This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.
Burning of Smyrna
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 70.164.212.36 on 08:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
Closed. The filing unregistered editor has been blocked for one week. The other parties, and the filing editor after coming off block, should resolve any content disputes by normal editing. If normal editing does not resolve a dispute, a neutrally worded RFC may be used, but should be neutrally worded. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Noticing propaganda on the caption of photo in article, I edited it out due to no reference (naively). Edit was reversed in 2 minutes with claim that content justified it. Found that Wikipedia does not allow interpretation and neither in a caption, I again deleted propaganda interpretation. My edit was reversed again within two hours with additional propaganda of genocide, with 2 weak references added. Editor said to Talk for Consensus. I wrote a long paragraph in Talk, pointing out my reasons for my edit in minute detail and disputing the validity of his references. Editor responded by writing they will add a new paragraph (never did, and now shows up as retired from Wikipedia!) I noted that Wikipedia was not for propaganda. Editor asked my reason for objecting to his references, and I explained in detail. No more replies from editor, although after 4 days I wrote further citing their various Wikipedia violations. Waited more days, then made a more involved edit with 2 additional references and accompanying text modifications. I also made a literal translation under an existing reference to remove a misrepresentation of what was said in reference. This edit was now reversed before a day passed by a brand new editor (replacing retired one?) with boilerplate edit summary with no proof. I undid this reversal citing my reasons (edit summary & Talk). Reversal was quick but no Talk. My undoing of reversal was again reversed the same evening, by yet another editor, again with boilerplate edit summary, but no proof. I decided that I am against a coordinated effort to lead me to an edit war which I cannot win, due to rotating non-responsive editors that do not participate in Talk. Therefore Talk was futile. I have already indicated in the Talk page my intent to escalate the issue. My edits and points are valid and the reversing editors have not brought any proofs, but have simply quickly reversed my edits citing vague incorrect reasons. Neither have they "Talk"ed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By considering the Wikipedia rules and violations, judging the content, trying to suppress propaganda, what to do when editors that are quick on the trigger when reverting (2 minutes response time?) will not Talk (how can consensus be reached then?), and by looking for ways to deal with the rotating editors issue. A single person like me cannot have an edit hold in such a case for obvious reasons. Most importantly, the value of the edit content goes to zero no matter how significant.
Summary of dispute by TimothyBlue
I have limited ability to connect and post atm; I will be more available next week. My involvement here is from the infobox, but I support the reverts made by @Te og kaker:. I stated on the talk page that I would add more sources to post and will, although the existing sources are fine.
@Robert McClenon:: I think the ip's statements about the ethnicity and religion of editors and authors (here and on the talk page) needs to be addressed. // Timothy :: talk 02:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@70.164.212.36: were you recently editing from the IP 184.179.106.251? // Timothy :: talk 03:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
No! What makes you think that? Where did you come up with that IP, and how did you decide to associate it with me? Do you have access to information that I do not? I made an honest and accurate edit of the Burning of Smyrna article and I see a number of people making assumptions regarding how I am doing what I am doing, and trying to bar me from Wikipedia so that this troublesome person does not trouble them anymore so they can continue the way they have been. Why are you surprised that someone can recognize propaganda? Please come to me with a discussion of the context of the article, not whether I wear different masks. I wear only one face, mine. Also, the Wikipedia principle for disputes is that it is the context that should be discussed, but you did not do that on the article Talk page, neither do I see you doing it here. I will abide by the Wikipedia principle and not comment on why you or anyone else did not. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I did mean content, but it came out context.70.164.212.36 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This is all public information everyone can see. 184.179.106.251 is still blocked, and the editing pattern and IP location make me think this might be block evasion. Hopefully someone can help clear this up. // Timothy :: talk 21:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I have no knowledge or comment on any other IP. I do find your insinuation (of "block evasion") offensive however, to use your own language, and I am saddened by it. Do you believe I am the only person in the world sick and tired of anti-Turkish propaganda day in and day out? I am tempted to get in contact with the IP you mention; maybe I can figure out who from their "editing pattern", apparently within your expertise. Can you please help? I am serious, because you seem to know a lot about that IP, or maybe you research in detail whoever makes an edit you do not like and make a chart of who edits what and who some people were able to get blocked. So much for that. I will reply to your other questions on February 3. I had hoped you would get this involved in the Talk page, but you did not. I am not even sure if this is how disputes are handled, and maybe our moderator can guide us in that regard, as I do not wish to see you and Te og kaek keep accusing me and me having to reply as if you are police commissioners. Now, if you have any issues with the content I edited (which you have not addressed so far and keep sidestepping), I will be happy to reply. I would appreciate it though, if you do not use phrases like "most scholars" etc., which I have already debunked in one case (single reference with yet another single reference in the chain) and in another case (book review as reference). By the way, have you also checked into the mysterious IP 79.107.121.185, who has yet to appear in this dispute? Would it be appropriate if I asked you or Te og kaek or someone else if they are associated with that? 70.164.212.36 (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
To clear up a few points:
The content you seek to change/remove has been in the article (e.g. [1],[2],[3]) and remains in the article. The content has references from major publishers.
The infobox reflects this longstanding information in the article as it is supposed to. The article mentions "Greeks and Armenians" and the subject of genocide dozens of times.
The changes you are attempting to make would fundamentally change the longstanding article content that has been developed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors (see diffs above). The article content has been arrived at through consensus and any editor need consensus to change it.
Your changes have been replied to by multiple editors; editors are under no obligation to keep replying to every post you make. You clearly do not have a consensus of editors to make the changes you propose.
Since you wish to change the article in a fundamental way, you need to develop a consensus of editors to accept the changes. If you cannot convince a consensus of editors, the changes will remain rejected. Arguing and claiming information and sources you do not agree with is propaganda will not persuade anyone.
If you continue to make the changes you propose to the article without persuading a consensus of editors, you will be edit warring.
With regard to your particular changes, I've mentioned I agree with Te og kaker comments and there is no reason to repeat these comments.
These comments are offensive:
I have no problem with you as a moderator, as long as you are not ethnically Turkish, Armenian, or Greek, or are married to one, since I do not want any bias. ... I am a bit concerned that you have listed your religious denomination on your web page. Will this get in the way?[4]
@Liz:, regarding the Wikipedia guidelines I mention above (not the content dispute issue) have I misstated any Wikipedia guideline? Since you protected Burning of Smyrna I figure you are a little involved already.
Let me start by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with what Te og kaek wrote in his first sentence, where he wrote, in reference to the article he “came across by coincidence”, that “it was written in a very clearly propaganda-based language”. The edits I made are barely a few percent of the article, so he must have been referring to the rest. Indeed, as you actually admit in your second point above, “The article mentions "Greeks and Armenians" and the subject of genocide dozens of times.”, and I will take your word for it. I did go back to the initial version of the article and worked up, noting how some editors removed what they did not like and converted step by step the content in a manner suitable to their propaganda. For example, Horton’s absence during the fire has been removed and talk about genocide has started creeping in. However, I did not really need to go back to figure out how the article was used for propaganda, as I have already mentioned. I have, to my regret, developed a sixth sense for propaganda over the years, but this is so in your face that no sense was needed.
In regard to your comments about consensus, may I kindly suggest that you go back and read the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus again, as it appears it has been some time since your last look into that. Having had consensus does not preclude future changes. Suppose I write something about some tribe in Africa, and no one from that tribe reads and objects to it at that time and thus consensus is presumed, until five years later one does read and object. So, what do you think? Frankly, I think Wikipedia consensus needs to be revised, but that is neither here nor there.
Another little fundamental about Wikipedia consensus is that consensus is needed for an edit to remain in the article (but that does not necessarily mean it should always remain). That brought to my mind the change you made, adding an Armenian genocide to the photo caption. Since I rejected that, you cannot assume consensus has been reached. By replacing it again, you have edit-warred with me without Talk. In my case, that can be excused because I am new to Wikipedia, but everything about you say “old hand”, so you have no excuse except that you “forgot”. Would you then kindly start peeling off a layer of propaganda by removing that bit from the caption? It may have been there in the past, but apparently it got removed by your friend “consensus”.
One more item in the consensus page that you appear to have forgotten is that consensus is not a vote, i.e. it does not need N people to approve an edit. In fact, the page is quite clear in that you cannot reject an edit without providing proper explanation as in Talk, which neither you, nor Te og kaek and nor the mysterious IP person have done. So, according to Wikipedia consensus, my edits should stand. You and the other editors (I will refrain from using words such as acquaintances or colleagues) started Talking only after I filed a dispute. However, instead of scientific arguments (such as Horton saw with his own eyes as in here, etc.) you decided to either keep quiet (mystery IP) or to accuse me of various things none of which are true (ok, it may not have been in good taste on my part to ask the moderator regarding ethnicity, but not necessarily a Wikipedia felony.).
I have felt from the beginning that I was being challenged by certain technicalities some editors have a good understanding of, which is fine and I will learn, but how come I was not challenged by historical facts and how come my historically solid references (and “big publishers” too) got the shoddy treatment they received, whereas I had already pointed out really bad references in the article that not even a middle school student would be comfortable with. Are you really comfortable with a book review as a reference? Can you point out to me which consensus left it in place? How about big phrases like “most scholars” “most sources” “widely accepted view” etc. which had no leg to stand on but were only used to impress readers?
You and the other editor accuse me of propaganda, but, in my somewhat learned opinion, it is actually yourselves that are propagating propaganda. You yourself wrote “The article mentions "Greeks and Armenians" and the subject of genocide dozens of times.” Well, if that is not propaganda then what is. Perhaps we should ask a researcher on Goebbels. The times it mentions Turks, on the other hand, is with negative connotation when it relates to post-liberation days. People may think something is true if you repeat it a million times, but that still does not make it true.
