers domestic and international. Due to a quote from an official stating that propaganda about the epidemic response will be high priority, I'm keen to expand the title to #Censorship, propaganda, and police response (there is so many examples of censorship and propaganda that no other title fits the bill). And nowhere else in the article does it mention any examples of positive coverage.
I expanded the WHO section so it is not only Mackenzie's view and the UN diplomat's quote there, there are several sources who have noted criticism/justification for the WHO approach. And there is the petition calling on WHO director's resignation. I am also expanding it to note Taiwan's exclusion/inclusion as per the One China Policy.[38][39] Should there be a separate section called #Criticism of WHO handling since it doesn't fit in #Criticism of local response? FobTown (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion
@Robert McClenon: Are we supposed to wait for your go-ahead to conduct discussion or are we able to respond directly to each other? Sleath56 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
User:Sleath56 and anyone else: You may say anything that you want in the back-and-forth discussion. I will ignore it unless it is uncivil, in which case I will caution the editor and may collapse it. Go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The statements above are long, and some of them refer to other editors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, which should be discussed without identifying who you disagree with. We can focus on what you want to put in the article. Each editor is asked to provide a one-paragraph statement of what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. If there are multiple changes, either mention each one in one sentence, or wait until a later round. We can continue this discussion as long as we need to, so do not worry about getting everything identified now. But be concise, and comment only on content. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
First Comments
@Robert McClenon: Appreciate the mediation. I think I can perhaps say for both participants that we were hoping a 3O take on this dispute could be given at this point. Surprisingly for concerns to an article this prominent right now, there's been essentially no one else providing their perspective despite the visibly lengthy bilateral discussions we've held on the Talk page.
@FobTown: To summarize: Tsang is not WP:DUE to be kept in that section, especially when other editors have commented to that point, nor does it make sense when that section is documenting government actions, yet there's some professor's hot take in the middle, especially when cutting his entry doesn't even remove the substance of what is being said. I'm not sure what the issue is with the section flow when it keeps being reshuffled with no explanation, I've maintained it for chronological flow especially as this is an ongoing event.
For the WHO section, it's documenting official response and declarations. Stubbing criticism from individual actors is not WP:DUE and breaks the flow of the section. Criticism to the WHO fits in the main article for the WHO, where there is already a Controversies section, which I've already linked in a See Also temp for the section. See the Ebola article for a sense of what constitute WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUE to merit inclusion in the outbreak article. Also the importance of WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:SUMMARY that I've maintained should be considered when conducting edits. Sleath56 (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I've already reduced Steve Tsang's content, but his quotes and other quoted sources do play a purpose in eloquently summing up the whole section. The bigger problem is that you are cutting actual examples of positive coverage by the state media; who not only made a big deal of hospital construction but also the Wuhan lockdown and the provincial quarantine, particularly with the FT noting that such selective coverage was effective enough to fool observers domestic and international. Plus it is odd to have to go to the WHO page (which is more for an overview of the organization) to find criticism on the 2019-2020 coronavirus handling, furthermore omitting criticism from that section would mislead the readers that everything is "perfect"; furthermore there are also events mentioned too like Taiwan's almost-exclusion and the petition calling for Tedros to step down. FobTown (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Responses
"I've already reduced Steve Tsang's content".
This is not true. The entry has merely been reordered to the end of a paragraph, and the additional quote on "bifurcation" starts another one. The issue is not reduction, it's that he warrants omission in entirety. Per "do play a purpose in eloquently summing up the whole section", this is argued according to which guideline? I've stated the concerns of WP:NPOV without response. The argument isn't on what's 'eloquent or not,' that's not how content on Wikipedia is determined. This is not an argument that holds WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:NEUTRALEDIT needs to be considered. This is absolutely a case of WP:UNDUE. If the argument is for its preservation, a direct participation into the discussion on following editorial guidelines as I've cited needs to be conducted here.
"particularly with the FT noting that such selective coverage was effective enough to fool observers domestic and international"
Again, how is a conjecture by a single article claiming the entire media is 'fooled' considered due? There are a plethora of opinions on the lockdown, positive and negative, not that such is relevant in a discussion on censorship.
"Plus it is odd to have to go to the WHO page (which is more for an overview of the organization) to find criticism on the 2019-2020 coronavirus handling, furthermore omitting criticism from that section would mislead the readers that everything is "perfect"
Please note WP:FALSEBALANCE. Just because extant criticism by individuals exists doesn't mean it warrants WP:PROPORTION of being included. Not that that's the problem here. The WHO page actually is the appropriate place for it, take a look at that page and you'll see there's an entire section dedicated to controversies. I've noticed there's no response to my advice to take a look at the Ebola section for due criticism. None of the examples merit.
"furthermore there are also events mentioned too like Taiwan's almost-exclusion"
This already contains an entire section on the WHO article.
" and the petition calling for Tedros to step down."
A 350k online petition is not notable or relevant. Something that comes from an association of medical professionals that call for the same would be.
Additionally, not sure what the problem with in having Xi Jinping's comment on censorship and forcing positive coverage start the paragraph instead of the Xianguo individual. Sleath56 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Because positive coverage was cited by the Financial Times and other sources. We could even go into details too like patriotic music to the rapid hospital construction as well as using a fake image.
Steve Tsang is a widely quoted expert on China among international media, I don't understand why you hate him. Another source observed that the Communist Party is circling wagons around Xi Jinping. In general, he and others are observations by international media and experts which should accompany any official Beijing quotes.
