Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 240
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Yola language
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | After discussion, there is agreement that the language had become functionally extinct in the nineteenth century. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The users Moling Luacha and Galloglach21 changed the extinction date of Yola in the infobox from 1998 (the death of Jack Devereux) to the late 1800s, their reason being Jack Devereux was not the last native speaker. They have not provided any source to support this claim, and the sources they are using to support the claim that Yola died out in the late 1800s do not actually state this directly (making it original research). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Yola language#Jack Devereux 'last native speaker' How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can explain to these users why their sources don't support their extinction date claim and that they cannot refute a claim without providing a reliable source. Summary of dispute by Moling LuachraGalloglach has summarised this dispute very well. There is no original research here and the only backing provided for Jack Devereux being a native speaker is an offhand comment from a newspaper article. User treetoes believes this is sufficient and wants a source to explicitly refute this, otherwise it must be true but that's clearly a logical fallacy. User treetoes does not seem to understand what a source is, how research works and the description given above is highly deceptive. As Galloglach said, a small number of users have continued to try editing the Yola page to display misleading information and are not interested in sourcing it so I think some kind of lock should be put on. There is no reputable academic source that states Devereux was native. Everything scholarly suggests he collected songs from Yola and that's it. As for the language going extinct in the late 19th century, there's two good academic sources on it. The first is The English Language in Ireland by Hogan, originally published in 1927, so closer to the time the language would've been spoken. On page 44 of the edition on Archive.org, in a section titled "The Dialect of Forth and Bargy", he explicitly states "In the baronies of Forth and Bargy (Especially in Forth), an area of about 200 sq. miles lying south of Wexford town, isolated by the sea and a long mountain, there lived on until the last century another descendant of the old Kildare English". This was written in 1927, much closer to the date when the language would have been spoken, and it clearly states it's gone. It was a scholarly enough source to be quoted by Raymond Hickey in his Irish English: History and present-day forms. The other source is Hickey himself, a scholar who has published widely on the history of Hiberno-English (as well as the above book, he has another one specific to Irish in Dublin). This time, it comes from his book The Oxford Handbook of Irish English. On page 48, it explicitly states "After a period of decline, it was replaced entirely in the early nineteenth century by general Irish English of the region." That's two reputable academic sources (of which a random, unsourced Irish Independent Article is neither) stating that the language was dead in the late 19th century, at the latest, and certainly didn't make it until the 20th. Unless you're going to tell me one of the foremost scholars on the topic of the history of English in Ireland (and specifically in Leinster!) is wrong (and he was certainly aware of Devereux) and a scholarly source from much closer to the actual time period where it should have still been spoken if Devereux was the last is also wrong, then you're going to need good evidence; not just a newspaper article. Moling Luachra (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Galloglach21Firstly, I think the original summary of events is highly inaccurate to what the actual issue is. That being; since at least 2016 a small cadre of users has been adamant on editing the page for the Yola language to change the date of extinction to 1998 with the death of a local mummer caroler called Jack Devereux as well as to include revival information. My opposition to this is based on factuality and notoriety. The source used to justify this edit to the date of extinction is an article written in 2020 by the Irish independent (found here: https://m.independent.ie/regionals/wexford/news/fascinating-book-on-yola-dialect-of-forth-and-bargy/39143296.html) which mentions the claim in a single line, "Jack Devereux of Kilmore Quay, who died in 1998, is said to have been the last speaker of Yola.". This piece of information is completely unsourced in the article and in my opinion is not a well sourced edit as we don't know who said it, why they said it, or what source they might have had themselves to claim such. It is a fully spurious claim. In response to this I replaced this edit with an extinction date of the late 19th century, for which I provided 2 sources (source 1: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25513442?typeAccessWorkflow=login , source 2: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25502621). The first source was published the 31st of December 1927 and states on its first page the following; "Mr Hore, one of the last speakers of the dialect, died in 1879". Granted this is quite short, but firstly it's written by a prominent researcher of Yola, Kathleen Browne, who is mentioned by name in the wikipedia page and whose work forms the basis for other information included in the page. However, I also have my second source, which is seemingly written by the same Mr Hore mentioned in the 1st source as a speaker of Yola during what appear to have been it's last generations. This 2nd source is dated to 1862 and states in Hore's words; "...for if the use of this old tongue dies out as fast for the next five-and-twenty years as it has for the same bygone period, it will be utterly extinct and forgotten before the present century shall have closed". As you can see this is not original research. I have merely used sources available to me that have provided information in other parts of the article (the letter to the earl of Mulgrave comes from Hore's article). However it would seem Treetoes023 does not like this and would like a direct source refuting his specific claim. This is obviously quite absurd due to the issue of this being a sporadic source, no academic has debunked this claim simply because it's not notable enough to, making it a logical fallacy, specifically proving a negative. He places the burden on others to disprove his sourcing specifically rather than defending it with additional information himself. I think an ideal solution going forward would be to lock or restrict who can edit the Yola language page so as to end the brigade of poor quality edits against it. Any further information can be found in the talk page for Yola as well as in the justification for my own personal edits to the page. If you would like any additional sourcing for my claims I can provide it. Thank you and apologies for the length. Yola language discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Yola)Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to follow it. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If you wish to discuss content here (and this noticeboard is for discussing content issues), please state briefly what part of the article you want changed, or what part of the article you want left the same that another editor wants to change. If you and another editor disagree about the reliability of a source, please identify the source, and we will ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Yola)@Robert McClenon: I agree to follow DRN Rule A. I want the article to be reverted to this revision until a consensus forms on the reliability of Jack Devereux being the last native speaker of Yola with reliable sources supporting or refuting the claim. – Treetoes023 (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Yola)@Robert McClenon: I agree to follow DRN Rule A. I want the article to not be reverted and for it to remain in its current form with the extinction date of circa late 19th century. There are currently four references for the 19th century extinction date including two reputable academic sources (of which a random, unsourced Irish Independent Article is neither) and not a single decent source describing Jack Devereux as a native speaker. Unless contemporary writers and modern scholars about the Forth and Bargy dialect (Yola) are all incorrect (including Raymond Hickey, the current leading researcher of the English language in Ireland), then there is no reason for the page to show this spurious date of 1998.Moling Luachra (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Yola)One point of disagreement is the date that the language became extinct. Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement on when they think that the language became extinct? Are there any other content issues about the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Yola)Second statement by moderator (Yola)It appears that there is now agreement that the language became functionally extinct by the late nineteenth century. If that is correct, we can close this case as resolved. Is it correct that we are now in agreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Yola)
|
Horst Wessel
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed as poorly filed and as not an article content dispute. The filing editor has not taken part in discussion on the article talk page, and has not listed or notified any editors. There is already an RFC running on the article, about what the lede sentence should be, but this editor's issue seems to be about an editor, and the filing editor appears to be asking for an editor to be topic-banned. This noticeboard is not the place to report a problem with a user. Report conduct at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement. Or don't report it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I made two pertinent edits to the Horst Wessel page, one factual (accepted); a second, contextual, which was rejected, apparently by an AI protocol, but who knows, really... which led me to open the Horst Wessel discussion page. There, I became witness to an ongoing exchange between the (I don't know what kind of) editor and another fellow user whose edit(s) was/were also being rejected, and I noticed that the following day, the editor had actually frozen the page. Who does that? The editor was being challenged by the user for biased handling, and the editor was exhibiting none of the expected traits such as willingness to entertain other opinions, professionalism, maturity-- you name it, s/he lacks it. Please review the dispute yourself. The cherry on the cake was his/her comment to the effect of "no Nazi deserves to be given an objective account." This "editor" needs to be pulled and replaced by someone without a modicum of propriety and sense. This is an editor who would think it outrageous if someone pointed out that language like "far-right", if fine for one political side, should require balancing by calling the other side (Communists) "far-left". (Maybe someone made that comment. Someone should have.) Of course, Wiki is known for its leftist bias, we all expect it, but there needs to be a line drawn that disallows self-righteous, self-entitled editors from using Wiki in this manner. It is NOT okay. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Horst Wessel Wikipage discussion in the last four weeks How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Pull the editor. Summary of dispute by EditorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by UserPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Horst Wessel discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Battle of Hussainiwala