In closing before midnight, as I promised, I will again remark that you have, and -in my opinion- severely, violated Wikipedia guidelines in several ways, which I have already discussed, and I will be carrying this all the way to the top if I must. It was a good exercise going through this with you and Te and we will meet again. In the meanwhile, everything you and I wrote on these pages will remain there for every interested fair-minded individual to read and learn from, for the life of Wikipedia.70.164.212.36 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 79.107.121.185
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Te og kaker
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I actually came across this article by coincidence and noticed that it was written in a very clearly propaganda-based language, and had obviously been edited by a user with an agenda, and decided to enter the edit history in order to revert to a NPOV version independently of any other users' decisions to do the same previously. The user also falsely claims that I am a "brand new editor" (which is obviously false, as my contribution log goes back to 2013), and has insinuated twice that I am a sockpuppet of a user with which I obviously have no relation. The user also posted a complaint on my talk page in this morning, complaining over the fact that I had not replied to his post on the talk page, which was posted at five o clock in the night - at a time when I don't think it is necessary to tell you that I was sleeping, and I just can't believe that this user actually expected a reply at that point.
In fact, I have not had the chance to reply to this user's accusations before now, due to the fact that I was working late today.
It is quite striking that this user is continuing his edit warring on this article; look at the edit history and see how massive the user's edit warring has been. The user has also used at least two different IPs on the talk page and has now also created an account with the purpose of propagating the Turkish narrative of the event (which is supported by very few scholars outside Turkey), making his agenda very obvious, particularly considering that the IP/user has no other edits than the agenda-pushing on this particular article. The narrative propagated as truth by the user has little scholarly support and runs contrary to numerous contemporary eyewitness reports of the burning - yet the user attempts to propagate this narrative as truth.
The edits committed by the user includes
removing "Greek genocide" and "Armenian genocide" from the "part of" rubric of the infobox - this is consistent with the propaganda of Turkey, denying that the Ottoman Empire or Turkey were responsible for any genocide. The user makes it worse by blatantly denying the Armenian genocide altogether on the article's talkpage (he also does this, although slightly more subtly, in the article), consistent with the Turkish government's claim that the Armenian genocide never happened, despite scholarly consensus and widespread documentation that it did happen.
Changing the sourced original sentence "the Muslim and Jewish quarters escaped damage" to "while allegedly the Muslim and Jewish quarters escaped damage" - thus reducing a historical fact to a dubious allegation, although there is really no basis to claim that this is an "allegation".
Changing "most sources and scholars attribute it to Turkish soldiers setting fire to Greek and Armenian homes and businesses" to "some pro-Greek and pro-Armenian sources and scholars" - thus reducing the widely accepted version to a minority viewpoint held by sources with an agenda. The user also adds "often without proper citation as here" to make matters worse, attempting to reduce the widely accepted viewpoint to some kind of historical manipulation. The sentence is also by itself very propaganda-based and unencyclopedic; I doubt any experienced user will give support to including such a loaded statement in any article. It is a personal opinion of the user, and also disregards facts. It also disregards the several eyewitness reports from witnesses who personally saw the Turkish forces set fire to buildings, after ensuring that the wind was blowing away from the Turkish quarters, throwing petrol at buildings, as well as massacring civilians. It also runs contrary to the sources quoted for the statement, who clearly state that "reports from Western observers at the time lead most scholars to place the blame squarely on Turkish soldiers, who were seen igniting Christian-owned businesses in the city", as well as another one which states that "most eyewitness accounts [...] attribute this fire to the Turks". Add to this one of the talk posts from this user, where he falsely claims that only Armenian sources claim Turkish responsibility for the fire (a statement which is clearly false), and also that any Armenian source should be disregarded due to "bias" because they are Armenian, while the user on the other hand seems to not only accept Turkish sources as impartial but also to see them as having higher credibility than the majority of non-Turkish sources.
Changing "a few, Turkish or pro-Turkish" to "some other sources" - thus, in the context of the edit mentioned above, trying to obscure the fact that this is a minority viewpoint which hardly has any scholarly support outside Turkey, which runs contrary to scholarly consensus and eyewitness reports. The user tries to reverse the roles, indicating that the widely accepted view that the Turks started the fire is the actual minority viewpoint not supported by evidence and the Turkish propaganda version the widely accepted view. This is clearly not substantiated.
Removed "Nevertheless, some Turkish sources have accepted Turkish responsibility for the fire" - thus again attempting to discredit the majority scholarly view in favour of the official Turkish explanation.
Added "However, Edward Alexander Powell’s words, [15] regarding the reliability of reports in United States newspapers long used to blaming Turks for every ill, should also be taken into account." - this is an opinion, which does not belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not the place for argumentative texts (which this user's version of the article is). Wikipedia editors are obviously not in any position to judge what "should be taken into account".
Replacing "it is widely regarded as an act of genocide and a war crime" with " While a few recent publications attempt to portray the event as part of an alleged genocide [24][25], the controversy as to who started the fire (see e.g. Powell[15], or Prentiss[16]) removes the basis for such a theory." - again, an opinion. Does not belong on Wikipedia which is supposed to have a neutral point of view. The user here claims the right to be the judge of history and be in the position to disregard the majority view of scholars. I am pretty sure that the user himself also understands that this does not belong on Wikipedia.
I don't think I need to elaborate this further. The user's edits is written as an argumentative essay which tries to propagate a point of view. Add to this the user's very argumentative behaviour on talk pages (as well as here), his aggressive edit warring, single-topic editing as well as editing the article as well as the talk page with two IPs as well as an account obviously created for this purpose, as well as claiming to be the victim of a "coordinated effort" against him, repeatedly insinuating that those who revert him are sockpuppets etc. His agenda is very obvious. I am actually a bit surprised that his edit warring has not led to any sanctions against his IP(s) and user account yet. --Te og kaker (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
This person has clearly confused me with someone else, as I have not, up to this point, used any other means of posting on Wikipedia except from my cell phone while on a long trip as a passenger, although I may open up an account later. As for edit warring, all I can see are rude reversals with very little Talk and very rudimentary edit summaries, plus lately a few by another person (maybe) without any edit summaries at all. So, what was I supposed to do except explain myself better than them and add to the documentation of the Smyrna fire while also attempting to remove what was clearly genocide propaganda.? A Greek genocide or an Armenian genocide may be accepted by some or many, but it is not a universally accepted truth and the fact that Armenian brainwashing continues day after day is the best indication of that. In fact, it is easy to see that countless Wikipedia pages on Turkey and Turks have been infected by Armenian propagandists, and Te og kaker (Te from now on, and I hope that is acceptable) is accusing me of propaganda? When the dispute board volunteers examine my Talk statements and my edit summaries, they will see that I have always tried to explain everything fully, with the proper basis. Not so with the editors who keep reversing everything that tarnishes their genocide propaganda. I have already explained how and why I did my edits and reversals and will not repeat here. As for his 5 o’clock sleep, my schedule and time zone are probably different. Why not reply to me earlier on the article Talk page? As far as Te’s numbered points:
1. Claiming that an event relates to an alleged genocide is interpretation, as on the photo caption, especially with only a one-sided view of culpability for the fire (write only what is on the photo). If they had simply accepted my edit of that, I would probably not have examined further and gone about my everyday life. Asking everyone to accept their view of a genocide and what event does or does not constitute a part of it is propaganda, and this is not only on the photo caption, but, as I found out, throughout the article. Te keeps claiming on their statements that I deny certain things. Denial is not necessarily wrong. I can deny a lot of things and be right all the time, so his argument that I am a denier of what Te believes in makes no sense. It is, however, a standard Armenian propagandist line to blame people in that manner. “blatantly”? not really. I could not care less what the Turkish government thinks or says. I make my decisions only on what I see in the extensive literature available to me . Te also makes claims such as “scholarly consensus” and “widespread documentation” and I would challenge these in that this is “original research” on his part (his POV, interpretation, claim, etc.).
2. Te has no basis on which to claim that the Moslem part of the town escaped damage. How does Te know this to be “a historical fact”, another propaganda phrase? Thus, the word “allegedly”. I do not know everything for a fact and leave possibilities to judgment. Perhaps an AI software could arrive at a single conclusion, not me. This is not math, and many “historical facts” are not.
3. Te’s “widely accepted version” phrase is just another propaganda tool. You may wish to check back to see that whoever infected the article previously used “pro-Turkish”. Te does not seem to have had trouble with that. Also, the “most sources and scholars” phrase was lifted out of a book by an assistant professor at Auburn University, Gregory J. Goalwin, who himself refers to only a single paper by an author who bases her paper on the oral history narrative of a single Smyrniote. So much for “most sources and scholars”. I believe a real scholar can say many, but not most, unless able to count each. By the way, this was one of the only 2 references given to prove this point, the other one being a book review. Thus, my comment “often without proper citation as here”. It must have embarrassed someone, but apparently not Te, as there was later an attempt to replace the book review, which I did not touch but commented on, and I did mention that added references would be welcome if relevant, while undoing the replacement to reach my version of the article. The genocide propagandists own references reduced their POV to a minority viewpoint, not me. Te keeps pushing his POV while claiming that I am. It is a brazen fabrication that I have stated “only Armenian sources claim Turkish responsibility for the fire” in a Talk post and I would like to see Te account for this fabrication. “most scholars”, “most eyewitness accounts”, I have commented on such phrases above. So why did Te remove my eyewitness account of the Near East Relief worker (Prentiss) published in an American newspaper? I did not claim that “Armenian sources should be disregarded due to bias” either. I said “If an Armenian author claims genocide, it is no proof, as s(he) is clearly biased.” Whether anyone disregards them is a completely different thing. I have met face to face with two well-known Armenian authors in civil interaction and my honest experience was that they were both short on facts and one-sided. I have yet to see an even keeled Armenian publication when it comes to Turks and the Ottomans (though Armenians were Ottomans as well). I could write a book to refute Te’s claims here, but I will move on to the next item.
4. Yes, I changed from “a few, Turkish or pro-Turkish” to “some other sources” as see the number of references in my version, which also includes two Americans, one a previous U.S. officer in WWI, and the other a relief worker, and see if that constitutes “a few Turkish or pro-Turkish”, especially when the French commission of inquiry report Powell talks of is added. More is available if needed. Te still talks about “minority viewpoint”, “hardly has any support outside Turkey”, “runs contrary to scholarly consensus” all propaganda talking points to the uninitiated, which he himself has not substantiated and he blames me for it!