In that case we should expand Ebola to include criticism too, rather than forcing reader to go to the WHO page.
NPOV concerns should be addressed within the section rather than burying/deleting. FobTown (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Third Statement by Moderator
Okay. It seems that no one wants to be concise, but everyone is civil. Rather than tell everyone to trim their statements, I will switch to Rule B and allow back-and-forth discussion. Carry on until I interrupt. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Continued discussion by editors
To quote the full entry: "The Financial Times noted that such widely publicised actions made a strong impression upon domestic and international observers that the "overbearing, centralized government" of China was particularly suited to dealing with the crisis, despite the fact that the lock down of Wuhan came too late to be effective as millions had left"
This is clearly an undue opinion and sensationalist at that. It's barely tangential to the censorship section, and it cites no evidence for the claims that the international media was fooled. It leaves readers with the false impression, as you'd put it, that there was no one in the media who thought otherwise. There is no consensus on the effect of the lockdowns and even if an opinion on them was warranted, a random FT journalist is not a WP:DUE source for the claim.
From an logic standpoint, the section doesn't need someone (and a mere professor at that) to narrate what's going on. The way the section is typed with his inclusion breaks WP:WIKIVOICE. Tsang is not the only expert on 'China.' Why would he alone merit inclusion here in a way that the section is structured by his arguments? The rest of the has been organized to stand independently while presenting the same accusative arguments in RS by individual analysts, except that one paragraph there.
Your response seems to mean you didn't view the Ebola link to see how the section there is structured. That page has criticism in it, but the criticism is based on their own admissions, review panels, and international experts directly related to the field. Let me put it plain: Just because there is criticism doesn't mean it warrants inclusion, (WP:BALASP:"For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.") This is my point in that there are definite criticisms that are due as can be seen on the Ebola article and I would support those without reservation, but quotes of strong accusations presented without explanation from individual actors like adjunct professors and anonymous officials who can't even give out their identity to support the statements they've made are not WP:DUE in this matter nor WP:PROPORTION. As such, I don't see at all the argument that those sources shouldn't be in the main WHO article's controversy section, (which is directly header linked so I strongly question the opinion that it's 'buried' at all). As such, reactions statements must consider WP:NPOV, this as the page says is non-negotiable, and they must consider [[WP:RELIABILITY] with preference for their attribution with to hold evidence (as the criticism in the Ebola page shows examples of) and not just be opinion. Unless there is evidence based accusations, those hold concerns of WP:FRINGE as opinions and the problem with that is that if you include one side, you'd have to add proportional opposing views for WP:BALANCE and the whole thing turns into a massive section bloat contrary to WP:SUMMARY because of needing to satisfy WP:NPOV. Sleath56 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with your quotes from various Chinese gov't officials but by themselves isn't sufficient, indeed having just having official quotes bloats the article without adding anything new. We also need instances and those instances are reported by international major news organizations, plus these instances are observed/commented on by experts quoted by international major news organizations. I've structured the positive coverage so it flows right after Xi Xinping's directive and before the "As part of the central government's "bifurcated approach to diffuse discontent", while the propaganda machinery was going into "overdrive...to protect [Xi Jinping's] reputation".
Individual actors like adjunct professors and anonymous officials are not "nobodies". Each of them is a somebody, and they were quoted by a major news source which makes it significant enough for inclusion by themselves. But in this case we have several different individuals with similar viewpoints on that same issue so WP:FRINGE doesn't apply.
The WHO criticism section isn't just opposing viewpoints, it is also actual things that happened like delayed reporting to WHO, underestimated or downplayed cases, exclusion of Taiwan, delaying the announcement that it is a worldwide health emergency, etc. In fact, the WHO praise of China's handling drew criticism as "WHO was pandering to China’s dictatorship" and "China has been unwilling to agree to their experts’ request to conduct on-site visits".[40][41]FobTown (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say they were "nobodies," I said they were not WP:DUE. The precise point of WP:NPOV is to prevent individual voices from holding disproportionate prominence on Wikipedia. If the point they make is widely adopted, you could adopt WP:SUMMARY and state their arguments in WP:WIKIVOICE that "there's wide arguments for x". This is what I've done in revising the section there.
" I've structured the positive coverage so it flows right after Xi Xinping's directive and before" A reminder that this would be WP:SYNTHESIS, which is one aspect of concern that I've opposed the version presented since. Leaving the section in plain chronological flow is neutral editing, and prevents other editors from boosting up or burying paragraphs from occurring. As said this is also more productive for an ongoing event article where developing incidents can be easily documented if such a fashion is adopted. Sleath56 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay, the WHO petition can be removed.
The unnamed UN diplomat's view has been widely adopted, so I backed it up with the CNN source, with the UN diplomat's quote summing the viewpoint up nicely.
Including instances of positive coverage, such as widely publicizing the hospital construction or Wuhan lockdown or province quarantine, does not violate WP:NPOV. I could work on merging the FT report and Steve Tsang, as they share a viewpoint. As such positive coverage instances have already happened and has been summarized, it isn't an impediment for any new developing incidents that can go at the bottom. FobTown (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind that WP:DUE isn't based on how much one person's view is covered in RS. It's based on how much that view is shared by others who are also covered in RS. If there are similar and significant voices who present the same view, which is the only way this UN diplomat's perspective is acceptable under WP:DUE, they would obviously be preferable because they aren't anonymous. The meaning is by every criteria, that current is not appropriate.