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for failure to notify the other editor. The filing editor was notified almost three days ago that they had not notified the other editors, and they still have not notified the other editor. One of the other editors has been blocked as a sockpuppet and is no longer an editor. The other other editor is still an active editor, and should be discussed with. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If discussion remains inconclusive, a new request can be filed here, and notice will have to be given to the other editor within a few hours of filing the case request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Dispute if the Battle of Hussainiwala should be classified as a Pakistani victory when the Pakistan army successfully captured it during the 1971 war. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By hearing both sides, and observing every single point and context. Then to hopefully solve the dispute. Summary of dispute by Aman Kumar GoelPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrGreen1163Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Battle of Hussainiwala discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
shungite
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature to be taken to DRN. Please begin at the respective article's talk page, explaining how your addition was verifiable through reliable sources and so on. Closed by User:NotAGenious. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by MelroseReporter on 13:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The article was poorly written as it contradicted itself. It was also poorly sourced, citing sources such as "Gizmodo". The image did not correctly represent Shungite - it had a small shungite rock in front of a large unknown boulder. The largest error was that it said that "Shungite has trace amounts of fullerenes" and this is incorrect. To replace that statement, I cited an article in PubMed. These were the only changes made, and they were discussed in the talk page prior. Editor MikeNorton reverted it (it was hours of work) with the only revision explanation as, "please discuss on the talk page before editing". He had no comments on the talk page. Please note, it appears that we are heading to a revision war, which I'm not going to participate in. My article is encyclopedic as is, his can be quickly discredited by anyone knowledgeable about this subject. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please help me understand why my articles are being reverted. The other author does not participate in discussions, he just reverts. Summary of dispute by MikeNortonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
shungite discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
A number of editors have reverted MelroseReporter's edits on Shungite. This dispute resolution is basically forum-shopping. The article has been reverted to the point before MelroseReporter edited it, and MelroseReporter has been instructed to propose changes on talk and to gain consensus before changes are made. There is no requirement for dispute resolution here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Bangladesh Genocide
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor failed to notify the other editors, and has been blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring. This filing was also forum shopping because the filing editor had also filed a report at WP:ANI. The other editors should discuss on the article talk page, and the filing editor should discuss on the article talk page when they come off block. Be civil and concise in talk page discussion; too many of the posts to the talk page have been too long, difficult to read. If renewed discussion on the talk page is inconclusive but finite, a new case request can be filed here with proper notice to the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There has been consistent vandalism attempts in changing the history on the [page] to show one minority as the sole victim of a war. This is a comparison on all the edits made after June 2024 by Nomian and A.Musketeer which has repeatedly added claims and sources that puts the "Bengali Minority Hindu" as the focal point of this article. Persecution of the Bengali population happened irrespective of their race, creed, religion, but the users are constantly trying to insert articles and resources that aren't reliable while removing important sources, citations, articles. Added this as part of Bengali Hindu Genocide Series Removed that this is part of the history of Bangladesh Added the targets by the perpetrators as only Bengali Hindus Removed the targets by the perpetrators as Bengali Intellectuals and Bengali Civilians Added 'Bengali Hindu Women' to the rape allegations instead of 'Bengali Women' + more There have been 4 different discussions by different users over this issue where the majority agreed that this was an attempt of vandalism. I myself have consulted these users over and over again. But they are claiming that I am removing resources by reverting back to changes that have been made. The users have also vandalized several other pages related to the history of Bangladesh as a whole (including vandalizing the page Rape During The Bangladesh Liberation War). Please look into the discussions for more details. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Organized_vandalism_by_far-rights_from_India Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Primarily_Bengali_Hindus_as_target? Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Disruptive_edits_by_Lionel_Messi_Lover Talk:Bangladesh_genocide#Consensus_on_reverting_all_vandalized_changes_after_June_04,_2023 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Restore the article to a Neutral POV, remove the users from editing articles, reverting changes. Summary of dispute by Lionel Messi LoverPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MalerischPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrMkGPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by A.MusketeerPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by NomianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Bangladesh Genocide discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Republic of China (Taiwan)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There are substantive problems and procedural problems with this filing. The procedural problem is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. The substantive problem is that there has not been discussion on an article talk page. However, I will try to address the filing editor's question. The editors who said that we use the common name are correct. It appears that the MOS does not explicitly state that Taiwan should be used rather than Republic of China. There probably should be an RFC to add a paragraph to the MOS to clarify that Taiwan should be used because it is the common name. It isn't within the scope of this noticeboard to start that process. Further discussion should be at an article talk page, such for the politician in question, or at an MOS talk page. The other editors are reminded that the filing editor was acting in good faith, and that templating them for vandalism was inappropriate. This was a content dispute, and was not vandalism. The filing editor and the other editors are all advised to discuss rather than edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Sir/Ma'am, It was related the nationality of this individual: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiao_Bi-khim". According to the official link from “https://english.president.gov.tw/”, the nationality of this individual should use " Continuously, I received the warning about “unconstructive” and "disruptive editing", even though "subtle vandalism". I confused my action to provide the correct and right information by following the official name of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" from this link “https://english.president.gov.tw/”. Thanks for your help in advance. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please let me know if there is a official policy existed in Wiki Oversight or Wikipedia Foundation for stating all English version Wiki pages that should use “Taiwan” to replace “the Republic of China”, even thought with the link "WP:COMMONNAME" ??? Summary of dispute by Cat12zu3Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ButterdiplomatPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Mdaniels5757Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Republic of China (Taiwan) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to failure to list and notify some of the participants in the discussion. There has been discussion on the article talk page, but the filing editor has only listed an editor who edited the article in question, and not those who discussed. Editors who either edited the article or discussed the article should be listed and notified. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive in 24 hours, another request can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview The article should have an overview of the seven individuals who have accused Jackson of sexual abuse: Jordan Chandler, Jason Francia, Gavin Arvizo, Star Arvizo, Terence "Terry" George, Wade Robson, James Safechuck. All of the foregoing 7 have accused him in court filings or testimony, with the exception of Terry George who told ABC News in a 2005 intwrview that Jackson engaged in sexual abuse over the phone to him. Users keep deleting How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Child sexual abuse allegations against Michael Jackson How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Not sure but every time I add "seven individuals" I get reverted. Summary of dispute by Bhdshoes2; Mr Boar1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Arcane (TV series)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their talk page, more than three days after a note was posted saying that user talk page notice is required. The filing editor has been active during that time, so the filing editor has been wasting their time and that of the volunteers at this noticeboard by a drive-by filing that they did not follow up on . Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion continues to be inconclusive, a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Only four reviews used for generalization of content in the lead, allegedly containing the following info: "Arcane's first season was released to widespread acclaim, with praise directed at its animation, story, worldbuilding, action sequences, characters, emotional weight, sound, and voice acting." Only four sources, two of which is unreliable (WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED), for this claim: "Many publications noted that the series has been highlighted as one of the greatest video game adaptations." How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Arcane_(TV_series)#Unsourced_content How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 3O was of almost no help. You can help by talking about the removal of unsourced/unreliable content and addition of new sources, so that this unnecessarily protracted and stagnant discussion can end. Summary of dispute by HohumPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Arcane (TV series) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as mostly resolved. There has been agreement to trim the discussion of the Mexico City policy, and to include a Support and Opposition section. An RFC is being used concerning the Marist poll. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The crux of the issue hinges around two points. The first is the question of including polling and support for the amendment. The second is whether the section on the Mexico City Policy should be reduced or kept the same. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I hope a compromise can be made over the disagreements and/or clarification by uninvolved parties as to what is the best way to settle the dispute. Summary of dispute by 3KingdomsI believe that there is enough support to include a Marist poll about American views on the funding of abortion overseas for the article. Besides the Helms Amendment being the governing policy as it relates to the polling in question, reliable sources have also mentioned the polling in the context of the amendment or vice versa [4], [5], [6]. Also, I believe a section on groups that support the amendment should be included along with. Regarding the Mexico City Policy, while I do believe it should be mentioned in the see also section and maybe a brief mention in the article, I do not believe that a full summary of the policy's history and how each administration since Reagan enacted or rescinded it needs to be included. Helms is a separate policy than the MCP. Also, the current opening line for the MCP part "While the Helms Amendment put a stop to the efforts of USAID and similar organizations to promote safe abortion overseas, it did not satisfy some anti-abortion activists." To my mind violate NPOV and should be removed or at least reworded. Summary of dispute by Wes sidemanI'm in favor of including information about the Helms Amendment that is included in reliable sources that discuss the Amendment in depth. There are numerous reliable secondary sources that discuss the relationship between the Amendment and the Mexico City policy: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].... the list could go on forever if I wanted to copy-paste for a few more days. Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, which is the rules covering disputes over a contentious topic. Please be aware of the ArbCom decision on abortion, which finds that abortion, broadly construed, is a contentious topic, and disruptive editing is subject to special sanctions. Do not ask me for expertise about the Helms Amendment or the Mexico City policy. It is the responsibility of the disputing parties to provide the moderator with any necessary information, just as it is the responsibility of the editors of Wikipedia to provide readers with information. Please acknowledge that you understand and will comply with the rules. The purpose of conflict resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, because that is the purpose of all editing of the encyclopedia. So please start by making a one-paragraph or two-paragraph statement as to what you think should be changed in the article, or what you think should be left the same that another editor wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
Second statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)It appears that there are two issues. The first is whether to leave the current language about the Mexico City policy as is, or to trim it down. The editors who want to trim it down may also want to remove the section heading. The second issue appears to be whether to include or exclude the Marist poll. Will each editor please state, briefly, what they think should be in the article about the Mexico City policy? A compromise may be possible, and is desirable if possible. Will each editor please state whether they think that the Marist poll should be included? The issue of the poll appears to be a yes-no question, but if anyone has a compromise idea, please state it. If there are any other issues, please state them, concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Helms Amendment)I think we should mention that the Mexico City policy was an expansion of the Helms Amendment restrictions, briefly describe the policy's effects, and briefly summarize its history across the following presidential administrations. I still think this can be about a paragraph long. I don't think we should include the Marist poll, and I don't have a compromise idea. I would change my mind if there were more reliable sources mainly about the Helms Amendment that draw a connection between it and the poll; so far I think only the Forbes piece makes the cut. I don't believe there are other issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)User:Avatar317 - I will add you to the list of editors. At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Mexico City policy, but rather agreement that coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down. If anyone disagrees, please say so. At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Marist poll, but rather agreement to leave it out. If anyone disagrees, please say so. Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Helms Amendment)I still disagree about the exclusion of the Marist Polling due to the it being rated one of the best polling sites. The objections about the Knight of Columbus sponsoring the poll I do not find convincing. The Guttmacher institute is pro-abortion but is used as a source. I do not see why a poll from a highly rated place should be disregarded because it was sponsored by a group that is anti-abortion. The other objection about a lack of connection I understand, but still unconvinced by. If the poll is excluded I still think a small section in support for the helm amendment from the Catholic Church, the Knights, and anti-abortion groups is worth having.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)There appears to be agreement that the coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down. There appears to be disagreement about the Marist poll. I will ask those editors who oppose including the Marist poll to state whether they oppose it on grounds of reliability of the sources, as undue weight, or bias. Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
Fifth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D. There seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. You may use the section for back-and-forth discussion to work out a trimmed version. If there continues to be disagreement about the Marist poll, an RFC may be in order. Does anyone want to propose an alternative resolution? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
Sixth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D. There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. There seems to be agreement to add a Support section before the Opposition section. We don't have to have agreement to have an RFC on the Marist poll. An RFC is used to obtain community rough consensus when there isn't agreement. Is there agreement to include the poll? Is there agreement to exclude the poll? If one editor wants an RFC, we can have an RFC. What if anything is there agreement on, about the poll? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
Seventh statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. It appears that there is disagreement on whether to include the Marist poll, but I want to verify that. Will each participant please state what their opinion is on including the Marist poll? It appears that there is disagreement about either a separate Support section or redesignating the Opposition section as Support and Opposition. Will each participant please state what their position is on identifying Supporters? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Helms Amendment)I believe the Marist Poll is worth including and support having a combined "Support and Opposition" section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC) I don't have anything new to say about the Marist poll; I'm still opposed. I favor a Support and opposition section that includes at least one sentence on support from the USCCB and anti-abortion orgs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Oppose inclusion of the Marist poll. Support small combined "Support and Opposition" section. ---Avatar317(talk) 00:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. An RFC is needed on whether to include the Marist poll. Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be used. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)Ninth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. I have drafted an RFC on the inclusion of the Marist poll. It is in draft at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act/RFC on Marist Poll for review. Please do not vote in it until I move it to the article talk page. Are there any comments about the RFC before it is published? Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be in order. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)Unless I'm misinterpreting the eight statements, I think all active participants prefer a combined Support+opposition section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I support either a single Support+Opposition section, or two separate sections (though I believe they will be very small and therefore better as one section). The RfC would be better as: should specific sentence X be in the article, sourced to Y sources? Otherwise "in the article" could mean "in the See Also section" - I like Firefangledfeathers's suggested sentence for the RfC, though I would modify it to read: ..."oppose or strongly oppose the funding of abortions overseas with US tax dollars."---Avatar317(talk) 23:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Tenth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. Does one of the editors want to develop the trimmed-down version, either in the article (for which I will give permission), or in a sandbox? User:Firefangledfeathers - You say that you would prefer that we not hold an RFC. If there is disagreement on whether to include the Marist poll, how do you want to deal with the disagreement? A second version of the RFC on the Marist poll can be developed, which does not try to summarize what the poll found, but only asks whether to refer to the poll. Please do not vote in it until I move it to the article talk page. Are there any comments about the RFC before it is published? Are all of the editors agreeable to a single Support and Opposition section? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Tenth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)I love a good RfC, but it's an expensive use of community time. This DRN discussion has itself been costly. Since we're approaching—I think—a compromise in which each party gets some of what they want, I would be much happier for everyone to drop their sticks and walk away with at least half a smile on. If there is to be an RfC, my order of preferences would be:
About the Support+opposition section, I stand by my ninth statement and don't see that anything has changed. I could take a stab at the Mexico City content, but it'd probably be about 3-5 days from now. I'd trust any of the participants to get it mostly right, if someone can do it sooner. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC) While I believe it should be included, if people think an RFC will cost too much, I'll accept it not happening and agree with Firefangledfeathers belief we all walk away with at least something. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Eleventh statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)There is agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy. That can be done by editing the existing current article. There seems to be agreement on a single Support and Opposition section. That can be done by editing the existing article. Rule D5 is suspended to allow editing of the section on the Mexico City policy and the Support and Opposition section. I have reworked the RFC on the inclusion of the Marist poll. It is in draft at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act/RFC on Marist Poll for review. Are there any comments about the RFC? If participants feel that the RFC is not necessary, what should we agree is the rough consensus? (It is true that an RFC uses community time. The premature closure of a DRN without reaching agreement, but with the mistaken assumption that there has been agreement, is likely to use more community time in the long run.) I do not plan to close this DRN without either agreement on the Marist poll. or an RFC on the Marist poll. Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be in order. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Eleventh statements by editors (Helms Amendment)RFC looks fine to me. Agree about Mexico City Policy. I am fine either way with support and opposition.