5. Yes, I removed the statement starting with “Nevertheless” under the Falih Rıfkı Atay citation since that was a misrepresentation of what he actually wrote. I put in the exact literal translation and Te disagrees with that? Again he claims the standard propaganda phrases of “majority scholarly view” and “official Turkish explanation”. Well, I, for one, have no official standing anywhere and do not care whether I agree with anyone else. How about my explanations?
6. As if everything he wrote in the reply to this dispute is not Te’s opinion, now Te claims that my words to the effect that Powell’s words should be taken into account are my opinion. Yes, they are, and they should be the opinion of many (not most) fair minded people who wish to see both sides of an issue. In any case, this is obviously a reminder to look up his words again. Is that bad?
7. Of course I made that change, since whether or not there is a genocide (not until an international legal body rules on it), a previous editor(s) ruled that the event should be considered a part of a genocide, showing only 2 weak references, one with authors unknown (the editors are). I do not believe that is in line with Wikipedia principles. How can you judge that a century old event is a part of a genocide with 2 very modern references? Plus, who started the fire in the first place is still controversial. Te claims he knows, but I do not claim anything of the sort, though I did mention in Talk that if indeed Powell is correct, then this would be part of a greater Turkish genocide. Te’s talk about neutral point of view does not align well with all his propagandist talk about genocide.
In any case, the bottom line is, some editor(s) started a Wikipedia article on the documentation of the Smyrna fire, and I believe some propagandists have been hijacking it and shifting all the discussion to a genocide propaganda and fighting tooth and nail any attempt to clean the article. Once more, Te is incorrect in claiming that I have used two IPs. No sir/madam, I have only used my laptop and my cell phone. In fact, I shied away from edit-warring and mentioned that in my Talk. So his “obviously” is just about as “obvious” as much of everything else he has said. I rest my case and leave the discussion to the reviewers.70.164.212.36 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Burning of Smyrna discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Smyrna)
I may possibly act as the mediator in moderated discussion. First, I will ask the editors to read the usual rules, will comment that the above posts are too long, and will ask a few questions. Do the editors agree to take part in moderated discussion, subject to the rules that have been read? Is this an article content dispute? That is, is there a question about whether to change something in the article or leave it the same? If so, will each editor please state in one paragraph what they want changed or left the same. (If the list of changes is long, summarize and say it is long. If you can't summarize, pause and think and try to sunmmarize.) Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to moderate this dispute. I have no problem with you as a moderator, as long as you are not ethnically Turkish, Armenian, or Greek, or are married to one, since I do not want any bias. Also, if you edited the Burning of Smyrna at any time, or if you are not willing to peruse the statements made so far, I would please ask you to not moderate. I am a bit concerned that you have listed your religious denomination on your web page. Will this get in the way? I have described my position in great detail (a) in my edit summaries, (b) in my Talk paragraphs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_of_Smyrna#Was_the_Smyrna_(%C4%B0zmir)_fire_part_of_a_genocide_(Greek,_Armenian,_or_Turkish)? (c) in my dispute opening statement, and (d) in my reply to Te og kaker, and I hope that you will read them in detail. In summary, im my attempt to (1) partially restore the article to what it was meant to be, i.e. documentation of the Smyrna fire, instead of the genocide propaganda some editors have apparently been converting it to, I removed a genocide interpretation on the first photo caption (2) added two sources from U.S. citizens from a century ago, with supporting statements and a quote from Powell's book, to give the reader a better understanding of the controversy as to who started the fire (note that I have respected and not removed any of the references listed before my first edit, except changed the use of two, and that this controversy is already mentioned in the article), (3) corrected an incorrect interpretation of the text from an existing source (Falih Rıfkı Atay) by providing the literal translation, (4) modified a couple of authoritative sounding statements implying genocide and culpability, and (5) pointed out a couple of weak citations, one being a book review. As you may observe, my edits have been quickly reversed with very little explanation. For the purposes of this moderation, beyond a concession I am willing to make, I would like my edits to be added, since I can defend them. I am willing to modify the Powell statement where I used the word "should", so that it will be a neutral statement. For completeness, please also note that two of the three editors I have filed the dispute against have not replied yet, one now showing as "retired" on their web page, and the other apparently having existed only to revert my edits. I did let all three know of the dispute on their personal Talk pages and will not comment further on this here unless asked to. If you feel you cannot follow my edits from my description above and from comparisons, I will be happy to elaborate further. 70.164.212.36 (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Smyrna)
Statement one-half by volunteer (Smyrna)
I don't have a good feeling about the prospects for moderated discussion in this case. The filing unregistered editor has, in advance, demanded assurance that the moderator not belong to or be married to certain ethnic groups, and has raised an issue about the moderator's religion. In response to instructions to provide a concise statement as to what each editor wants changed in the article, the filing editor has provided a lengthy statement referring to previous lengthy statements, and has stated that the lengthy statements should be read in detail. I don't belong to any of the ethnic groups, and I don't think that my religion, which is not the historical religious affiliation of any of the indicated ethnic groups, will interfere with my neutrality. However, I do not intend to moderate a dispute when one of the parties starts with a list of demands about the moderator and with a lengthy statement of what they want.
Filing a request for moderated discussion but then imposing a list of conditions for the moderator is not evidence of a good-faith desire to resolve this dispute. I don't think that either a registered editor or an unregistered editor should provide an advance list of conditions for participation in moderation, but that is only my opinion. I will comment that making a long list of conditions isn't in the best interests of an unregistered editor, because one likely result of failure of a request for moderated discussion is semi-protection, but if someone wants to impose preconditions, they will impose preconditions.
I am not opening this case for moderated discussion but am not closing it either. I don't think that the filing unregistered editor will be able to find a moderator, but this case request will be left open for at least a few more days before it is either closed due to the lack of a moderator or archived by the archival bot, which will have the same effect of closing it for lack of a moderator.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts on this. Please allow me to say a few things in regard to your withdrawal from moderation:
1. If the moderator had been an Armenian, say, how would I know that they were, and how could I have protected my side if there was bias in the moderation? You may not be aware that religion plays a big role in related subjects, but it does. For example, Armenians always claim that they were the first Christian nation on earth. For me, religion is for each person, not for everyone else to know, but you have listed it on your page and that is why I asked whether that would get in the way. I believe my concerns were fair and you could have dissipated them easily but chose not to. For the record, I do have Armenian friends.
2. I am quite new to Wikipedia, and I see that the editors with whom I am in dispute appear to be looking for any angle to steer the discussion away from the content of my edits, accusing me of propaganda, block evasion, and of setting forth conditions, while they have been blatantly violating Wikipedia guidelines and will continue to do so. Maybe all people in disputes you have moderated are familiar with all Wikipedia guidelines regarding disputes, and I did read the link you provided for rules on disputes. This link did not mention anything about qualifications for the moderator, and you yourself expected certain things of us that I had no argument with.
3. I did have good faith in how this moderation was going to go, but with the anonymity of the moderator (since the moderation itself and the power of the moderator are unknown to me: links please), as well as the fact that I do not know how a moderator is assigned, I wanted to make sure that the moderator would have no bias. In the link you provided, I did not see any rule saying I cannot expect no bias from the moderator.
4. Why do you "think that the filing unregistered editor will be able to find a moderator"? Why write it that way? How are moderators assigned? Or do volunteers simply decide to moderate a dispute? Can you speak on behalf of others in this regard or possibly bias others with this statement? Can I directly ask for another moderator once you have withdrawn? Is there a moderator board where you (or I) can post that you have withdrawn and that a new moderator is needed? Are you sure that your withdrawal based on my asking for no bias is within Wikipedia guidelines?
5. Wikipedia has a dispute page for the purpose of settling disputes. I am sure management has considered cases such as this one, and that there are solutions, so I will continue seeking for a fair solution, through escalation to higher levels if necessary. Since this is a very important issue for me, I will carry with me everyone involved as I escalate the matter further. This is simply a statement of fact.
6. I will complete my replies to TimothyBlue before the day ends where I live (apparently some editors have already researched it, as I have come across a record of this), so that whoever comes across this dispute page, moderator or not, will see that I have not simply packed and run away because of questions I did not wish to answer.
Thanks again for your time. Absolutely no hard feelings on my side, and if you change you mind we are still here for a while.70.164.212.36 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Please also read my last reply to TimothyBlue (February 3 my time, but February 4 Wikipedia time). I wish you had given me the opportunity before deciding to withdraw, but, as I wrote above, no hard feelings. Truth has a way of coming on top.70.164.212.36 (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as not required. A statement was made that discussion had been insufficient, and then 48 hours elapsed, after which time discussion is still insufficient. Resume discussion on the article talk page if there is still a content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User Rwatson1955 has repeatedly changed the wording of one of the lead sentences from "It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and climate change denial." to "It has been accused of publishing misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines and climate change denial." (both statements are well-sourced, and I have added quotes from the sources where possible).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Providing the best wording for the sentence would be helpful.
Summary of dispute by Rwatson1955
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by tgeorgescu
Rwatson1955 was formally warned that they are editing contentious topics. If they don't desist, WP:AE is just around the corner. I know that DRN is privileged, so I won't be reporting them for their edits at WP:DRN. Imho, the proper forum for discussing their edits is AE, not DRN. So bad are their edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The Daily Sceptic discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The discussion has been too brief to conclude that a moderator is required. One editor has made only one statement. The editors should discuss for another 24 hours. Also, if the only question is the wording of one sentence, consider asking for a Third Opinion. I am neither opening nor closing this request at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister!
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by DarmaniLink on 16:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC).
Closed as resolved by discussion between the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The current review reads like an advertisement, and I want to change it to read more encylopedic rather than be a collection of review summaries. I said repeatedly that too much weight was given to the individual reviews rather than reading encyclopedic and the author of that section, which several other people on the talk page have echoed that it reads like an advertisement.
The editor accused me of just wanting to defend it or "not liking it what i was reading" and "removing content" when I just wanted to change it to read more in a more encyclopedic 'prose' rather than sound like someone fangirling over various reviewers.
This is not a demonstration of the critical reception, referencing various reviews and collecting them into an encyclopedic prose. This is someone who's gotten so emotionally invested in keeping what they have written that they wrote me an entire essay I have no way to even begin to respond to bordering on badgering.