The hospital construction point is equally inappropriate for reasons I've stated repeatedly before, I'm not sure why it's been resurrected when it holds a problem of WP:PROPORTION. As said, here is no consensus on the effect of the lockdowns and even if an opinion on them was warranted, a random FT journalist is not a WP:DUE source for the claim. I don't see how merging the FT and Tsang as appropriate. Both talk about different things. Sleath56 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
"unnamed UN diplomat" should be reworded as "UN diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity". The UN diplomat presumably wished to remain unnamed as this would almost certainly bring reprisals against their home country from China. More importantly, the quote "The WHO is so much in thrall to China’s influence" does a great job of summing other other sources (CNN, Guardian) that have asserted that China wields a great deal of power in the WHO.
“The WHO is so much in thrall to China’s influence, they have felt compelled to stay close to China’s line on this crisis,” says one UN diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity. “China wanted to downplay this virus and the WHO felt it had to fall into line, at least until its position became untenable.”[42]
The WHO's praise of China's response have led critics to question the relationship between the two entities. The UN agency relied on funding and the cooperation of members to function, giving wealthy member states like China considerable influence. Perhaps one of the most overt examples of China's sway over the WHO is its success in blocking Taiwan's access to the body, a position that could have very real consequences for the Taiwanese people if the virus takes hold there.The WHO's position regarding China has also renewed a longstanding debate about whether the WHO, founded 72 years ago, is sufficiently independent to allow it to fulfill its purpose.[43]
At every press briefing, WHO director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has defended China’s handling of the epidemic in the face of critical questions. At the end of January, when Tedros declared a public health emergency of international concern – having put it off a week earlier under what was assumed to be pressure from Beijing – he praised China for protecting the rest of the world.[44]FobTown (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Some of the positive coverage, particularly the hospital, is technically #Misinformation as the state media and Ministry of Foreign Affairs claimed it was up in 16 hours (it prolly took at least a week) but for now it better belongs in the #Censorship and police response (or better yet #Censorship, propoganda, and police response section. #Misinformation for now is more appropriate for conspiracy theories and rumors.
Chinese state-owned media and at least one party official are spreading disinformation to convince foreigners of the success of Beijing’s response to the growing public health emergency of the coronavirus.
People’s Daily, owned by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the most-circulated newspaper in China, and Lijian Zhao, a deputy director of information with the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, tweeted an image Monday morning of a building they claimed was a hospital in Wuhan, China, the center of the recent coronavirus outbreak. The publication and the bureaucrat said enterprising workers in Wuhan had constructed the hospital in just 16 hours. In reality, the picture showed an apartment building more than 600 miles away. BuzzFeed News first reported the fakes.
Chinese speed. Infrastructure maniac. The 1st building of #Wuhan's #Coronavirus hospital, Huoshenshan hospital, completed construction in 16 hours. The whole 1000-bed hospital will be completed in 9 days. It will be transferred after one day of medical equipment installation. pic.twitter.com/6EUJn9DFXD
— Lijian Zhao 赵立坚 (@zlj517) January 27, 2020
“Chinese speed. Infrastructure maniac. The 1st building of #Wuhan’s #Coronavirus hospital, Huoshenshan hospital, completed construction in 16 hours,” Zhao wrote.
The Global Times, another party outlet, published a story Monday about the purported construction: “Amazing! Huoshenshan Hospital’s 1st building completed in 16 hours!” A screenshot in BuzzFeed’s story showed that the Global Times used the same picture as Zhao and People’s Daily. The picture no longer appeared in the article Monday afternoon.
Yaqiu Wang, a researcher with the Human Rights Watch who studies Chinese censorship, said the boast was not surprising, given that the Chinese government has long prided itself on quick construction.
“The government wants to use the new hospital to show it is on top of things, but apparently it is not. Even the picture of the hospital is fake,” Wang said.[45]FobTown (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The separate Controversies page is at the present a rag tag collection so positive coverage does not belong there, omitting positive coverage also breaks the flow of the #Censorship and police response segment. FobTown (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
The page was created a day ago by another editor. That supposition doesn't mean it's not the correct avenue for the more tabulative entries that have been the subject of discussion here. Nothing was omitted at all, as has been reminded before, the section as revised satisfies WP:SUMMARY. With the main article as the only location of discussion, I held willingness to extend the discussion to find a satisfying variant for WP:DUE. Now that there's a main whole controversy article, I see no reason the outbreak page should be bloated as such instead of abiding by established guidelines under WP:SUMMARY which made no confusion in the point that: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." Sleath56 (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing changed in insisting on your preferred paragraph, which omits actual incidents while only having quotes. Remember when you previously kept deleting the WHO criticism (when it was a short stub) on the charge of WP:SUMMARY but since then you accepted it after I expanded it? I would have had no problem with you tagging that section or addressing concerns, but you can't just delete material that you don't agree with (as opposed to a blatant violation) on the excuse of WP:DUE or WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTHESIS, and now WP:SUMMARY, if its well supported by reputable sources. FobTown (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Statements issued by Xi Jinping on 3 February declared the need for an emphasis by state media on "telling the moving stories of how [people] on the front line are preventing and fighting the virus" as a priority of coverage, while top official Zhang Xiaoguo said that his department would "treat propaganda regarding the control and prevention measures of the virus as its top priority".[1][2] The Cyberspace Administration (CAC) declared its intent to foster an "good online atmosphere," with CAC notices sent to video platforms encouraging them to "not to push any negative story, and not to conduct non-official livestreaming on the virus."[3]
Steve Tsang isn't even explicitly mentioned in my latest paragraph revision. FobTown (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
A statement on General Secretary Xi Jinping on 3 February declared the need for an emphasis by state media on "telling the moving stories of how [people] on the front line are preventing and fighting the virus" as a priority of coverage, while top official Zhang Xiaoguo said that his department would "treat propaganda regarding the control and prevention measures of the virus as its top priority".[1][2] For instance state media organizations People's Daily and Global Times, along with deputy director of information Zhao Lijian from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, have been observed to be publishing effusive praise on Beijing's response to the epidemic,[4] such as extensive coverage of the accelerated construction of the new hospitals in Wuhan (which Zhao claimed was completed in 16 hours),[5][6] the lock down of Wuhan with its population of 11 million, and the "unprecedented" quarantine of Hubei province. Though such efforts had a questional effect on the epidemic, as the new hospitals were operating at under half-capacity due to shortages of beds and medical resources[7][8] while the lock down of Wuhan came too late to be effective as millions had left, the Financial Times and others noted that such widely publicised actions were a "PR coup" showing that the "overbearing, centralized government" of China was particularly suited to dealing with the outbreak[9][10][11], creating the impression as if Beijing had directly intervened at Xi Jinping's request.[12][13][14][15][12][13][14]
At one point you actually agreed with the following: "bifurcated approach to diffuse discontent", while the propaganda machinery was going into "overdrive...to protect [Xi Jinping's] reputation", citizens were permitted to criticise local officials so long as they did not "question the basic legitimacy of the party". This quote helps flow from positive coverage to censorship.