Twelfth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)There is agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy. That can be done by editing the existing current article. There is agreement on a single Support and Opposition section. That can be done by editing the existing article. Rule D5 remains suspended to allow editing of the section on the Mexico City policy and the Support and Opposition section. The RFC has been published, and will run for thirty days. I will close this dispute within 48 hours unless there are any new issues raised. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Twelfth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)Back-and-forth discussion (Helms Amendment)I don't know the procedure for editors to offer opinions on DRN; this is my first post here. I support trimming the "Mexico City Policy" section by concatenating the last three paragraphs into one saying something on the order of "Democratic presidential administrations have removed it, while Republican ones have re-instated it"; (the years and presidents can be seen in that article)...maybe including the small comment about Trump's expansion. It shouldn't be its own section. Single poll should be excluded; doesn't sound like this is representative of true population's opinion based on the sources and who commissioned the poll. Abortion polls are notorious for getting wildly different results based on the specifics of how they are worded.---Avatar317(talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Kingdom of Georgia
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor has not listed any other editors in the filing. There has been discussion with at least one other editor, who should be listed and notified on their talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Another user adds "Arabic" and "Persian" under "common languages" of the Kingdom of Georgia. This was done based only on information that bilingual Georgian-Arabic and Georgian-Persian had been minted. It is clear from one of the provided references that languages on coins showed Georgia's trade relations with neighbors. Another book is silent on this. There is no evidence provided anywhere that "Arabic" and "Persian" were common languages used in Georgia (e.g. I don't need to know English to use pound sterling, and Georgians don't need to know Arabic to use Arabic-inscription coins for Arabic trade partners). The other user disagrees and now attempting to redefine meaning of "common languages" field in infobox to include coins, which is misleading. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_Georgia#Common_languages How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide additional opinion on the purpose of "common languages" field in infobox. Provide additional opinion if language used on coins for trade partners is considered "common language" of kingdom, even if no indication is given how many locals actually know that language or not. Kingdom of Georgia discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Zagwe dynasty
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as fizzled out. Neither editor has replied to the moderator's two questions within three days. If there is still an issue, it should be discussed at the article talk page. The editors are again reminded that the Horn of Africa is a contentious topic. The editors are also reminded that starting a discussion at DRN and not following up on it wastes the time of editors. If discussion at the article talk page is inconclusive, the existence of the article on the state can be challenged with a deletion nomination, or its title can be challenged with a Requested Move. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview About Ethiopian history. Both the Kingdom of Aksum and the Ethiopian Empire have entries dedicated to their respective polities. The relatively obscure intermediate Zagwe polity is, however, simply called "Zagwe dynasty". First I moved the page to Zagwe Kingdom, which was reverted by another user, arguing that "Zagwe Kingdom" is not the commonly known denomination. I argue on the other hand that there is a difference between the ruling dynasty and the polity it rules over. My first solution: two separate entries. One focuses more on the royal family ("Zagwe dynasty") and another ("Zagwe Kingdom") that discusses the polity. For example, I would drastically shorten the "Islam" section in the "Zagwe dynasty" entry while leaving it intact in the "Zagwe Kingdom" entry. On the other hand I would add a royal succession table to the "Zagwe dynasty" page. Alternatively there may also be just one entry titled "Zagwe Kingdom", focusing on the polity aspect. Calling it "Zagwe dynasty", I feel, would not do it justice. LeGabrie (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Zagwe_dynasty#Article_dedicated_to_the_entity How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Brief assessment of the situation Summary of dispute by Socialwave597Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I saw that without consensus or discussion, the article was renamed to "Zagwe Kingdom", LeGabrie argued that the dynasty of this polity and the polity itself are two different entities and should have their own separate articles, however he then proceeds to change the name of the article to the "Zagwe Kingdom", a term which no academic source ever refers to the Zagwe as. This political entity is referred to as the "Zagwe Dynasty" by most reliable authorities such as Taddesse Tamrat[14], Haggai Erlich[15], Richard Pankhurst, etc. We need some sources explicitly calling this "Zagwe Kingdom" before changing the title to that name - otherwise that would be original research. There's plenty of sources calling this polity the "Zagwe Dynasty" so I don't see the need to change the title. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article must be titled the "Zagwe Dynasty". If we want to add content about the royal family of the Zagwe this is the article to do so. Socialwave597 (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Zagwe dynasty discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Zagwe)The other editor has not responded. If the other editor does not respond within 24 hours, I will have to close this case as declined. Continue discussion on the article talk page. However, the filing editor says that they want separate articles on Zagwe dynasty and Zagwe Kingdom, and there are articles on both Zagwe dynasty and Zagwe Kingdom, so maybe dispute resolution may not be required. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Zagwe)First statement by possible moderator (Zagwe)There seem to be two intertwined questions. The first is whether there should be one article, Zagwe dynasty, or two articles. The second is what the second article if any should be called. Please read the Horn of Africa ruling by ArbCom and DRN Rule D. Please state whether you wish to take part in moderated discussion subject to that rule, and acknowledging that you are aware that the Horn of Africa region is a contentious topic. Then please answer the two questions listed above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Zagwe)
|
John de Lancie
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed as declined by the other editors. This appears to be a one-against-many dispute in which the filing editor wants to mention a role in the lede which the other editors do not want in the lede, because the other editors think that would be undue weight for the role. Participation in moderated discussion is voluntary. The filing editor is advised to resume discussion on the article talk page, and has two choices. First, they can accept that they are in the minority, and can accept that a rough consensus is against them. Second, they can submit an RFC to ask whether to make their edit to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview On the John de Lancie page, his role as Discord (from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic) in the lede was listed in the 2nd paragraph where it lists his "other television roles". I disagreed with this, due to his Discord role being easily his most popular and known role right beside his Q (from multiple Star Trek series) role. His other roles listed under "other television roles" were all much less well known/popular than his roles as Q & Discord. So I found it to make much more sense to list his Discord role alongside his Q role in the first paragraph as one of the two roles he is most well known for. So I edited the page to change this, but that edit was quickly reverted and deputed. (My edit can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Lancie&oldid=1188681811 , note that every contribution from the ip 67.60.186.104 on the article and talk page was mine before I made this account) I started a thread on the matter on the article's talk page. I gave my argument there for my edit, and City of Silver responded. We had a brief back and forth where they stated that my edit would have violated the rule on no original editing. I gave a long response to them explaining my disagreement on that point, that they never directly responded to. Sergecross73 did give responses agreeing with me that my edit would not have violated the original research rule, and stated that the argument should be specifically about where it makes more sense to place the Discord role in the lede. Despite this initial good discussion, there haven't been responses since and no clear consensus on this matter has developed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [16] Here is where that discussion was. I stand by all of the arguments I gave there, and would be interested in hearing responses to them (in particular to the long response I gave to City of Silver). Since no clear consensus has been developed on the matter, I would be interested in further discussing this matter with any of the people already involved in that discussion. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I also completely understand if those people are busy and why this minor edit dispute would not be their priority, so I also would be interested in other parties looking over the edit & discussion and stating their opinions on this. It would be good for me and others to able develop a consensus for or against my proposed edit, or even for a compromise edit if anybody has ideas for that. Thank you, I look forward to good discussion on this matter that can lead to an agreement. Summary of dispute by FlightTimePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MetersPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is a minor content dispute that the OP is not content to allow the talk page to settle. There has been zero other support for the OP's attempt to move mention of John de Lancie's voice role in a children's cartoon from the second paragraph of the lead (as part of a list of roles) into the first paragraph of the lead (as something the actor is "best known for"). As I said on the article's talk page Note that since this was opened another editor, user:Slacker13, has commented on the article's talk page, and is also against the OP's proposed change. Meters (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Daniel CasePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dennis BrownPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This doesn't belong here and is outside the scope of the board. There is a consensus on the talk page, this one user is trying to take a second bite at the apple. Please close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sergecross73I'm just an uninvolved admin who has been trying to guide discussions in the right direction. We've got an newbie editor who is still learning, and experienced editors giving pretty lackluster, lazy responses that aren't exactly helping. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by City of SilverThis is a bit frustrating. I have to give a long, detailed answer so I won't be (apparently) accused of being "lazy" but what if I don't have a long, detailed answer? Because I very much do not want to come off like I'm dismissing the formidable amount of work EpicTiger87 has done, and because Sergecross87 has (apparently) described my efforts at being concise and short-winded with what I believe is an unfair little attack, I'll go on and on as best as I can. I believe a performer who regularly works as both an on-camera and a voice actor can usually not have a voice performance be considered one of their most recognizable. There are exceptions but I really don't believe John de Lancie is one. I wasn't convinced by EpicTiger87's arguments, all of which I read and considered more than once and all of which I concluded are not compliant with our policy that says we cannot source article text to original research. There's an argument to be made that EpicTiger87 has kinda/sorta claimed that OR is to some extent not in play here, or can be overridden. I still believe it entirely governs this dispute. John de Lancie's most famous work is as Q, a recurring character from several Star Trek franchise shows. Nobody is disputing that. While I believe that nothing he's done has been anywhere near as significant as Q, I believe his second-most famous performance came in a four-episode arc of the prestige TV drama Breaking Bad, where he played a vital character in a storyline whose twist is, arguably, the most shocking in American television history. That's my opinion and if article content is not affected by it, that's fine. This is also me saying quite literally nothing about de Lancie's work on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. By all accounts it's some of the finest, most beloved voice acting in its part of our popular culture. (Does it matter that, while I was discussing this on there, I actually tracked down and watched several clips from it of de Lancie's performances? Before this I'd never seen a single second of that show.) Whether or not we should be here, here we are so why don't we get closure from an uninvolved mediator? While I strongly dispute Sergecross73's (apparent) criticism of my participation, I agree that not everyone has done a great job plainly stating where they stand. City of Silver 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