"which generally gives me the impression that your grievance has very little to do with concerns about neutrality and more with that you seem to dislike the opinion being expressed. "
"but I'm generally suspicious of the numerous editors, particularly the anonymous users, who keep trying to erase the reception. It feels to me like they are (unconsciously perhaps), trying to make a WP:POINT out of a desire to defend the show against the critics who hate it. I don't like the idea of acquiescing to that attitude..."
These are quotes from the other user. I seirously do not know how I can try to resolve this with someone's who's only intention is shutting everyone else out because its gotten into their head that everyone who dislikes what they wrote is only trying to defend it.
The editor made snipy edit summaries too and clearly has it in their head that I want to defend this and "remove information". I do not know how I can talk about wanting this to read more encyclopedic which would require restructuring the entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarmaniLink (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I do not want to see the information removed, I want to see the section changed into a more encyclopedic prose rather than be a collection of review summaries. Please get that through this editor's head.
Summary of dispute by BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4
A few weeks ago, I added the majority of the current reception section to the article, beginning with this edit and subsequent additions. Since then, the information has been removed tendentiously by multiple people, almost all of whom were either IPs or new accounts, who reverted the changes for varying invalid and subjective reasons ranging from "irrelevant western drivel" to "self promotional material". All of these editors have been reverted by either me or other established editors watching the talk page, but have persisted to the point that the article was at one time briefly semi-protected. One such editor wrote a message, described by Link20XX as "baseless," claiming that ANN was sabotaging the article (I am not affiliated with the site or its contributors, and do not personally agree with most of the opinions of the reviewers). With respect, I believe that DarmaniLink is not accurately representing the situation when they say that there are "several other people" who disagree, when those people are all drive-by IP editors and apparent WP:SPAs who have made few or no other contributions, and all other established editors contributing to the article seem to agree that the current reception summary should be retained (although I don't wish to speak for them, but to my point, they have not yet had a voice in this discussion).
While I can respect the concern that the reception section may be unbalanced, there has not been adequate justification for this assessment shown, other than an inaccurate characterization of ANN and Anifem as "some random idiot who writes blogs" and spurious claims that what the reviewers think of the production quality, humor, narrative and themes, and particularly the queer lens through which the show is read, amount to "unencyclopedic" "silly quotes", when such things are all important factors included in many other articles (including the GA Homura Akemi, and the FA Naruto, the example linked by disputing editor below for comparison). There's nothing wrong with attributing an opinion to an individual. In fact it's essential that we do, because to WP:ASSERT that "the website said" rather than "x person, of this website, said" would be improper attribution, and give the impression that the site is a monolith and not made up of individual contributors with distinct opinions, and this would be inaccurate and a major POV failing.
Lastly, I disagree with the assessment that the proportion to which ANN is represented in the article is undue, or an advertisement. There is no promotional language included, and their inclusion in the section is proportional both to how much the site has said relative to other publications, and both how much each reviewer has said (each reviewer from the preview article gets about a sentence or two, tops, while Kim Morrissy has a longer paragraph in proportion to their more in-depth review). When and if more coverage comes to light (the series is still ongoing), I naturally expect the proportion to which ANN is represented to diminish accordingly, but as it stands there is not yet any good reason that I can see to make such sweeping cuts from a developing article on a current topic. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 19:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Onimai: I'm Now Your Sister! discussion (Back-and-forth)
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Naruto is one of the featured articles in the project. Please look at its reception section and compare it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarmaniLink (talk • contribs) 18:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
"and particularly the queer lens through which the show is read, amount to "unencyclopedic" "silly quotes""
I never ONCE said or implied anything about the "queer lens" and in fact I included the interpretation when I tried to create a new "baseplate" for the section that could easily demonstrate the show's mixed/poor reception, even stating that "There was a consensus among reviewers that the story had a positive transgender interpretation." I have zero idea where this even came from.
The fact that you chose to put words in my mouth here is why we're on here. I'm trying to work with you and compromise but you seem to be unwilling to do so, acting as if you take ownership over that section. DarmaniLink (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
There was no actual consensus that the story had a positive transgender representation. Multiple reviewers disagreed on that front, or believed that the fanservice undermined that aspect, or disagreed about to what extent it did so, or if that was even the case at all, and you oversimplified that aspect in your cuts to the reception section. Which is what I see as the main problem in general with your proposed edits, as I already said, there's a nuanced conversation about the anime's positive and negative aspects taking place between the reviewers in the sources, and it looks to me like you want to boil it all down to "some people liked it and some people disliked it," which is not accurately representative of what the sources say. You say I'm putting words in your mouth, but I'd rather say you're not making a good enough case for your perspective and leaving me to blindly guess what you're talking about.
Regardless, the page here says "Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer," so I suggest you do as it says and make any further comments at the talk page. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 22:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to end with this, and this is to a minimum. I want this to be a more sort of "back and forth" emphasizing the negative viewpoints like other anime articles. That wasn't a final draft, it was a new starting point, ready to be changed and have other previous information added to it.
When I made the first dispute there were two block-summaries of reviews by individuals rather than integrating parts of the review into a prose to demonstrate critical opinion. Even now, this needs to be reordered and merged similar to other articles. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I guess I might've misunderstood that, and if so, I apologize for the error. Though I still stand by my assertion that the edits you made were far too excessive, I'm not necessarily opposed to the content being rewritten into a shorter form if no essential context is lost. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 22:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I just want to keep this brief until someone else takes a look at this - I have no problem with a similar length so long as its more in an encyclopedic back and forth prose rather than a collection of summaries. I'm sorry if I was unclear, but its very hard to respond to 5 paragraphs without writing 50. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Onimai)
I am willing to moderate this dispute. It appears that there is discussion taking place here, and the discussion may be useful, so we will use a set of rules that permit back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Please read the rules and acknowledge that you agree to them. Comment on content, not contributors. You may continue the discussion. Please make a one-paragraph statement as to what the main issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we've worked things out ^ ^ DarmaniLink (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Onimai)
The section currently reads like a summary of individual reviews rather than a back and forth discussion like other similar articles, integrating the praise and the criticisms into a back and forth prose similar to Naruto. I was trying to make concessions but it was very hard to respond to 5 paragraphs of text without just speaking in bullet points for the sake of brevity.
I'm still fairly new to actually using this website. I made this account back in I think 2018? but didn't really start using it until early this month. I didn't know a lot of the policies on reviews being reliable, I learned more, and I tried to compromise but I was just getting hounded.
All I want at this point is for this to be a more back and forth between the two sides like the other articles. DarmaniLink (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd first like to acknowledge that I was a fair bit more defensive and combative than I ought to have been in the initial discussion on the talk page, and failed to approach the conversation with AGF in mind, which unnecessarily aggravated the dispute. For this mistake, I apologize. I will try to be more considerate going forward. Concerning DRN Rule B4, I'd like to note that while I have made some edits to the article since this dispute was initially filed, I will not edit the article further from this point on until the dispute is closed. I am committed to following all other specified rules as well.
I feel clarification is needed on what is meant by a "back-and-forth prose." What this phrase implies, at least to me, would be a brief summary of each of the reviewers' opinions and specifically how the opinions are similar to and different from each other, or, put more simply, what they agreed and disagreed on. The current reception section seems, to my mind, to already fit this description.
For instance in the initial paragraph, I established first that most reviewers, in general, had a negative opinion of the anime, and then briefly detailed any caveats that certain reviewers had given, while avoiding any redundant reiterating of the opinions common between most reviewers. The further two paragraphs that I wrote continued onto detail contrasts between the reviews, particularly Catwell who disagreed with the transgender reading, and Morrissy who had a radically different opinion which, I feel, warranted more context on account of their review being one of only a few wholeheartedly positive responses. The Naruto article seems to be structured very similarly to this, summarizing and contrasting a variety of opinions from individuals, even at some points contrasting the opinions of multiple reviewers writing for the same site in a similar manner as I did with the ANN critics. The main difference I see between the two is it has a more diverse selection of sources to pull from, which is expected given that Naruto is a much more popular and widely covered series which has been around for much longer than this one.
I would appreciate a more detailed critique of how the content is imbalanced or improperly written, if possible, and/or clarification if my understanding of "back and forth prose" is not correct. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 08:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Right now as the article stands, the article has a bit too many "block summaries", so to speak, of the reviews in question. I don't want to see a text block of one reviewers sentiments but rather see excerpts from other reviewers woven to demonstrate disagreement or agreement. The article now is a lot better than it was, but the third paragraph could use some more work. I'd be willing to help by translating some of the japanese sources and putting in pieces and excerpts that may be noteworthy to be integrated into the prose. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
(sorry if I was supposed to wait for the moderator, this is my first time doing something like this and didnt see the moderator reply in like a day and the rules weren't too clear on this or i missed something) DarmaniLink (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
At the moment, the referred-to third paragraph dealing with Morrissy's more positive response is paced such both in proportion to Morrissy's longer and more in-depth review as well as their uniquely positive response which isn't expressed by many other reviewers in the English language. With the current sourcing, I feel that being the only positive review warrants the greater devotion of text to summarizing their review, both balancing out the different perspectives somewhat while also not being redundant to the more popular negative sentiments. I suppose it could be reframed in contrast to Chiaki Hirai's more tempered response, which does express similar sentiments to Morrissy about the themes of the story, while still agreeing with other reviewers who took issue with the fanservice. There are also some aspects that Morrissy agrees are negative, in particular the perceived unpalatable nature of the plot point of Mihari forcibly feminizing Mahiro, which could be used to connect their criticism to the other negative responses. I would be happy to rewrite the section to be paced in such a manner if this is deemed appropriate.
If there are more positive responses in the Japanese reviews, these can perhaps be grouped alongside Morrissy's positive review in a paragraph focused generally on positive responses to the series, although I feel in that case it's still important to at least note Morrissy's review as uniquely positive among the English language criticisms (unless/until more such positive reviews emerge, of course). silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 04:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
It isn't really of my opinion that there should be less of his review, but there should be more of others in between it.In the other articles, some of the reviews in other articles go way more in depth but they still have other bits woven into it. We can also have bits of his review woven into other sections. Because he goes further in depth, there's more to use to demonstrate "dissent", so to speak. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I think I understand, so like, "x said y, Morrissy in contrast said z?" And then break the paragraph up into statements of that sort. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 19:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, exactly.