I moved your Cyberspace Administration to the next paragraph as that concurs with the subsequent content of discouraging/censoring negative stories. FobTown (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
As part of the central government's "bifurcated approach to diffuse discontent", while the propaganda machinery was going into "overdrive...to protect [Xi Jinping's] reputation", citizens were permitted to criticise local officials so long as they did not "question the basic legitimacy of the party".[16] The Cyberspace Administration (CAC) declared its intent to foster an "good online atmosphere," with CAC notices sent to video platforms encouraging them to "not to push any negative story, and not to conduct non-official livestreaming on the virus."[17] Censorship has been observed being applied on news articles and social media posts deemed to hold negative tones about the coronavirus and the governmental response, including posts mocking Xi Jinping for not visiting areas of the epidemic,[18] an article that predicted negative effects of the epidemic on the economy, and calls to remove local government officials.[15][19][20][2] Chinese citizens have reportedly used innovative methods to avoid censorship to express anger about how government officials have handled the initial outbreak response, such as using the word 'Trump' to refer to Xi Jinping, or 'Chernobyl' to refer to the outbreak as a whole.[1] While censorship had been briefly relaxed giving a "window of about two weeks in which Chinese journalists were able to publish hard-hitting stories exposing the mishandling of the novel coronavirus by officials", since then private news outlets were reportedly required to use "planned and controlled publicity" with the authorities' consent.[21][1][2]
After consideration of RS which include contrary numerous views on the latter, I raise again my initial concern such that the entries on WHO have been moved to the WHO's main article. I do remember as those concerns have always been valid, but in the spirit of compromise, I had accepted them under the view that further RS would come with substantive criticism to merit its inclusion. As the trimming of overly excessive entries in that part have been repeatedly rejected, and the intent appears to be bloat and contrary to WP:SUMMARY, I retract the support per the further comment above which I do agree with that it allows appeals to use my own act of compromise as a club in discussion. None of the points of criticism are substantial in that they hold evidential merit, the examples of the contrary can be seen on the Ebola page of what evidential criticism looks like. WP:PROPORTION and WP:DUE are not fanciful notions to be considered, and as components of WP:NPOV, they are non-negotiable in consideration, especially when counter objections based on guidelines have not been stated at all throughout the discussion.