John de Lancie discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Note: I was unable to deliver a notice to Daniel Case, as their talk page is semi-protected and I do not yet have the ability to edit semi-protected pages. If anyone here could deliver the notice to them, that would be great.EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC) I agree with City_of_silver. Moving the Discord info to the top is unnecessary and reads like a non-neutral marketing tactic. Separately from this, the article contains a significant amount of original/non-source verifiable and irrelevant information like: "In 1962, de Lancie performed in a high school production of William Shakespeare's Henry V." My inclination would be to significantly edit out all of the superfluous content. Slacker13 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (de Lancie)I am trying to determine whether moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule A. I will comment on one editor's statement. They said: Zeroth statements by editors (de Lancie)I have throughly explained the edit I want to be made on both this discussion and the article talk page, which is to move the lede mention of his Discord role from his "other television roles" in the 2nd paragraph, to the first paragraph listed alongside the Q role. Here is the revision from when my edit was briefly up before it was reverted. I will be interested in taking part in a moderated discussion if anybody is interested. EpicTiger87 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC) Hello, If any outsiders who have not participated in this discussion would like to talk about this, I would be more than happy to. EpicTiger87 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC) First statement by moderator (de Lancie)It appears that none of the other editors besides the filing editor are agreeing to moderated discussion. If anyone else wants to take part in moderated discussion, please answer the question stated above, about what you want to change in the article, or leave the same. It appears that this is a one-against-many issue, and that the filing editor wants to include a role in the lede paragraph that the other editors think is not sufficiently important for the lede. Is that correct? If so, there is at least rough consensus against the filing editor. The filing editor has two choices. The first is to initiate a Request for Comments. The second is to accept that they are in the minority. I will close this case within 48 hours unless another editor requests moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (de Lancie)
|
Ukrainian language
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Crash48 (talk · contribs)
- Rsk6400 (talk · contribs)
- Austronesier (talk · contribs)
- Mzajac (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
| Closed as failed. The moderator has been unable to ascertain exactly what the objections of User:Rsk6400 are. What is clear is that they want the moderator to determine that User:Crash48 edited the article after being told not to edit the article, and that they earlier requested that the article be rolled back to a stable version. I do not intend to roll back the article, because the purpose of mediation is to go forward to a new rough consensus version of the article, and I do not intend to analyze the chronology of edits to determine who edited improperly. Analysis of the chronology of edits can be done at Arbitration Enforcement. It is clear that one editor has written a section on Names of the Language that the other editor disagrees with. I have not been able to get the editors to agree on what they disagree about. Maybe they can do a better job of explaining to the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement. I recommend that if either editor is interested in resolving this content dispute that is complicated by conduct issues, they report the dispute to Arbitration Enforcement rather than to WP:ANI or WP:AN, because the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement usually are able to deal more expeditiously with complex disputes than a community process is able to do. This dispute is closed as failed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Disagreement on whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Establish whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article. Summary of dispute by Rsk6400Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Comment I'm not opposed to this kind of dispute resolution, but I'm not sure about this, because there were a lot of other participants involved in the discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Summary The question is not, whether the use of the name "Little Russian" by certain authors should be included, but whether it should be included without reference to good secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AustronesierPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ukrainian language discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)I am still ready to try to mediate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, and reply whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to this set of rules, which include recognizing that the Ukrainian language is a contentious topic subject to the Arbitration Committee ruling on disputes about Eastern Europe. The contentious topics procedure has been provided in part to deal with battleground editing about world areas that have been historically real battlegrounds, or are current battlegrounds, and Ukraine is the area of the bloodiest war of the twenty-first century. An editor has said that there have been other editors involved in this dispute. After discussion, we may either use a Request for Comments to involve other editors, or invite the other editors to take part in this discussion. So I am asking whether at least two editors agree to moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D and Eastern Europe contentious topic rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)Yes, I think I understood the rules and am willing to take part. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Yes, I agree to moderated discussion subject to the suggested set of rules. --Crash48 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC) I was not invited but I did participate in the above-mentioned previous discussion. I ask to be allowed to participate, and agree to the ground rules. Thank you. —Michael Z. 17:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed. It appears that one area of disagreement is whether to state that the language was sometimes called "Little Russian" in the past. Is that statement supported by a reliable source? If so, is there a reason of due weight or balance why it should not be mentioned? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) User:Mzajac will be added to the list of participants, and should answer the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC) First statements by editors (Ukrainian language)Yes, the article should mention that the language has been called “Little Russian” at some times in some places, in a manner compliant with policies. But no, it certainly should not use the term, as it is pejorative language from a colonial legacy (and is currently used to support a violent campaign against Ukrainian nationhood). And as to the specific question at issue, the article should not just cite cherrypicked historical usages by Ukrainians in primary sources without context to imply something about the term’s acceptability. All discussion of the term should be composed with awareness of its context (including the meaning and implications of “Little Russia” and “Little Russian” [person], colonial relationships, and imperial censorship), avoid WP:SYNTH, and be used to provide information supported by recent reliable sources. And also note that the primary sources in question actually use several different terms, with different meanings, in different languages: malorusskoĭ litaraturě (“of Little-Russian literature”), malorossiĭsʹkym narichchiam (“in the Little-Russian dialect”), iazyka maloruskoho (“of the Little-Ruthenian language/tongue”), malorossiĭskago narěchiia (“of the Little-Russian dialect”), Malorossiĭskaia Eneida (“Little-Russian Aeneid”). —Michael Z. 06:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC) Question It seems to me that this edit[17] by Crash48 means that the mediation has failed, according to rule D, no. 5. Am I right ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC) The edit I want included in the article is [18]. Every statement added therein is attributed to a RS. Austronesier's statement at WP:ARC, although based on a slanderous premise misrepresenting a clearly attributed citation from Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute as my own OR, nevertheless confirmed Rublamb's earlier statement at Talk:Ukrainian language that citing primary sources is allowed as illustrative material for a conclusion which is itself cited from secondary sources. As for other content issues: after I had filed this DR request, a new content dispute developed, unrelated to the mentions of Little Russian language. Rsk6400 insists on using the phrasing Second statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)I will not fail a moderation for an edit of the article so soon after I provided the rules, but I will restate that Rule D.5 states not to edit the article while discussion is in progress. One editor calls for a use-mention distinction about the terminology "Little Russian". Is there agreement that this is the right approach? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC) One editor has identified another content issue. If I understand correctly, what is agreed is that after 1654, Eastern Ukraine was part of the Tsardom of Russia, and Western Ukraine was under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The question of which state can be considered more autonomous is a national point of view. Is this disagreement about the wording of the Ukrainian language article, and where, or is it about the content of a different article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Are there any other content issues? Second statements by editors (Ukrainian language)The proposed edit[19] demonstrates the dangers of “citing primary sources as illustrative material,” as at least one of the statements uses WP:OR to incorporate a misinterpretation of the primary source: “As late as 1845, the Ukrainian poet and philologist Ivan Vahylevych referred to his language as Little Russian.[1]” it says, but that is false. According to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine,[20] Vahylevych’s work is “his published Polish grammar of the ‘Little Ruthenian’ language in Galicia (1845).” The title is Grammatyka Jȩzyka Małoruskiego w Galicii (Polish) or Hrammatyka Iazyka Malorusʹkoho v Halytsïy (Ukrainian/Rusyn), meaning “of Little Ruthenia” or “of Little Rus,” and definitely not “of Little Russia” (which would be “Małorosyjskiego” or “Malorosiĭsʹkoho”). This is clearly supported by the Polish-language passages in the right-hand side of the referenced image file, where we can see distinct mentions of both Russia (Róssia/Россїѧ) and Ruthenia/Rus (Ruś/Рꙋ́сь). I don’t think the other assumptions in the proposal about vocabulary use are any more reliable, and presenting the collection of unreliable factoids to imply a pattern and encourage particular conclusion is engaging in an insidious form of WP:SYNTH. Instead, we should say what RS say about the historical use of the terminology, directly supported by them. Although the question of autonomy in the seventeenth century is not directly relevant to this dispute, the issue of the division of Ukraine between empires and the treatment of Ukrainians and Ukraine therein is. Most of the sources in question are from the period of the Ukrainian National Revival in the nineteenth century. In this period, Ukraine continued to be called Ruthenia (a Latinization of Rusʹ) in the Habsburg empire (including Red Ruthenia, Chervona Rusʹ, and Carpathian Ruthenia, Karpatsʹka Rusʹ), but was named “Little Russia,” Malorossiia, in the Russian empire. We must also make the distinction between the medieval and early Modern term Mala Rusʹ/Malaia Rusʹ, and the Russian-empire colonial term Malorossiia, which had a different connotation. A Ukrainians was called a rusyn or rusnak, but the Russian empire invented a new term, maloros. The Russian labelling was a colonial imposition accompanied by bans on Ukrainian language and violent denial and suppression of Ukrainian identity in ways that did not occur elsewhere (see, e.g., all-Russian nation). The fact that Ukrainians who were subject to this colonization for generations used the colonial vocabulary (or rather that their publishers who wanted to stay in business did) should not be put forward without context and explanation to draw mistaken conclusions from. —Michael Z. 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The use–mention distinction is totally irrelevant to the dispute at hand,