X said whatever, Y concurred, Morrisey dissented by saying Z
If you would like to see any bits from the japanese articles translated (or have me certify that a machine translation is 'good enough') i'll be more than happy to do so, just leave a message on my talk page or ping me in the article talk DarmaniLink (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Onimai)
Are there any specific paragraphs in the article that an editor thinks should be revised, and that another editor thinks should be left the same? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
It appears that one editor is saying that the article should be revised to have a back and forth style, rather than summarizing what the reviews have said. In an article about a literary work, the reviews are the secondary reliable sources, and we should say what the reviews say. Either I don't understand what a back and forth style is, or it will be a synthesis amounting to original research.
So either identify paragraphs about which there is a content disagreement, or explain what the issue is, or if one editor wants a rewrite of parts of the article, then I can provide a draft version of the article for rewriting. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we've got it worked out and we can go back to the talk page now :D DarmaniLink (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
just confirm with me if you can that we can include translations per WP:NONENGWP:TRANSCRIPTION so long as its faithfully translated DarmaniLink (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Onimai)
I think we got to that at the end of the last discussion, basically just do more of a literary conversation (analysis was the wrong word choice here) between the opposition and the acolytes with more weight on the opposition as there's more opposition overall.
At this point, I have no remaining complaints. DarmaniLinkDarmaniLink (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
While framing the Japanese reviews as responding to the English language ones could be original research as moderator has said, I do not have any issue with framing the English reviewers in this way, as a number of them are responding to each other either explicitly or implicitly (Morrissy's review exists in the context of the other writers not liking the anime, and Hirai's assessment in Anime Feminist responds to Catwell by name). This will need to be considered, but at this point I'm fairly certain that we can work out those particulars through iteration by editing and talk page discussion. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 22:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah english vs english for sure there's no problem with. I'll try to think of a way to make the japanese vs english reviews not break WP:NOR without pretty much quoting and shuffling everything with a bunch of Wiktionary quotes, since that would just look silly. We can definitely talk from here on the talk page :) DarmaniLink (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
so per WP:NONENGWP:TRANSCRIPTION it *looks like* I can do it so long as what they say is faithfully translated into quotes. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, we need to wait for the moderator to close the case before doing anything else, but personally at this point I think everything's pretty much resolved, so, yeah. After that happens I'll see if there's any helpful changes I can make and then we can open another talk page discussion to discuss incorporating the JP reviews and any other proposals. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 23:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Alright, sounds good to me. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Onimai)
It appears that there is agreement. If there is agreement, the editors may edit the article as agreed on. If either the editors state that there is agreement, or the editors do not disagree for 36 hours, I will close the case as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Onimai)
I have no disagreement with the current consensus and am prepared to collaborate constructively on editing the article according to what we've agreed upon above. Assuming that DarmaniLink has no further concerns, I believe the dispute has been resolved and may now be closed. silvia(BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4)(inquire within) 06:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! DarmaniLink (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as never really started. Three days after the editors were asked to state briefly what their content issues were with the article and whether they wanted moderated discussion, there have been no replies. If there are any issues about article content, please discuss them on the article talk page, Talk:Applied behavior analysis. If the opinions of other editors are sought, they may be requested at WikiProject Psychology. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This page has been a perennial source of controversy on Wikipedia, reflecting the controversial nature of the subject.
The current dispute has a few dimensions to it:
What should be included in an article lead? For example, is it ever correct to include a list of thirteen purported applications of a thing, if none of those applications are described in the body of the entry?
What counts as a biomedical claim, requiring MEDRS-level sourcing? In particular, is a claim that X is used for Y always a biomedical claim, where X is something that medical insurance might pay for and Y is generally considered a medical condition?
What is the best way to characterise a controversy when there is one group that seems to be overwhelmingly opposed to a thing, but also a substantial number of people outside that group who object to it or make serious critiques of some aspects of it? How do we weigh up and summarise evidence of controversy in different groups?
Relatedly, what sort of evidence might we admit for a claim that group Y is generally opposed to a thing, as opposed to (say) just some within that group having a problem with it?
Debate on these questions has been heavily polarised and somewhat circular in nature, involving a small number of participants on either side and a few onlookers who have largely felt unable to reach conclusions. A Request for Comments (recently expired) and an appeal to WikiProject:Medicine yielded some insights, but nothing approaching a resolution.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
It would be useful to have outside opinions on the questions listed: how to describe controversies, what counts as a biomedical claim, whether it makes sense to name applications in a lead that are never described in the body, etc.
Summary of dispute by Barbarbarty
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The main source of contention, in my view, is what belongs in the lead and what does not. Originally, there was a “long version” of a description of controversies about ABA that seemed in the view of some editors, including myself, as prejudicial or seemed to slant the article towards being overtly negative towards the subject, when ABA is actually still much debated and has many credible supporters, as well as detractors, who according to most sources mainly originate from the autistic rights movement. There is also the question of a list that User:ATC added that had a list of applications for ABA and a source along with it that I have been told does not support the information that was written, however it was behind a paywall so I am still unable to access it. There was also the concern that such a list would include biomedical claims and thus require a higher standard then a simple statement of fact. I eventually removed this list as multiple users corroborated the sentiment that the list was unsubstantiated, but I feel such a list of applications could be added in the future provided there is a quality source. My sentiment has been that controversies can be stated in the lead, but in a brief and concise mannee that does not violate WP:NPOV, and controversies major and minor can be elaborated on in length in the body of the article.
Summary of dispute by ATC
There are blogs and magazine sources cited related to autism and neurodiversity, which are not valid for Wikipedia standards. Also, there is a misperception by some within the high functioning autism community that ABA is prejudice because it was associated with a history of aversives (which are currently outdated), and when applied as an intervention for autism, not every therapist is always properly trained. It's just positive reinforcement and motivation. Also, there are notable autistic people who have become behavior analysts, and Temple Grandin highly endorses ABA as well (she even noted the speech therapy program she received as a young girl consisted of a lot of what's seen in high quality ABA programs today). As outlined in this Cochrane Review, the reason why Lovaas' 1987 study wasn't fully replicated (the amount of children that progressed in language was half of what was reported in '87, other than the IQ scores being reproduced in the vast majority) is because after his study was published, the diagnostic criteria widened to include higher functioning forms of ASD, so there is now a wide range of different learning styles (in terms of which form of ABA children with autism acquire spoken language from). ATC.Talk 22:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by HaiFire3344
Multiple aspects of the lead have been involved in this dispute, namely the controversy section, the list of applications, and the first sentence. The length of the controversy section of the lead has varied over time, at one point being very long. I feel that Oolong found a good sweet spot with this edit, which I and at least one other user agreed had more neutral wording than a shortened version that came soon after. (However, concerns were later raised about the reliability of the Autistic Not Weird survey cited in the next edit and the Sandoval-Norton references; I cannot speak on how well those concerns hold up.) The shortest version of the controversy section came off as minimizing the controversy surrounding ABA, and edits were made to try and address this. Finding the best length, wording, and content for the controversy section with the most neutrality without minimizing the controversy is a priority. The list of biomedical applications of ABA was virtually entirely unsourced and should not have been in the lead given the lack of elaboration in the body. Another point of contention was that ATC insisted on describing ABA as a "(scientific) discipline" in the first sentence, which is not at all a precise description of ABA; I believe that it is better to describe ABA as a psychological intervention, as ABA is a part of applied psychology and fits the definition of interventions. HaiFire3344 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sideswipe9th
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Apologies for not responding sooner. My attention has been on several other articles and discussions of late, so I'm not aware of where the current dispute on the article currently lies. I'll try and get read up on it over the next couple of days, if that's OK with the moderator and other editors involved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Applied behavior analysis discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Is the filing party asking for input from other editors, or for a mediator to conduct moderated discussion? If the filing party wants additional editors to provide input, they may ask at WikiProject Psychology. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Robert, it's a good question. Moderated discussion might be valuable, but I'm in two minds: the discussion so far has involved a lot of exchanges I'd summarise (perhaps not impartially) as being along the lines of 'this source very clearly states that it's controversial, and not just among autism rights advocates' - 'no it doesn't'.
I'm not sure what the best way is to get past an impasse like that, but I think it's safe to say it calls for some kind of outside input.
I haven't looked at WikiProject Psychology; it could be worth a go. As noted above, we (@Alsee, specifically) did try WikiProject Medicine, which was somewhat helpful but didn't really resolve any of the key questions. Psychology would probably be a better fit, on reflection.
Only a few of the questions at stake call for any specialist background knowledge, on my reading. Oolong (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Behavior)
It appears that there is agreement that this article is at an impasse, but there isn't agreement as to what the reason for the impasse is, and so there isn't agreement on how to resolve it. This noticeboard usually provides moderated discussion, which is intended to result either in compromise or in the formulation of a neutral RFC. I am first asking all editors to read the usual rules, and then make a statement answering my questions. Your statement should be addressed to me and to the community. Do not reply to another editor's statement. My questions are:
What, in your opinion, is wrong with the article?
What do you think should be done to improve the article?
Statement one-half by moderator (Applied behavior analysis)
If you have an issue with the content of the article, please state concisely what your article content issue is. Otherwise this case will be closed.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as premature. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. Also, it does not appear to be an article content dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Many years ago a Wiki creator(s) created pages that detailed my work. In recent times I notice some inaccuracies and misinformation. I updated and corrected the post with verified links, and cited references. Over the past year, I've seen some of my verifications and updates get removed by a single user. 600+ text, numerous links, and cited references are removed regularly.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
1. Please ask "67.84.59.87" to provide cited references for their changes.
2. Please ask "67.84.59.87" not to remove existing references and links.
3. Please explain something about the Wiki mission to "67.84.59.87" - Eg. Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by offering a comprehensive written compendium in a fair and accurate manner. The removal of verified factual information is not aligned with the mission.