@Robert McClenon: Are you available to provide a 3O perspective on this matter, as at this time now, the DRN has effectively stonewalled for 4 days. Sleath56 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Throwing up complaints (WP:NPOV, WP:PROPORTION, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTHESIS), and now attempting to claim WP:SUMMARY, is not in the spirit of compromise, rather like another editor complained these are ill-conceived excuses to delete selective without considering working through it. FobTown (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, you were absolutely right. A selective selection is rather hypocritical, and editorial compromise should come from assessment of validity as guidelines present and not just personal desire to establish a compromise. As such, I stand behind my previous position, but I’ll accept those concerns are secondary at the moment to the primary focus: The entries in the censorship section have already been repeated ad nauseam. They don’t merit repeat when repeated citations merit no response through an explanation of guidelines. Per the response above: Welcome to Wikipedia, this is not a PERSONALESSAY if that was under the impression. On this site, guidelines are established to keep direction and prevent exactly the unilateral self-justified edits to preferred variants as has been routine throughout this. I've cited WP concerns with clear examples, and there has been no interaction with those in response throughout. The objection above that WP:SUMMARY is only "now attempting to claimed" as if it was a novel concern is patently comic and belies an unwillingness to engage and read what other participants have said. That seems to explain why the discussion seems to repeat itself ad-nauseum even though everything has been repetitiously discussed already. It's literally in my opening statement in this DRN.Sleath56 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator
I am switching back to WP:DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Everyone has been civil, but no one has been concise. Address your comments to the moderator and the community, not to each other. Now: Will each editor state, in one paragraph, what they think is the primary issue about article content? Comment on content, not contributors. If you can't summarize the issues in one paragraph, summarize an issue or issues in one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I no longer consider myself involved with the article. feminist (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
It seems feminist and me are falsely added to the list above, this dispute is between Sleath56 and FobTown. Akira CA (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
One problem is that there is a high disregard for section bloat. It almost appears as if the intent is to bury prominent examples of censorship within paragraphs of minute factoids. WP:SUMMARY is a legitimate policy that must be followed. The censorship section is already 19k bytes and entries there should be concise and not just stuffing in everything reported under the sun. There is a Controversies related to the 2019-20 coronavirus outbreak page, along with Censorship in China and Internet censorship in China pages, which are all linked. Yet the appearence seems to be plugging up the section with entries that don't warrant WP:PROPORTION or WP:DUE. Something that is absolutely non-negotiable is the preference to revert section phrasing to a personal pet variant, even though the main version has been refined by numerous editors, for sentences that are often directly plagarised word-for-word from sources. Additional stubborn revisions to a grammar error-ridden state with changes that seem excessively petty, such as changing "Statements issued by Xi Jinping on 3 February" to a grammatically non-sensical "A statement on General Secretary Xi Jinping on 3 February" are one example of this. Sleath56 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
While the state positive coverage and propaganda section may compete with censorship in terms of length, I an clearly not trying to bury anything (i.e. delete content from censorship) as I prefer an all-inclusive article. If anything, I have to commend you for adding the New York Times article which shows the effect of propaganda and how young people reacted skeptically to it.[46] It is a similar theme to the Financial Times and National Post articles showing how international observers reacted to the state positive coverage, with some being wowed and others seeing through the deception. FobTown (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator
Comment on content, not contributors. That means comment on content, not contributors. Be specific. ("Section bloat" is not specific. "All-inclusive" is not specific.") User:Sleath56, User:FobTown - Will each of you please identify three sections about which there is disagreement, and state what each of you wants to do with each of the sections. Do not refer to the other editor. The purpose of this mediation is to improve the article. List three sections, one paragraph each, and tell what should be changed or kept the same in each section.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors
The point of order I hold in explanation is that there is a section: #Censorship and police responses, which through my intent has been organized to WP:SUMMARY standards that uphold WP:PROPORTION by focus on prominent events or acts of police and government censorship.:
"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
My objection has been to the implementation of expatiating details which are principally reactions to the censorship, which contributes to bloat as the incorporation of those points would necessitate inserting contrary points from WP:BALANCE. Unless an opinion is necessary to explain how an act is censorship, I've maintained a concise section such that bloat as described above need not happen. Trimming down the section has brought it to 19k, whilst the alternative version is 26.6k. Additionally, I oppose co-opting the section towards this unnecessary unproportionatal expansion towards this concept of 'positive coverage' which is far more subjective and less blatant than the clear police acts and government censorship tactics as clear repressive acts that are being marginalized by this overenthusiastic concern on this specific 'concept', I haven't opposed it but rather trimmed it down which is frankly enough. This is especially a necessity as the specific elaborations contain plagiarising directly from the source materials. There are three different articles, one directly relating to the outbreak, for this topic those expatiating details need to go instead. The diff can be compared here: 1. The merits for cutting points have been stated above. This is an overall summary for against such entries. Sleath56 (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Point 7 of DRN Rule A still says: "Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors." That means do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That means do not reply to the comments of other editors." Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
That was why the section was expanded to the following title of #Censorship, propaganda, and police responses. Positive coverage should reflect the fact that that many sources (NYT, FT, National Post, CNN) cover both topics in their articles; including the latest source added from the NYT that shows the effect of propaganda and how young people reacted skeptically to it as well as young people creative digital archives knowing full well that censors would delete it.[47] It is a similar theme to the Financial Times and National Post articles showing how international observers reacted to the state positive coverage, with some being wowed and others seeing through the deception. FobTown (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
First, the massive citation spam in the recent edit is both highly inappropriate and unnecessary. See WP:OVERKILL.
Second, returning to the point of discussion. That was why it was attempted and reversed due to WP:NPOV titling and why it was allowed through the admittance by yourself that when the topic of 'positive coverage' was first introduced (and which I've accepted) under the premise that positive coverage is a form of positive censorship. That doesn't mean that half the section should be dedicated to the topic. Is coverage in RS overwhelmingly on this concept of "good coverage?" No. Reliable sources predominantly cover the topic of government censorship, police repression related to the outbreak such as imprisoning the Tianjin man and Li Wenliang. Expanding the section to such a degree on just one aspect disproportionately implies that topic is more covered or considered important. It is not, and such one-sided bloat on how good and loyal state media is buries the documentation of government and police repression through censorship. This may not be intentional but this is the appearance the rejected section presents for readers. I also fail to see a single address of the guideline concerns through responses here on grounds of WP:SUMMARY. Sleath56 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Numerous citations were removed indiscriminately, which would open up some sections and quotes to an unfair plagiarism charge.
Positive coverage is well backed by reliable sources too. Positive coverage does not make up half of the section, nor does it bury the documentation of government and police repression through censorship, indeed I have maintained the censorship examples in their entirety instead of attempting to cut it down. Some observers of the state positive coverage have noted that it is misinformation (such as how fast the hospital was built and using an incorrect photo), and noted that many of the much ballyhooed measures were of questionable effectiveness, like the lock down and number of actual patients treated by the hospital (as opposed to capacity). If you need to trim positive coverage then I suggest cutting official quotes rather than examples. FobTown (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Plagiarism is the copying of article text to post as Wikipedia entries. Adding a hundred other citations wouldn't change that. The solution is rewriting the sentences in own words. This is something I've done for numerous edits I've agreed with in terms of content but were essentially large rips of source material, yet it's been the case that those rewrites were reverted on numerous occasions despite explanations given and no appropriate edit summaries for otherwise.