--Crash48 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC) References Third statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)Let's start over. First, read DRN Rule D again. Rule D4 says, "Comment on content, not contributors". It then says, "Discuss edits, not editors". These two instructions are the same, and are repeated because they need repeating. Second, read the ArbCom ruling, as amended, on Eastern Europe. The contentious topics procedure is in place largely to control battleground editing about areas that are or have been real battlegrounds, and too much blood is being shed in Ukraine. Disruptive editing may be dealt with summarily at Arbitration Enforcement. Also, read the boomerang essay before asking the moderator to fail the moderated discussion. If the moderated discussion is failed, the next stop will probably be WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Try to avoid those conduct forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Third, there appear to be two content issues. The first has to do with the term "Little Russian". The second has to do with the subsection "Under Lithuania/Poland, Muscovy/Russia and Austria-Hungary". We will discuss them separately, commenting on content, not contributors. I am neutral, but I will be active in trying to implement neutral point of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia. Are we in agreement that the term "Little Russian" should be mentioned, but that it should also be noted that the term is considered pejorative, at least in modern times? Since the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, state exactly where you want to change what the article says, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Just tell what if anything you want to change in the article. There are clearly two viewpoints about the history of the Ukrainian language in Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine, because there are two viewpoints on the history of Ukraine. There are two ways to deal with the conflicting points of view. The two options do not include selecting either of the two viewpoints. We should not make any statements comparing the autonomy of cultural development in the voice of Wikipedia. Either we can state that there are at least two viewpoints on the history of the Ukrainian language, and present both viewpoints as viewpoints, or we can cut down the Ukrainian history to a minimum to state only that the language developed with different influences in the two parts of the country. What changes if any do the editors want to make concerning the phrase "Little Russian"? Which approach should be used concerning the disputed history subsection? Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Ukrainian language)The term "Little Russian" became pejorative in the 20th century. We may mention that it is currently considered pejorative, but then we must also clarify that it was not considered pejorative at the time. There is no need to detail the reasons why the term became pejorative. By way of example, the original name of And Then There Were None came to be seen as offensive in modern times; but nevertheless, the name features prominently in the article, appearing in bold in the lead paragraph, on the infobox cover, etc. The article includes a timeline of the name change, but does not explain any of the reasons why the original name became offensive, nor any description whatsoever of the African-American history. This is exactly the approach I propose for the Ukrainian language article too. The suggestion that the history of Russian imperialism must be recounted in any article that mentions the term "Little Russian" is ridiculous and WP:UNDUE.
Crash48 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Fourth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)Comment on content, not contributors. Read Be Specific at DRN. This applies in particular to the phrase "Little Russian". Exactly what does each editor want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Please state what approach each editor wants to take with respect to the history section. Do you want to expand it to present different national points of view, or to trim it down to a minimum, or do you have a different proposal that maintains neutral point of view? Fourth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)
Brock 1972, quoted fully enough to demonstrate Brock’s translation of terms. Of course, ruski does not mean “Russian”:
The paper was published in an anthology, Nationbuilding and the Politics of Nationalism: Essays on Austrian Galicia,[24] where the index on p 333 actually lists it as Note that scholarship in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries often treated Ruthenian and Ukrainian as a variety of Russian, for example calling the Old East Slavic language “Old Russian.” This is no longer the case. Anyway, sorry I don’t have the time to properly respond to the moderator’s questions. I am very busy in RL for the next week, but will monitor, and respond better if and when I can. —Michael Z. 20:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)There have been mistakes. My mistake may have been not making it sufficiently clear that I am not trying to determine what is the stable version or status quo version of the article. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article going forward, and I do not spend time on determining what previous changes were made when. The mistakes by the editors include not addressing my questions about changes to article content. The mistakes by the editors also include continuing to complain about the other editor. I said to comment on content, not contributors; and I am not planning to try to determine what was the stable version. If either editor thinks that it is important to restore a status quo version, or is not interested in following my rules (and I decide how to apply my rules), they can withdraw from moderated discussion, and I will fail moderated discussion, and I will recommend that someone report at least one of the editors to Arbitration Enforcement. You have been notified that this discussion is about a contentious topic, and that special procedures can be used. I don't think that either of you should want to go to Arbitration Enforcement. It will almost certainly result in some sanctions on someone, and then you won't have moderated discussion to try to resolve the content dispute. So: Exactly what does each editor want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where? Please state what approach each editor wants to take with respect to the history section. Fifth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)Regarding the name “Little Russian,” this comprehensive article on the language should explain all of the names applied to the subject, throughout its history, and their historical, geographical, political, and chronological context, and their connotations. And in different languages, including English, and modern and historical Ukrainian as well as names that were significant in many cases in Polish, Russian, Latin, and Greek languages. It can refer to them in the course of the “History” section, but there are so many historical and current names that it may be helpful to have a “Names” section to sort out the important ones. It should make assertions referring to statements in RS, not implying them using examples. It ultimately will need to have more nuance and detail than “‘LR’ is pejorative today but was not in the nineteenth century,” because this is a severe oversimplification. For one thing, the naming of the language is not just black and white, but a process that has continued throughout its history and across Ukraine and the world. This comprehensive article about the language also will need to refer to the many different original names that are ambiguously translated with more precision than has been deemed sufficient in some other contexts like broad history books or narrower articles. For example English “Little Russian” has been used to refer to Ukrainian/Rusyn “maloruskyi iazyk” which existed and is also called Little Ruthenian,[26] and also to “malorossiiska mova” which is not. For example, “Little Russia” in the Medieval and Early Modern periods (Mala(ia) Rus)was a completely different name from “Little Russia” in the imperial period (Malorossiia) or today. For example, referring to sources, the above-mentioned article Boeck 2004[27] has a lot of important factual info, but while some of Brock’s opinions are important they are not academic consensus; see, for example, the direct critique of Boeck in Kravchenko 2022, The Ukrainian-Russian borderland: history versus geography, (p 40)and what it says about the chronology of the change in connotation (p 46). —Michael Z. 01:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC) My fourth statement specified exactly what I want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where. It did not comment on any contributors, and I don't understand why it needed to be hatted. My first statement specified my suggestion with respect to the history section. My second statement additionally clarified that Regarding the statement that Anything that is identified as important by secondary RS focussing on the history of Ukrainian language (or Ukraine) should be included. Primary sources should not be used here. The name LR was used by the imperial centre (i.e. Russia) in the context of Ukraine being a Russian colony in all but the name. This should be said in the part of the section covering the language history under Russian rule during the 18th and 19th centuries. For Ukrainian under Polish and (after 1772) Austrian rule the only thing important to me is that we stick to secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)One editor wants to add a Names section covering the history of names for the language, including the various forms of "Little Russian" in various languages. If there is agreement that there should be such a section, then the specific issue about "Little Russian" can be subsumed within an expansion of the article. That would leave the one remaining previous issue that of the history section, which needs to be expanded, because there are different national points of view, and the article must provide a neutral point of view. This section should be expanded and rewritten. Is there agreement that there should be a Names section? If there is agreement that there should be a Names section, and that the history section should be rewritten for neutrality, then I will provide each editor with a sandbox workspace in which to work on the sections of the article that need work, and then we can compare them. Are there any other content disputes? Are there any other questions? Sixth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)I have no objections to creating a Names section. My own suggestion for the content of such a section would be identical to my suggested content for the paragraph starting I do object to expanding on history of Ukraine in the article on its language, because History of Ukraine already exists as a separate article. I do also object to expanding on the use of terms Little Russia as toponym and Little Russian as demonym, because Little Russia and Little Russian identity already exist as separate articles. I pointed earlier to the example of a novel published under a title that later became offensive. The article on the novel states for a fact that the title became offensive, and doesn't go into any detail as to why. The detailed explanation of how the term developed its modern connotations appears in the separate article on that term. The paragraph starting A section on the names can be created, but it doesn't have to. In any case, we should refrain from using primary sources. Regarding the neutrality of the history section: I don't see different national views. I learned most of what I know about Ukrainian history from American and Swiss-Austrian authors who don't seem to share the POV of any of the nations involved (Polish, Ukrainian, Russian). Since the crucial point seems to be the "colonial" situation of Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire, which I see as necessary context for the use of "Little Russian", I'd suggest to solve the problem of "Little Russian" (and, if you like, other names) first and then see whether history is still a problem. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)If the editors agree, I will permit the editing of the article to develop a Names section. Alternatively, I can create a sandbox for each editor to develop a Names section and we can compare them. Is the preference of the editors for development of a Names section in the article, or for its development in sandboxes? As one editor has pointed out, there is a section on History of Ukraine. Rather than expanding the section on Under Lithuania/Poland, Muscovy/Russia and Austria-Hungary, we can cut that section down to remove the point-of-view material. Do the editors agree on this approach? If so, can this be done by normal editing, in which case I will permit the editing of the article for that purpose? Or do the editors want sandboxes so that they can each develop a trimmed-down section and can compare them? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Ukrainian language)For the "names" section, I prefer the sandbox. But since it was not my idea, I'd rather not write the first draft. Still, I'd like to take part in the process of improving that first draft. For the section on history, I still don't see any POV issues. And, as I said above, I'd suggest solving the "names" question first. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Either sandbox or inline editing is fine with me. I agree with the proposal to iron out the names first, and then see if any disagreements on the history remain. --Crash48 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)At this point, I have created a single sandbox page for the development of the Names section, at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names. We will see whether this works, meaning that we will see whether the draft section expands in an orderly fashion, or whether I need to give each editor their own subpage. We will defer action on the history for now while we are working on the Names section. Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)Commenting on this version of the draft: Most of it is original synthesis of primary sources. The claim in the first sentence "[before mid-19th century] the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is not really supported by the source. The source only makes the corresponding statement in a specific context, i.e. to specify the language it is talking about. Better have no section on names than that one. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)I said that I did not know whether a single sandbox page would work. Creating a single sandbox page at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names did not work, because one editor thinks that the other editor's version is non-neutral. I am giving each editor their own subpage for their version of the Names section. The two versions will be at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names/Crash48, and at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names/Rsk6400. User:Crash48 has either begun or finished their draft. They may work on it further if they wish. The section for User:Rsk6400 is blank at this time. They may either develop their own preferred version, or they may state that they do not want a Names section. In the latter case, we will discuss whether the current draft should be modified, and can then have an RFC to decide whether to add the Names section to the article. We will defer action on the history for now while we are working on the Names section. Are my instructions and questions clear? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)No, I did not claim that Crash48's draft is non-neutral (see my 8th statement). As stated before (6th statement), I'm neutral regarding the question whether there should be a section on names. But, again as stated before (7th statement), I'd rather not write a draft of my own. I don't know what happened to @Mzajac: since the Names section was at least in part his idea, I think he could be helpful to get us out of this deadlock. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC) I have finished my draft. It appears that there is an insurmountable disagreement on these two specific points:
Do we need an RFC to definitively resolve these two points, or does common sense and pointing at WP:PSTS suffice? --Crash48 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)I was mistaken in my statement about what Rsk6400 wrote about Crash48's section on name. They said that the section consisted largely of synthesis from primary sources. Does anyone else want to write a section on Names of the Language? If there is objection to the section, but no one else is proposing an alternative, the community may have to decide via an RFC. User:Crash48 says that the conclusion is itself cited from secondary sources. User:Rsk6400 says that it is synthesis from primary sources. Will Crash48 please state what conclusion they are drawing from secondary sources? Will Rsk6400 please identify the text that they say is synthesis from primary sources. We need to know what we are disagreeing about. We may then have to ask the volunteers at the reliable source noticeboard for opinions on sources. Both an RFC and a referral to RSN will wait for now but may happen soon. Please answer the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Tenth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)The conclusion (itself cited from Flier&Graziosi, and illustrated using citations from primary sources) is that Dear moderator, the whole thing has become too frustrating for me. You misunderstood my eighth statement once again. You also didn't understand my first statements. This discussion has failed the moment that Crash48 broke the rule[28], 24 hours after they accepted those rules[29]. The rule says "will be failed", there is no need for the moderator to fail it. And that breaking of the rule was not "soon after" you provided the rules[30] - as you mistakenly stated[31] - but five days after that. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Eleventh statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)I am evidently having difficulty parsing what User:Rsk6400 is saying, So I will go back to my usual original question. What does User:Rsk6400 want to change in the article? Be Specific at DRN. If either party wishes to withdraw from mediation, I can fail the mediation, but before asking me to fail the mediation, please read the boomerang essay again. If I fail this mediation, it is likely that the admins at Arbitration Enforcement will impose topic-bans on one or more editors. So I am asking all editors, one more time: What do you want changed in the article on the Ukrainian language? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Eleventh statements by editors (Ukrainian language)Dear moderator, I never asked you to fail this mediation. I'm only stating that Crash48 broke the rules 24 hours after they agreed to them. The rules leave you no choice. There is nothing like "can be failed by the moderator" or "will be failed at the moderator's discretion". The rules clearly say "will be failed". And common sense says the same. How can a mediation succeed if one participant is allowed to break the rules while the others stick to them ? You never accused me of anything specific that might merit a topic ban. I'd ask you either to be more specific or to strike your statement I bring against Rsk6400 the specific accusations of WP:STONEWALL and WP:FILIBUSTER, by feigning willingness to participate in a mediated DR, and then, over the course of a month, refusing to suggest any specific change to the article, or to relate to any specific change that I suggest; in particular, by first claiming that If this mediation is failed, my accusations will go straight to WP:ANI. I suggest to Rsk6400 to use his last chance to engage in a discussion of the content whose inclusion he opposes, and to state any specific reasons for his opposition. As for what I want changed in the article, my draft of the section on the names of the language stays unchanged. --Crash48 (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion (Ukrainian language)
|
Harry Reid International Airport
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as not an issue for DRN. If any editors disagree with the closure of the RFC, they can challenge the closure at WP:AN. Otherwise, do not restore the lists unless they are attributed to reliable secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I replaced the Airlines and Destinations table in the article with a summary of the airport's operations, and I believe my edit abides by the consensus from this Request for Comment. However, other editors have expressed opposition. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Harry Reid International Airport#Stop Removing the Airlines and Destinations List How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I seek guidance on what to do with the Airlines and Destinations table in accordance with the RFC consensus. Summary of dispute by Ericm2031Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JakemhurstPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Reywas92Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't understand why Sunnya343 is bringing this here. They are the only person in favor of deleting this information from the article, while Jakemhurst, Ericm2031, RobH2488, A. B., Rlrcoasterdude21, VenFlyer98, and I all expressed opposition to deviating from longstanding practice of listing destinations in this article, just like every other airport article. Sunnya343 failed to gain consensus for their deletions yet continues to edit war on the article to impose their utterly pointless content removal and bring this to another forum and waste my time. The RFC closure did not decide that these sections should just be deleted, rather that sources are required, just like anything else. Keeping this table, which does have sources, is consistent with that. Reywas92Talk 14:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RobH2488Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The only thing I have to say is that I agree with Reywas92 And A. B. on what they just stated. The Airlines and Destinations table have on what I believe are reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobH2488 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by A. B.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There have been multiple discussions about airport destination lists over the years:
Talk page discussion for this dispute: All currently listed destinations cite what appear to be reliable references (a mix of primary and secondary). --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Rlrcoasterdude21Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Harry Reid International Airport discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (HRIA)I am ready to act as the mediator if the parties want to resolve this dispute by moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. In looking at this dispute, I am not sure that moderated discussion is what is needed. Different editors are citing different RFCs as establishing different consensus. The most recent RFC appears to have one that was opened in October 2023 and closed on 18 November 2023 by admin User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I am adding them to the list of parties in this dispute. This was a potentially controversial close, because a counting of votes might have resulted in No Consensus , but the closing admin found that the policy arguments to delete lists of airlines and destinations were stronger than the policy arguments to retain these lists. The filing editor deleted the airlines and destinations tables, citing the 18 November 2023 RFC closure. Other editors are disagreeing, often citing earlier RFCs. My assessment of the situation is that the other editors should either accept the result of the RFC, or request closure review of the RFC at WP:AN. I am willing to conduct moderated discussion, but I will be viewing the 18 November RFC closure as establishing consensus. I would like each of the editors to state whether they are requesting moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule A, or whether they are requesting closure review, or whether they have some other request. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (HRIA)Zeroth (?) statement by ScottishFinnishRadishIf there is an objection to the closure, that should be raised per the standard procedure, otherwise that consensus overrides the local consensus at the article. Further, the reason we don't just count votes is made very obvious in that RFC. All of the quotes I used to support the common thread in the discussion ( First statement by possible moderator (HRIA)I am asking for clarification of at least one issue. Some editors are objecting to the removal of the lists of airlines and destinations. The lists were removed because the 18 November 2023 RFC closure stated that lists of airlines and destinations must be verifiable against reliable sources, and the editor removing them said that the lists were not compliant. What I would like to clarify is whether the editors who object to the removal are saying that the lists should have been kept because they were properly sourced and therefore were compliant, or whether they are disagreeing with the closure of the RFC. If there is disagreement with the close of the RFC, then close review should be requested at WP:AN. I am also asking the closer of the RFC whether my interpretation of the close is correct, that airline and destination lists must be sourced, so that such lists should be kept if they are properly sourced, and may be deleted if they are not properly sourced. User:ScottishFinnishRadish - Is my interpretation of your close of the RFC correct? Each editor who agrees with removal of the lists should state why they agree with removal. Each editor who disagrees with removal of the lists should state why they disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (HRIA)
Second statement by moderator (HRIA)The issue appears to be whether the lists of airlines and destinations are attributed to reliable secondary sources. The editor who deleted the lists of airlines and destinations says that those lists are attributed only to primary sources and so are not permitted in the article. Am I interpreting the issue correctly? The editors who oppose the deletion of the lists and support the restoration of the lists have not provided an explanation. Will the editors who want to restore the lists please explain? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Second statements by editors (HRIA)
Third statement by moderator (HRIA)The RFC, which was closed by User:ScottishFinnishRadish, has established consensus for airline articles, that lists of airlines and destinations must be supported by reliable secondary sources. User:A. B. is disagreeing with that conclusion, saying that the information published by airports and airlines are reliable primary sources, and should be usable. DRN is not the forum to challenge the closure of an RFC, and the RFC is recent and is the rough consensus at this time. As SFR has pointed out, a challenge to the close of an RFC should be done at WP:AN. Are there any other content issues about the article, other than the inclusion of the lists of airlines and destinations? If there are any other content issues, please state what they are. If the only issue involves a challenge to the RFC, I will put this thread on hold when the close challenge is posted, and will leave it on hold until the close challenge is resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Third statements by editors (HRIA)
Fourth statement by moderator (HRIA)It appears that some of the editors disagree with the RFC close which said that lists of airlines and destinations are only allowed in airport articles when they are attributed to reliable secondary sources. I and the closer have advised that RFC close challenges should be made at WP:AN. There has not been a close challenge at WP:AN. I am about to close this DRN thread as closed due to lack of response. The removal of the tables was consistent with the RFC close, and was therefore supported by rough consensus. Resume discussion at the article talk page, but either accept the RFC close or challenge it at WP:AN. Do not edit-war, and do not edit against consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (HRIA)
|
Offramp (album)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to two problems with prior discussion. First, the discussion with User:Drmies has not been been on the article talk page, Talk:Offramp (album), and is not really discussion. Second, some other editors have discussed on the article talk page, but have not been listed or notified. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here, listing and notifying all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have attempted to standardize the lead on the ECM albums and stubs, as most (around a thousand or so) are incomplete and disorganized. I have done my best to follow in the footsteps of the people who have done the bulk of the work ahead of me (three quickly come to mind, one or two follow), and I have done my best to directly (personally) make sure my edits aren't in conflict with theirs. I am complete willing open to word changes in the standard, and would even be willing to facilitate them myself manually, but one user has repeated reverted the wording, refuses to talk on the talk page, and deletes my attempts at conflict resolution on their talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User_talk:Drmies#"features"_vs._"includes" How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I mostly want to know what I did wrong. Am I being pig-headed? Ignorant? Rude or insensitive? I would like to improve my ability to resolve situations like this without conflict moderation, and it's hard to find constructive criticism. Summary of dispute by DrmiesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Offramp (album) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Historicity of Jesus
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed because the filing editor has been indefinitely blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Users added that Jesus lived "in Palestine" for the first time in the article's history in December of this year, 2 months into a brutal and divisive war in Israel and Palestine. The name of the region Jesus lived in was historically known as Judea until 132CE, when the name for the province was changed by Roman rulers to be "Syria Palestina". Users have engaged in a protracted edit war over the user of the term Palestine over Judea. The user of contemporary terms for historical figures is atypical. Caesar is a roman ruler, not an Italian one. Brasidas was a Spartan general, not a Greek one. Jesus was a Judean, not a Palestinian. Usage of contemporary terms with a politically-charged connotation is inappropriate in an article about the historicity of Jesus. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am hoping that a just resolution can be found, because the other users are unwilling to budge, despite historical fact not being on their side. Summary of dispute by tgeorgescuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This isn't a matter of debating skills or logical sophistication. It is a matter of lacking knowledge. The OP does not know that the term "Palestine" is routinely applied by Bible professors to Jesus's time and place. I quoted several WP:RS explicitly making this point, but the OP thinks they are anecdotal evidence and demands a peer-reviewed study demonstrating that Bible professors use this term this way. The sources are:
Summary of dispute by Ramos1990Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Historicity of Jesus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Nakba
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed as declined by the other editor. Resume or continue discussion on the article talk page. Do not edit-war. Report disruptive editing to Arbitration Enforcement after reading the boomerang essay. Another editor has entered the discussion. Resume or continue discussion on the article talk page, Talk:Nakba. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview _Issue:_ 1) Levivich is not allowing any mention of the violence that was occurring in the lead up to the Nakba. All sources are being rejected (Old newspapers are too old; new newspapers are too new; 20th century authors are not acceptable; earlier works by authors who may have written later works are rejected; don't reference French works; and on and on) 2) Bertrc believes that mentioning the violence that was occurring gives important context to the start of the Nakba and that his references support the claim that violence was occurring. _Details:_ The sections in our Nakba article that describe the lead up to and the beginnings of the Nakba (ie. the "Prior to 1948" and the "1948" sections) make no mention of the violence that was occurring between Jewish and Palestinian groups. A reader could believe that all was fine before the Brits pulled out and then the Jews started ethnically cleansing the Palestinians out of the blue (I say this because that is what I encountered -- somebody described the start of this conflict in such terms, and wikipedia seemed to support them) _Concerns:_ I am a wikipedia lightweight. I do not have the knowledge or authority to get this done. I raised a third opinion request and the respondent supported my changes, but my changes were still blindly reverted. I try edits, rather than blind reverts; I do not know how to work with text simply being reverted. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Nakba#Preemptively_creating_a_chat_section_of_my_contextualization_edits (Talk section with third opinion in support of mentioning violence), [37] (3rd Opinion request;response is in talk section), [38] (re-edit1), [39] (re-edit2) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I honestly feel that avoiding any mention of the violence before 1948 breaks our Nakba article. I would like somebody to authoritatively tell me I am wrong in mentioning the violence -- and then start the process of correcting all our other articles that mention the violence -- or to figure out how to mention the violence -- with their own edits; by altering my edits; by supporting my edits with more authority than I have; or some other means. Summary of dispute by LevivichThe above descriptions of the dispute and my position are so inaccurate that I am not going to spend time engaging with it. For anyone who is interested, my comments on the talk page explain the reason for my reverts. Levivich (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Nakba discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
(Not opening this, just noting that I've entered the discussion at the talk. Valereee (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC))
|
Salaar
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed. The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. The edit-warring over the box office receipts appears to have subsided. Discuss any content issues on the article talk page. If edit-warring resumes, blocking may resume, so do not edit-war. A new request can be filed here, but only after real discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Hello. The issue here is that nobody is updating the Salaar page's Box Office section and when i made a request to edit that section while providing 4 sources all of which are included in the list of WP:ICTFSOURCES as reliable sources, yet I've been asked to provide more sources. This, in my opinion is completely unfair and unacceptable. Therefore i am here on behalf of many other users who are waiting for the same request to be checked and updated. Thank you. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VarunKumar35#c-Aoidh-20231228211200-VarunKumar35-20231228172100 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salaar:_Part_1_%E2%80%93_Ceasefire#Protected_edit_request_on_28_December_2023 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can help us resolve the issue by checking the edit request sources provided and then matching with the list of reliable sources mentioned in the article WP:ICTFSOURCES and then update the Box Office section of Salaar page accordingly. Summary of dispute by Tousif.15Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Salaar discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|