4. Ask the Wiki community to assist in this. Any help is appreciated.
Summary of dispute by 67.84.59.87
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Turntablist transcription_methodology discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Blackgaia02 on 08:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC).
Closed. This does not seem to be a content dispute, and has not been discussed at the article talk page, and the other editors have not been notified. Try discussing on the article talk page. That is what the article talk page is for. Report edit-warring at the edit-warring noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
From the get go why I am saying this, the page has some multiple cases of edit issues. I am seeing some users including some information that shouldn't be out or released considering Toei doesn't like things to be leaked for spoiler basis. There is one issue about the episode list which someone doesn't want it to be spun off despite its taking up space from the main article. Its a mess, Pretty Cure fans are totally unhinged and were a bit of LOCO when it comes to upcoming content. I do wish this gets resolved.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Enforce some heavy moderation on articles that revolve around any Toei Animation / Toei related series and everything.
Summary of dispute by Ckng9000
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BaldiBasicsFan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 37.162.136.158
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. An RFC is being used to choose a section on Belarus. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a content dispute regarding subsection Coat of arms of Lithuania#Belarus (what should be kept/removed in it). Short context below.
Previously the Belarusian territories were part of Lithuania (see: Grand Duchy of Lithuania), therefore the Belarusians used the Coat of arms of Lithuania until 1795. In 1918 Lithuania was restored and part of Belarusians once again sought to restore pre-1795 Lithuanian territory, therefore institutions such as Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command and multiple Lithuanian-Belarusian units were formed (most notably, the 1st Belarusian Regiment which sought to preserve capital Vilnius and Grodno within Lithuanian territory). All of them extensively used the coat of arms of Lithuania as official symbol. Grodno was the third largest city (after Vilnius, Kaunas) where the Lithuanian Army was active and an important stronghold of pro-Lithuanian Belarusians.
However, post-WW1 Poland pursued expansionist aims in the former territory of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, thus invaded Vilnius, Grodno (and other minor cities). It resulted in repressions against pro-Lithuanian soldiers and Lithuanian symbolism used by them (e.g. on uniforms, flags) and removals of the coat of arms of Lithuania from buildings, etc. Eventually, in 1921 Belarus was partitioned into two parts (Western and Eastern). This is an important part of history of the coat of arms of Lithuania in the interwar period.
All this is currently described in this subsection and with WP:RS references, but Polish users (Marcelus, Piotrus) demand to nearly completely remove content from this subsection and accuses that it is allegedly anti-Polish. However, Lithuanians (I and Cukrakalnis) disagree with such removals and say that it is a well-referenced content and censorship of the Polish repressions against the coat of arms of Lithuania and soldiers using it would be a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
GizzyCatBella and Piotrus in RFC said that it is WP:UNDUEly long, so I proposed a nearly two times shorter version of it (see: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus) by keeping the main information, references, but removing a bit of context. It was still rejected by Marcelus, Piotrus as anti-Polish.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
This subsection should be evaluated by a neutral person (administrator?) who is familiar with WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE. I think other subsections in section "Similar coats of arms" should be expanded instead of nearly completely erasing the most comprehensive one about Belarus. Maybe some content from subsection "Belarus" should be moved (if it is WP:UNDUE) to subsection "Republic of Lithuania in the interwar period" as it is important for describing the interwar history of this symbol.
Summary of dispute by Marcelus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Contrary to what the submitter says, "anti-Polishness" is not the main reason why the content of the "Belarus" section is disputed. Although undoubtedly the text is written in a style that suggests that the reluctant to Poland author wanted to prove something, it describes in specific detail the alleged "insulting" of Belarusian/Lithuanian symbols by the Polish military, or one-sidedly describes the "Polish imperialism" mentioned by Pofka. First of all, however, the section that is supposed to describe CoAs occurring in Belarus that are similar to the Lithuanian CoA devotes almost half the space to describing one of the Belarusian units in the Lithuanian army (which has a separate article 1st Belarusian Regiment). It devotes a lot of space to other Lithuanian institutions (Grodno Military Command, Lithuanian Ministry of Belarusian Affairs), making it more about Lithuania than Belarus, and more about politics than heraldry. In addition, the section's narrative is that Belarus came into being only because of Lithuania's influence and "domination." Pofka's proposal has a similar problem.
@Pofka also forgot to mention that the dispute began with my proposal, in which I tried to eliminate the above-mentioned flaws (User:Marcelus/sandbox5). In it I tried to describe in the first paragraph why Pahonia/Vytis became the national symbol of Belarus and how it took root in the country, after which I listed the Belarusian institutions that used this symbol in chronological order. This was only a proposal, which may be subject to change.
Apart from anything else, I don't understand why Pofka decided to devote two paragraphs of his report to a description of Belarusian-Lithuanian relations and Polish expansionism, I don't know what it brings to our dispute (it is otherwise full of simplifications and misrepresentations). Since it is out of the scope of the section, which is intended to describe "Similiar coats of arms" to "Lithuanian Coat of Arms" in "Belarus", not all the things Pofka mentions. To much politics and military history, not enough heraldry.Marcelus (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Piotrus
Belated reply - I was AFK for a while. When this popped up on my watchlist, I indeed decided to significantly trim the section in question for reasons explained in edit summary and my comment on talk. Briefly - the very lenghty subsection on "Belarus" was very UNDUE to the topic at hand (namely, "Coat of arms of Lithuania"). Most of the content I removed did not even mention said coat of arms - just look at my diff and CTRL+F for "coat". Frankly, it looked to me like some Belarusian POV pushing of content that is irrelevant to Lithuania onto this article. There was also some rather non-neutral and minute detail about an incident in which allegedly, some Poles defaced the symbol when worn by some Belarusian volunteers in the Lithuanian army. I moved that to the newly created article on 1st Belarusian Regiment, where it could may be kept (after some neutral rewriting), but to mention this in the article on the "Coat of arms of Lithuania" seems both UNDUE and POVed - it's like mentioning one of many US flag burning incidents in an article about American flag, etc. Having read the discussion in this RfC I stand by my initial judegement: 90% of the content in this section is off topic, some of it arguably fails NPOV, and should be removed or moved. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Cukrakalnis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Marcelus kept removing ([5], [6], [7]) a section claiming that it was "irrelevant", "unrelated" and "off-topic" on 29-30 December 2022. The section in question is obviously relevant to the topic of Coat of arms of Lithuania because it is about how the Lithuanian coat of arms was used by pro-Lithuanian Belarusian civilian institutions and military units in an area that Poland invaded after the Lithuanian government established itself there via military units. During the Polish takeover, the Polish mistreated the coat of arms of Lithuania and replaced them with Polish signs. The mention of this fact attracted the attention of Marcelus in early October 2021 when his reaction to these facts was:
Based on this, it is clear that Marcelus wants to remove the section because he considers it "anti-Polish propaganda" etc. Still, because this argument was insufficiently convincing for the removal of text based on WP:RS more than a year ago, then Marcelus has now re-opened the question and shifted the argument to emphasize how text concerning military and civilian institutions using the Coat of arms of Lithuania is somehow irrelevant to an article about that same coat of arms.
After the discussion inconclusively stalled (which is what generally happens in discussions between anyone and Marcelus within the topic of Lithuania), Piotrus after writing briefly on the talk page swooped in to remove the section on January 20 during a still active RfC. I frankly gave up on this issue and only raised some questions about the correctness of such a removal on the talk page that same day and since then was on a brief holiday away from Wikipedia (since January 25 until today, Febuary 5), partly in order to WP:DEESCALATE.
Notably, Piotrus previously had not edited the article at all since 14 October 2005 and his last message on the talk page before his edits on 20 January 2023 was on 15 September 2020. I'm not accusing anybody of anything, but Piotrus has involved himself more than once in places ([8], [9]) where Marcelus was extensively involved before Piotrus came along. This exchange on Marcelus' wiki.pl talk page between Marcelus and Piotrus definitely indicates that they have each other's emails.
Overall, after some thought, I agree to Pofka's proposals because they seem reasonable.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GizzyCatBella
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Coat of arms of Lithuania discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute if moderated discussion is still wanted. Please read the rules and indicate whether you are willing to comply with the rules and want moderated discussion. Also, if you are ready for moderated discussion, please indicate in one paragraph what you either want changed in the article, or left the same that another editor wants changed. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do you want moderated discussion subject to my usual rules? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon: Yes I want moderated discussion according to the rules. I believe no changes should be made to this well-referenced (with WP:RS) and extensive but at the same time quite short subsection-summary of the coat of arms of Lithuania usage in Belarus and by Lithuanian-Belarusian units, institutions. However, if neutral moderator decision will be that it is WP:UNDUE, then I agree to replace it with my shortened version (see here: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus). Nevertheless, what I strictly oppose is to replace statements based on WP:NPOVWP:RSes (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) with Marcelus' suggested version which replaces Britannica's WP:NPOV evaluation of the history of Lithuania and its coat of arms with statements based not on Lithuanian, not on WP:NPOV sources but on "Belarusian national movement" sources (point of view) because such content is not WP:NPOV (especially in an article about Lithuania) and belongs to article Belarusian nationalism (and maybe to articles National emblem of Belarus, Litvinism). The current version already mention that "Belarusian nationalists claimed that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a Belarusian state, which is why they adopted its symbol" and that is absolutely enough because it is WP:NATIONALISM type of content. I think that extensive presentation of the history of Lithuania and its coat of arms as Belarusian (so not as Lithuanian, according to the Belarusian national movement point of view) would be a WP:POVPUSH of Litvinist (WP:FRINGE, WP:NATIONALISM) content and point of view, thus it certainly would not improve WP:NPOV situation of the disputed subsection. Moreover, I disagree that facts about the 1st Belarusian Regiment, Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command and Polish Army's atrocities, repressions against Lithuanian-Belarusian units and their Lithuanian-Belarusian symbolism in Grodno should be removed because they are inextricably related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and I think their removal would be a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED (maybe some content could be moved to subsection "Republic of Lithuania in the interwar period"). -- Pofka (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Moderated discussion is a good idea. Basically, my postulate is that the section we are talking about should be on WP:TOPIC. In this case, it is the occurrence of Lithuanian or similar coat of arms (Vytis/Pahonia) in Belarus. Since the section should not be long, and at the same time summarized more than 500 years of history it should include only the basic information. Devoting some 4,000 characters to considering the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians, their cultural subordination to the Lithuanians, a description of several Lithuanian military institutions and formations, and how they were disbanded by the Polish army, certainly seems excessive. I postulate, therefore, the removal of superfluous elements and a concise description of the subject within the scope of the article.Marcelus (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I want the section Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#In_the_Lithuanian_Army (which Marcelus wants removed) to stay in the article. That is because the section, which details how the Lithuanian coat of arms was used by civilian ministries and military units (including pictures of that), is relevant to the article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Lithuania)
One editor has joined us, and has not said that they have read the rules and that they will comply with them. I assume that they will, but I would like all the editors to say that they agree to moderated discussion and that they will comply with the rules.