Primary sources covered by RS are far more WP:DUE than a random journalist's take on events. The entire concept of WP:DUE seems to be entirely ignored point blank, except seemingly with chagrin that Wikipedia guidelines do exist.
The comment of "Positive coverage is well backed by reliable sources too" seems to lack engagement with my response. If 'good press" wasn't covered, it would have been opposed from the very start. The reason it's been allowed is precisely because RS cover it. However, as said in query: "Is coverage in RS overwhelmingly on this concept of "good coverage?" The answer to that is No. Reliable sources predominantly cover the topic of government censorship, police repression related to the outbreak. Sleath56 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Point 7 of DRN Rule A says: "Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors." That means do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That means do not reply to the comments of other editors." Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I disagree, as the content of clear police acts and government censorship tactics in #Censorship, propaganda, and police responses have remained intact, and even expanded under my watch. It is not [WP:SYNTHESIS] to mention censorship and positive coverage in the same section, also noting that many sources (NYT, FT, National Post, CNN) all cover both topics in their articles; including the latest source added from the NYT that shows the effect of propaganda and how young people reacted skeptically to it as well as young people creative digital archives knowing full well that censors would delete it.[48] It is a similar theme to the Financial Times and National Post articles showing how international observers reacted to the state positive coverage, with some being wowed and others seeing through the deception. I also oppose how positive coverage was trimmed down, as the official quotes were kept intact but the examples/instances were deleted. Numerous claims (WP:NPOV, WP:PROPORTION, WP:DUE, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:SUMMARY, plagiarism) made so far are ill-conceived excuses to delete selective without consideration to rewriting it, which is not in the spirit of compromise.FobTown (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
The 'spirit of compromise' isn't pushing through one's preferred entries, only allowing other editors to fix the rife amount of grammatical spelling mistakes and plagarised sentences. The response did not explain anything under guideline, summarising materials of articles is not addressing WP:PROPORTION. I've quoted it above directly so it could be engaged, yet that seemingly has been ignored. Every single one of your entries nonetheless are expatiating details that do not hold due weight and conflate an componental aspect of the section to nearly 10k byte in increase. Citing Wikipedia guidelines (and providing examples of entries where they hold merit) is not excuses, that is how Wikipedia editing is conducted. This is not a personal essay Yes, whether one believes it or not, plagiarism matters. Yes NPOV and all its subguidelines matters. Sleath56 (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Sixth Statement by Moderator
Prologue
The parties have ignored instructions to be civil and concise, and have been civil but excessively long, which is better than being uncivil, but does not help resolve a content dispute. The parties have ignored instructions not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. The usual resolution for cases that fail discussion here is a Request for Comments, but that does not seem workable when the editors will not follow instructions. There is no right answer now, but the least wrong way to address this dispute is probably WP:ANI, where the parties can engage in lengthy back-and-forth which may result either in a warning or in sanctions. (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)}}
Re-Opening Comments
Okay. User:Sleath56 - I am re-opening this case again. It isn't entirely clear to me what Sleath56 expects from a moderator. It appears that they, Sleath56, are the primary contributor to the walls of text, although both parties are to blame there. If Sleath56 is expecting that by providing me with so much verbiage that I can't distill what they want a third opinion on, I will decide in their favor, they don't understand how I handle DRN. If they are expecting that I will offer a compromise, as they say the are requesting, they need to be concise.
If another volunteer is willing to handle this dispute, I thank them. Otherwise I will continue for a little while.
Now, I will ask: Do the editors want to discuss specific sections of the article, or do the editors want to talk about specifying some ground rules, such as about length of sections of the article? Each editor may provide up to three paragraphs, each about a specific section of the article, and one paragraph about ground rules. Label each paragraph. If an editor replies to another editor, I will fail this discussion again, and will recommend that that editor be given a one-way interaction ban against the other editor, without the usual exceptions.
@Robert McClenon:: Appreciate the role of moderation you've held throughout, but taking note to your comment, I can't help but object to the closure as I was really quite hoping this dispute could be resolved without escalation. AN/I isn't really appropriate as I would like to still view this as a content dispute apart from the flagrant disregard to follow DRNA in refraining from editing the article from the status quo. I think it's clear that the discussion is stonewalled, as you've said, but I think I can say for both participants that we were hoping that the moderator would weigh in to either provide a compromise suggestion or if that seems unattainable, to at least provide a third opinion on whether the citations of guideline concerns by both side had merit. I certainly opened the DRN with the hope that a 3O would just simply weigh into the matter. I've directly opened a DDR/3 previous to this but that went unadopted. All I would really just like is an 3O to weigh in if the concerns I hold have merit, if they don't, I'd be perfectly willing to close my end of the dispute. I was under the impression the 5th statement I've provided was concise enough to state my position considering how tediously long the back-and-forth became. Sleath56 (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Sixth Statement by Sleath56
Sixth Statement by FobTown
The section #Censorship and police response being strictly for censorship and police incidents is far too limiting, therefore I have advocated for it to be renamed #Censorship, propaganda, and police response. Indeed why would many in the international press discuss both censorship and positive coverage in the same article? Because both censorship and positive coverage go hand in hand for those article authors. For instance in the death of Li Wenliang, censors first tried to block online discussion and then the state media attempted to "co-opt the incident by "cast[ing] Dr. Li's death as the nation's sacrifice". And likewise in the New York Times article, it discusses young individuals' mistrust of state propaganda pusing heroic sacrifice stories and young individuals' attempts to get around censorship (i.e. digital archives or substitute keywords). [49] If not in #Censorship, propaganda, and police reponse (which is by far the most appropriate), then where else should positive coverage go in the article? FobTown (talk) 04:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
In response to concerns about section bloat, the blocking of hashtags after Li Wenliang's death was originally just another instance of censorship in earlier versions of the article. However, after Li Wenliang's death provoked calls for freedom of speech among young people and academics, it was decided to making the censorship and coverage on his death a separate paragraph. Sure that might make a lengthy section even lengthier, but I'm all for this approach since everyone's contributions are included as long as it is backed by reliable sources and isn't duplication. FobTown (talk) 05:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maximus the Greek
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Edion Petriti on 10:33, 25 February 2020 (UTC).