It appears that the main issue is that various editors think that various parts of the article are undue or off-topic. So I am asking each editor either to make a list of what they want removed from the article, in list or point-by-point style, or to make a brief statement that they want to remove a lot of content, with a brief explanation. If there is anything in particular that you want kept that another editor wants removed, please state what it is. I realize that some of you have already said what you want removed, and that I am asking you to repeat your statement, because I would like to have as many of the issues as possible in one place.
By the way, it is important to be concise. Sometimes moderately short statements are more effective than long ones.
If any of you have any issues other than wanting anything removed, please state concisely what you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Lithuania)
I already explained in my previous statements why this subsection does not require large removals. However, if it is really necessary then I would accept a two times shortened version suggested by myself (see here: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus) which keep the main content of this subsection which is inextricably related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and further explains how it is related, but some context and post 1990+ history of Belarus is removed because probably it belongs more to the National emblem of Belarus. Moreover, as I already said, maybe some content could be moved to subsection "Republic of Lithuania in the interwar period".
It is interesting when some contributors here continue to pretend that the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command, 1st Belarusian Regiment and other Lithuanian-Belarusian military units who used Lithuanian symbolism (Vytis) are not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania when I already provided quotes stating otherwise at RFC which might also be interesting to a moderator (the shortened version suggested by myself includes paraphrased version of them):
I) "Vasario 10 d. pulko vadas, vykdydamas Gudų karinio sekretoriato nurodymą, visiems karininkams ir kareiviams įsakė nešioti prie uniformų pritvirtintus tik Lietuvos kariuomenės ženklus. 1919 m. kovo 7 d. patvirtinta gudų dalinių uniforma: apsiaustas, frenčius ir kelnės buvo tokie pat kaip lietuvių karinių dalinių uniformos, pėstininkų ir artilerijos karių kepurių, antpečių, apykaklių, rankovių ir kelnių apvadai buvo balti, raitelių – raudoni. Visos kitos detalės taip pat turėjo būti pagal patvirtintus Lietuvos kariuomenės uniformos reikalavimus" (English: On February 10, the commander of the 1st Belarusian Regiment, following the instructions of the Belarusian Military Secretariat ordered all officers and soldiers to wear only the insignia of the Lithuanian Army attached to their uniforms. On 7 March 1919, the uniform of the Belarusian units was approved: the cloak, fringes and trousers were the same as the uniforms of the Lithuanian military units, the caps, epaulets, collars, sleeves and trousers of the infantry and artillery soldiers were white, and the borders of the horsemen were red. All other details also had to be in accordance with the approved requirements of the uniform of the Lithuanian Army"; see: HERE, pages 30-31);
II) "Gardine, nuo 1919 m. vasario 1 d. šalia Pirmojo baltgudžių pėstininkų pulko įkūrus ir komendantūrą, vasario 13 d. Krašto apsaugos ministerijos štabo viršininko sprendimu buvo suformuota Gardino karinė įgula, o jos viršininku paskirtas Pirmojo baltgudžių pėstininkų pulko vadas krn. M. Lavrentjevas" (English: Since 1 February 1919 in Grodno, near the 1st Belarusian Regiment a commandant's office was established on 13 February. According to the decision of the Chief of Staff of the Ministry of National Defense, Grodno's military crew was formed, and the commander of the 1st Belarusian Regiment was appointed as its chief - officer M. Lavrentyev; see: HERE, page 27).
The relation with the coat of arms of Lithuania is also illustrated by photos accompanying the text (which Piotrus and Marcelus also request to be removed). By glancing at edit history of this article, I see that user Cukrakalnis attempted to improve this subsection and to explain the relation of the content with the coat of arms of Lithuania in a positive way (1), but his edits were reverted (2) because the discussion at article's talk page was still going. We should not pretend that the Lithuanian-Belarusian military units with Lithuanian symbolism did not exist and that Lithuanian symbolism used by them and on buildings was not repressed, removed by Poles who invaded territories where these units operated as it would be a straight-forward violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NPOV.
By the way, I repeat once again: Grodno was the third largest city (after Vilnius and Kaunas) where the Lithuanian Armed Forces operated during the Lithuanian Wars of Independence by trying to secure the city within restored Lithuania's territory before the Polish Army invaded it, so it was not an insignificant, minor provincial town and events there are very notable (e.g. similar like it would be about events in the New York City in United States's case). For example, I would not see a problem to describe removals and repressions of the USA's symbolism in the New York City if it was performed en masse by invading Mexico's forces. Sorry for my long statement, but I kept original Lithuanian language text in quotes for the sake of verifiability. -- Pofka (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Remove all information that is not directly related to the topic of the section and is beyond its scope, e.g. the sentence Based on the data of archaeology, ethnography, anthropology, and linguistics, professor Leszek Bednarczuk makes an assumption that the Belarusian ethnos and language were formed due to the dependence on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and during this epoch of Lithuanian domination, the Belarusian language and nationality began to take shape, is completely redundant, and is also an example of WP:PUFFERY. There is also no room here to contemplate the ethnogenesis of the Belarusians
Passages that are described in detail in other articles should be shortened to the bare minimum, e.g., the extensive passage on the Belarusian 1st Regiment can essentially be reduced to stating that Pahonia was used by Belarusian units formed by Belarusians as part of the Lithuanian and Polish armies, this is literally the maximum information needed here. Reflections on the 1995 referendum also seem superfluous, it is enough to state that in 1995 the Pahonia was replaced by an emblem reminiscent of the one from the Soviet era
Similarly, information about the fact that the Lithuanian coat of arms was used by Lithuanian institutions (such as the Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, for example) seems to be misplaced (why even mention something that is rather obvious - Lithuanian institutions use Lithuanian symbols)
When I said that the editors should be concise, I meant that the editors should be concise. Sometimes overly long statement have little effect except to give the poster a false sense of confidence that they have explained their case. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
One of the statements is too long. If they want to try again, they may try again.
One editor has made a concise statement listing parts of the article that he says are too long and should be trimmed. Will the other editor please state clearly how much they agree to?
I will try to explain why it is in the interests of an editor to be concise. If lengthy posts have not yet convinced other editors, and if lengthy posts have not persuaded the moderator to rule in your favor (and I don't make rulings), then we may have to publish an RFC. An RFC should summarize what is being considered, so that editors with little knowledge of the subject will be able to express a reasonable opinion. The editors who respond to an RFC are more likely to agree with a concisely stated position that they understand than with an overly lengthy statement. So when I ask to be concise, I am not just asking because I am a lazy reader and do not want to review your long post. I am asking also because an RFC will be voted on by lazy readers who do not want to review something that is too long.
Robert McClenon (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon:My concise summarized statement (based on everything I wrote here, so if you are going to start another RFC and move users statements please use it as my evaluation of this dispute and justification why content is necessary):
I think that this subsection does not require major trimming because it is well-referenced and not too long, and instead of that other subsections about other countries should be expanded to make the section "Similar coats of arms" balanced. Long story short:
From the ~13th century (rule of King Mindaugas) until Partition of 1795 the Belarusian (Ruthenian, formerly Kievan Rus') territories were absorbed by Lithuania, thus the Belarusians had no statehood, no unique national symbols and extensively used the coat of arms of Lithuania. This over ~500 years period led to a formation of distinctive Ruthenian identity (Belarusians). This period is inextricably related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and is described by WP:RSWP:NPOV articles of Encyclopædia Britannica and professor Leszek Bednarczuk.
The third Belarusian period is since 1990-1991 when the Belarusians once again adopted a similar coat of arms with a horse rider. This period does not require detailed description in this article as it is not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and there are dedicated articles National emblem of Belarus, National symbols of Belarus for that. So part of this type of content can be removed.
We need to include some context in this subsection to understand all this. But if it is WP:UNDUEly long then I propose a nearly two times shorter version (see: HERE) based on these points. The final evaluation should be done by a neutral administrator because this dispute involve users (Polish?) who want to remove Polish repressions and to expand with "Belarusian national movement" type of content (Litvinist, so WP:NATIONALISM, WP:FRINGE) which is clearly not necessary in an article about Lithuania per WP:NPOV. -- Pofka (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Lithuania)
It appears that the major disagreement is that some editors wish to remove some of the historical information that has to do with other similar coats of arms, and others wish to retain that information. First, I will explain that one policy is being quoted that has no bearing on this dispute. That is Wikipedia is not censored. This policy is more often misunderstood than understood. The removal of information that is marginal to the topic or would be undue weight is not censorship. Censorship refers to the removal of content that is considered immoral or risqué. Read that policy again. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Does any editor either have a proposal for a compromise on the amount of background and marginal material? Does any editor have a revised view after rereading Not Censored, which is not applicable? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (Lithuania)
As far as I understood, the resulting conflict is a consequence of content merge after Talk:Pahonia#RFC:_Pahonia. As a result, the section about Belarus started looking rather large. In particular, some rather lengthy "backgroundish" paragraphs seemed natural in "Pahonia, but look bloated in the article on Lithuanian subject and rise the suspicion in WP:SYNTH. Assuming that the merged state stays, I suggest:
Unreferenced paragraphs must be removed. They sat here for quite some time, hence snip-snip.
The section "In the Lithuanian Army" is redundant because yes of course Lithuanian Army used the Lithuanian emblem, no big surprize. Unless there are some sources why 1st Belarusian Regiment selected Pahonia for reasons other than the regiment was partt of Lithuanian armed forces, the section must be removed.