Closed. It appears that some of the editors are not interested in compromise. The volunteer recommends that a Request for Comments be used to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The dispute is over which sources to use regarding Maximus the Greek's nationality, as there are various sources (19th, 20th century) that state he is an Albanian, a Greek and a Greek Albania. No consensus has been reached. The dispute boils down to "your sources are trash".
Clarify Wikipedia rules and policies regarding valid sources? Propose a new solution? Edion Petriti (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Summary of Dispute by Khirurg
Summary of Dispute by Dr.K.
I don't think there is any dispute as to the origin of Maximus the Greek. Please check the article to see that the overwhelming majority of academic, if not all, RS call him the scion of a Greek family who was born in Arta, Greece. The OP is pushing the POV from some obsolete old sources that Arta was in Albania, which is an anhistorical perspective, given that Albania did not exist during Ottoman times. The OP has also found a periodical from the 1860s calling Maximus the Greek, an Albanian. This is clearly an obsolete old source not recognised or quoted by modern academics. This posting here is an attempt to defy the state of modern scholarship regarding the origins of Maximus and it has to stop. I have provided at least 43 modern (and old) RS from the who is who of academia to the article attesting to the Greek origins of Maximus, complete with full quotes for easy verification. Dr.K. 01:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
^Frédéric Lyna (1950). International review of manuscript studies. E. Story-Scientia. pp. 261–263. Démétrius Trivolis fait preuve d'une solide érudition et de bonnes connaissances philologiques et philosophiques. Il corrige souvent le ... certains savants. Plus tard on retrouve les Trivolis à Mistra (Sparte) dans l'entourage des Paléologues.
Citation by Denisoff: Les travaux classiques sur l'histoire byzantine ne mentionnent pas, en effet, la famille Trivolis à laquelle notre démonstration apparente le moine hagiorite Maxime le Grec. (1) Une lettre ... fournit l'expression incontestable de relations AMICALES. Denissoff, p. 118-119. — meaning friendly relations, not family ones. Edion Petriti (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Edion Petriti
There is a dispute concerning his origin - the first sources regarding his ethnicity are all Russian - given he was active in Russia. There are sources stating he was a Greek, a Greek Albanian (i.e. an Orthodox Albanian - even though he was a Catholic monk for quite some time), and an ethnic Albanian. The POV that Albania did not exist at the time is non-historical; if we were to adhere to this logic, there was neither a Greece at the time of the Ottoman conquest, we're not talking about national states as they begin to appear in the XIX century.
Where was Maximus born?
Vernadskiy, Smurlo, Polevoy simply state: "in Albania". A document of the Lavra of the Most Holy Trinity, cited by Golubinski (Istoriya Russkie Tserkve, 1900, tome II, p.666-7) affirms that he was originally from "the city of Arta". Historians do not agree on this point; some place it in Greece (Calendar [=Martyrologium] of the Catholic Orthodox Church, ed. Kosolanov, 1880, p. 47), some in Epirus (Golubinski, op. cit. p. 667) and some in Albania (Nilskiy, Il Venberabile Massimo il Greco, martire della Civilizzazione, "Khristianskoe chtjenie, 1862, vol. I, pp. 313-386).
Maximus is the ecclesiastical name, the secular one being Michael Trivolis. "... we have in our own possession letters of this Michael, in Mount Athos there are canons, epigrams and epitaphs of the monk Trivolis". ... This is the first dicovery of Denisoff that guided him on further, fruitful discoveries on the youth of Trivolis.
On the physical aspect of Trivolis, see the two illustrations published by Polevoy (History of the Russian Literature, 903, I, pp. 172-3).
The epithet "Albanian" is given to him by Filaret Drozdov, and Palmieri.
Porfiriev calls him a "Greek Albanian", and also Elpatievskiy - defining with the first epithet the cultural education and with the second, his nationality.
The Russian Church has given him the epithet of "prepodobniy" (the Just).
Edion Petriti (talk) 07:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Maximus the Greek Discussion
1st volunteer statement
Okay now that this has been filed correctly, I will volunteer to mediate it. First I want to be sure that all 3 editors involved are willing to participate. @Dr.K.: and @Khirurg: are you willing to participate in this process? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Well then to make sure I'm clear on where we are. @Edion Petriti: wants to change the article so it says he was a Greek Albanian, and @Dr.K.: and @Khirug: both want to leave it as is. There is some conflict over which sources we should use, with Edion favoring older sources and Dr. K and Khirug favoring more modern sources. Edion- I know you said you would like clarification here, but we are mediators here, we help people find compromises, we don't make decisions. So what I'm going to do instead, is perhaps suggest adding a section/few sentences on the historiography of Maximus the Greek that describes how earlier historians thought his origins may have been X, but modern historians now believe Y. Would anyone have a problem with that? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Nightenbelle: Thank you for your considered proposal. You are an excellent mediator. Your proposal is good, except if you look at the vast majority of the sources, modern, and even older ones, they converge on certain key points. 1. The Trivolis family originated in Mystras, Laconia and was connected to the entourage of the Palaiologos dynasty. 2. Demetrius, Maximus's uncle, self-identified as a "Greek from Peloponnese". 3. Manuel and Irene, Maximus's parents, originally lived in Constantinople and emigrated to Arta, where Manuel became the military governor of the city. 4. Maximus signed as "Maximus Grecus Lakedaimon". This leaves no ambiguity as to where the academic consensus lies regarding the origins of Maximus. As far as the semantics of Arta, Epirus, or Arta, Greece, or Arta, Albania, etc., these arguments are rendered irrelevant. Because Maximus belonged to a Greek family, identified as Greek, his uncle was and identified as Greek, so no matter where Arta was, Maximus was Greek. To try and compare the tiny minority of sources that mention he was Albanian, or that he came from Arta, Albania, to the current academic consensus and its context, would be an exercise in WP:UNDUE and would violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Dr.K. 19:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Nightenbelle, there are also modern sources... this is the problem; 20th century sources that the editors involved are not willing to take into consideration. I just wanted to add a section on his "probable" Albanian origin, but the editors Dr.K and Khirurg wouldn't have it. If you add a section, on his disputed origins, fine by me. There are a lot of Albanians with the Tërvoli surname. Edion Petriti (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Here we have incontrovertible evidence by dozens of RS that the Trivolis family iriginated from Sparta and that his parents came to Arta from Byzantium. We have two handwritten notes of Maximus's uncle calling himself a "Peloponnesian from Sparta" ("This most beautiful book of mine is property of Demetrios Trivolis Peloponnesian from Sparta. I bought it after the fall of our fatherland Lacedaemonia, which was once fortunate". and "The present book was written by my own hand of Demetrios Trivolis Peloponnesian from Sparta who made these works in the island of the Corcyreans after the fall of our fatherland"), top of the line RS attesting that Maximus himself signed as "Maximus Grecus Lakedaimon" and you are still arguing about the "probable" Albanian origin of Maximus. You also mention the pure speculation WP:OR that There are a lot of Albanians with the Tërvoli surname.. This is getting to be disruptive editing. I advise you to drop the stick. Dr.K. 17:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle This is what I'm talking about, this is the users' attitude I am dealing with. Edion Petriti (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
2nd Volunteer Statement
So what I am hearing then, is the other two editors involved have no interest in finding a compromise- they are set. In that case, this DRN is not going to help. We cannot make decisions on content. If you want more imput- a RFC would be better. Honestly, however, I would also suggest WP:RS for some research, then ask them why these editors are not accepting your sources. A DRN only works if all editors are willing to participate and compromise. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Salve Regina University
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Donovanjustin on 14:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC).
Closed as premature. Discussion at the article talk page is a precondition of discussion at this noticeboard. There has been no discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Salve Regina University. There has been adding and reverting of the tag, but no discussion of the tag. Discuss the tagging and any other issues on the article talk page. Report edit-warring, including tag-warring, at the edit-warring noticeboard, but do not edit-war or tag-war. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Wikipedia user 'Melcous' continues to state that the Salve Regina University Wiki page is somehow not neutral, saying that there are links to sources which do not provide factual backup, and then continuing to place the non-neutral template warning at the top of the page over and over again without provide any specific evidence as to why. Melcous fails to provide any specific evidence that page has continuous neutrality problems. In addition, Melcous continues to threaten those editing the Salve Regina University page, threatening to ban others from Wikipedia, etc.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Stop Melcous from placing false and inaccurate templates at the top of the Salve Regina University page and to inform Melcous that it is improper to threaten other users without any justification whatsoever.
Summary of dispute by Melcous
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Salve Regina University discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Carly Colon
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed. There has been no recent discussion on the article talk page. There have been warnings on an editor's talk page, which are not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Discuss at the article talk page. Report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by HHH Pedrigree on 10:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Constant edits in Carly Colon. User:Old School WWC Fan included a lot of content in the wrestler career during the last 20 days. However, i removed because the content has several probelms [50]. 1, it's WP:UNSOURCED. 2, it's no notable or relevant for the article, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. 3, it's not written in WP:PROSE. It's just a list of every pro wrestling promotion he worked, unsourced, poorly written (not like other articles covering the independent career of the wrestler) and most of them, aren't notable, just local promotion which shows aren't even covered by pro wrestling media. I explained to him several times the issues and warned him [51], but his answer is removing my messages. He says he is working on the article, but after 15 days, the content stlls unsourced, full of no notable stuff and poorly written. I explained to him the problems and asked to work in his sandbox, but nothing. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Explain what to do. The edition has many problems and the user doesn't listen. Or maybe i'm wrong. Can somebody mediate between us and explain the problems of both editions?
Carly Colon discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.