The USSR section must be rewritten. "Lukashenka" part must be trimmed, but the role of Belarusian Popular Front instrumental in promoting these symbols may be added. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
My comments following Robert McClenon's and Lokys dar Vienas's statements:
Pahonia is one of the names of the coat of arms of Lithuania (same as Vytis or Pogonia) and there is a valid WP:CONS quite recently confirmed by an administrator that it should be a redirect page to the coat of arms of Lithuania (see: HERE), so per WP:LISTEN it should not be reconsidered again.
I agree that unreferenced (especially 1990+) content should be removed from this disputed subsection because it is not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania and actually is WP:UNDUE weight. As far as I noticed, it was mostly added step-by-step by Belarusian users who placed them in this subsection instead of National emblem of Belarus. So I agree that the majority of the 1990+ content should be deleted or moved to articles like National emblem of Belarus where they would fit much better.
1st Belarusian Regiment was an ethnically Belarusian military unit which used the coat of arms of Lithuania. That's why it is important for this subsection. There were more such units later, but it was the first and the most important one because it also was the Grodno Military Command and before disbanding by Poles it operated in Belarus' territory.
@Robert McClenon: Unlike the 1990+ history of Belarus, I don't think that Polish Army's repressions of the coat of arms of Lithuania is "marginal to the topic or would be undue weight". I created a two times shortened version User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus which is centered around the coat of arms of Lithuania (Vytis). It has context and 1990+ history reduced to the minimum. Robert, what major issues you see in it? Maybe it could be trimmed even further a bit. I think by reading it you will feel very little that you are sliding outside of the topic of the coat of arms of Lithuania. However, facts like: 1) Lithuanian President Antanas Smetona explanation is important to understand why such Belarusian units with the coat of arms of Lithuania appeared in the early 20th century; 2) short description of the Peace of Riga is important to understand what happened to Belarus and why its symbols usage was Polonized/Sovietized (replaced) and why horse rider had to be started to be used again in 1990+. -- Pofka (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I also believe that we should limit ourselves to dry facts as much as possible, so there is no room for the presidents' opinions, for example. There is also no room for a description of Lithuanian institutions (not this section, besides, what is the point of writing out that the institutions of a country use the symbolism of that country) or repeating what is desribed in detail in other articles (1st Belarusian Regiment).
This section is not strictly about "the coat of arms of Lithuania" but about "coats of arms similar to the coat of arms of Lithuania," so, for example, the national coat of arms of Belarus. Which, although similar and having common roots, is not identical to the coat of arms of Lithuania. So the argument content should be removed from this disputed subsection because it is not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania should be rejected as incorrect. It is precisely this section that exists to describe phenomena not directly related to the coat of arms of Lithuania, but to coats of arms similar to it, such as the national coat of arms of Belarus.
I agree that the problem of the section is an improperly conducted merger and duplication of content from the national emblem of Belarus, we should limit ourselves to basic facts Marcelus (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
Pofka has created a sandbox containing a proposed draft of the Belarus section. Do other editors agree with the changes? If not, what is the disagreement?
Are there any other sections that editors want rewritten?
Will each editor please make a bullet-point list of sections that should be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon what's the purpose of doing the same thing once again? We already said like 2 or 3 times what do we want to be changed about the article, repeating it once again doesn't make much sense.Marcelus (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
It appears that there are some changes that two editors want to make, and that one editor does not want to make. If so, we need to identify as clearly and concisely as possible what those changes are. If there are any changes that all three editors are in agreement on, please list them, and we will make them, and then decide whether further discussion is needed.
Who agrees or disagrees with the proposed Belarus section?
Are there any other sections for which we should create sandbox drafts?
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Lithuania)
@Robert McClenon but isn't that your role? We listed the changes we want to make in the article. I can list things that I think all three of us agree on, but I'm a party to the argument, it can only generate more discussion and controversy.
And as I said in my earlier comments, Pofka's proposal is unacceptable because it contains all the shortcomings of the current version of the section, only shorter. The length of the section is secondary here. Here I addressed Pofka's proposal, removing parts that seem unnecessary to me, and adding things (underlined) that were missing. I've taken them from my original proposal to modify the section, which I proposed back on the article's talk page.Marcelus (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC) (For the sake of clarity I have removed the images, this does not mean that I think they should not be there 08:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC))
I agree with the compromise solution of Pofka's proposed draft of the Belarus section. I disagree with Marcelus' proposal because it entirely removes many important and relevant points of information from the article Coat of arms of Lithuania.
I don't think that anything more should be deleted.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
I would like to be sure that I have this formulated correctly. It appears that the issue is between two sandboxes on the Belarus section. User:Pofka and User:Cukrakalnis agree that Pofka's Belarus sandbox should go into the article User:Marcelus has their own sandbox instead. Is that a complete summary of the disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, that is a complete summary of the disagreement.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Lithuania)
It all started with Marcelus' and Piotrus claims that the disputed subsection "Belarus" is WP:UNDUEly long. However, now Marcelus stated here that "Pofka's proposal is unacceptable because it contains all the shortcomings of the current version of the section, only shorter. The length of the section is secondary here" (Marcelus' edit). Moreover, Marcelus proposed a new version of the same subsection (this) with Polish Army's repressions of the coat of arms of Lithuania (at the time used by Belarusians) and WP:NPOV statements from Encyclopedia Britannica completely removed and almost of the same length as my suggested improved current version (User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus). Marcelus' suggested version is unacceptable because the current content supported with WP:RS should not be removed without a valid reason (and that Marcelus' proposal contains too much Belarus-oriented information, but this article is Lithuania-oriented). As I already said, Belarus (as a sovereign state) did no exist before 1918 and the Belarusians used the coat of arms of Lithuania until 1795 and created their first national coat of arm and state only in 1918. Pahonia is mostly one of the names of the coat of arms of Lithuania (that's why its article was remade into a redirect page following a WP:CONSconfirmed by a neutral administrator). That being said, Robert McClenon please pay attention that "badmouthing of Poland" (Marcelus' statement) and personal disliking what is written in Encyclopedia Britannica (both of his suggested versions have Britannica removed: 1, 2; and HERE Marcelus tried to prove that Britannica is unreliable, but actually it is a WP:RS and is a perfect WP:NPOV source to mediate different nations points of views about their history) might be the primary reasons why this all started and continues since Marcelus himself already admitted that length is a secondary reason. I don't think that such reasons are within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and that they are valid reasons to remove content. My opinion did not change after additional statements of other participants: we mostly should remove 1990+ content about Belarus from this disputed subsection to make it shorter (if it is WP:UNDUEly long) and in such a case I support my proposed modifications of this disputed subsection (User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus) because it is centered around the coat of arms of Lithuania, does not remove WP:RS (e.g. Britannica) and has a very limited amount of related context. So I think we should first answer to a question: is the disputed subsection WP:UNDUEly long? Because if it is not, then maybe nothing should be changed at all. That's why I requested evaluation by a neutral administrator/moderator who is familiar with the concerned rules (WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, etc.). If it is WP:UNDUEly long, then we should begin with trimming/moving content which is not related with the coat of arms of Lithuania (e.g. 1990+ content about Belarus) because there is a dedicated article National emblem of Belarus. -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
1. This is not a complete summary of the dispute. My latest proposal is simply a direct response to Pofka's proposal and should be treated as such.
2. I would also like to ask Pofka to stop speaking on my behalf, reporting what he thinks is my position, because he is doing so incorrectly. I don't know if it's intentional, but it would be better for the dispute if he focused on the article and on articulating his own opinions and not those of others.
3. It seems to me that the thing we should resolve at this point is what is Wikipedia:Scope of this section. In my opinion, the purpose of this section is to describe coats of arms similar to the coat of arms of Lithuania, which were used on the territory of Belarus and by the Belarusian states and institutions. If we settle this, then it will be easier for us to discuss what should or what shouldn't be the content of the section itself.Marcelus (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Lithuania)
I will restate some of the rules. Be civil and concise. In particular, be concise. Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but they do not always clarify the issues. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in the space provided for the purpose. Other than that, address your comments to the moderator. Comment on content, not contributors. It isn't necessary to tell who you disagree with; just say what you disagree with.
One editor says that the disagreement is about which of two sandbox drafts to use in place of the current Belarus section. Will the other editors please either agree that that is the issue, or state in one paragraph what the other issues are, without naming names. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Lithuania)
No, I don't agree that the disagreement is about which of two sandbox drafts to use in place of the current Belarus section. In my opinion, the main problem is WP:SCOPE of the Coat of arms of Lithuania#Belarus section.Marcelus (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
1. In my view, the issue is basically about choosing between two sandbox drafts.
2. I disagree with the changes that Marcelus wants to introduce.
3. I agree with Pofka's changes, which keep the main points of what was there previously but shortens the section in terms of size to address other people's comments about it being too long and being undue. I think it is now good enough and any further trimming would damage the article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
One editor states that the issue is which of two sandbox drafts to use for the Belarus section. Another editor states that the issue is the scope of the Belarus section. Please specify what you think the scope should be, preferably by drafting a proposed section. Be Specific at DRN. If you have already drafted a section, that answers the question.
Each editor may make a one-paragraph statement about what they think the scope of the Belarus section should be.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Lithuania)
I already in detail described in my "22:06, 19 February 2023" statement what type of structure should be in this subsection:
Long answer to request for short answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
1) 13th century - 1795 (at the time Belarusians used the coat of arms of Lithuania as their territories had autonomies within Lithuania, but no sovereignty as they were annexed by Lithuania, as described in Britannica's references);
2) restoration of Lithuania's statehood and creation of the first sovereign Belarusian state in 1918 (at the time some Belarusians affiliated themselves with Lithuania while others with Belarus and used coat of arms of Lithuania or national emblem of Belarus);
3) 1990+ period (restoration of usage of horse rider coat of arms in two separate countries: Lithuania and Belarus).
I disagree that:
1)Wikipedia:Reliable sources like Britannica should be removed or replaced with "Belarusian national movement" type of content (Britannica ensure WP:NPOV and prevent violation of WP:NATIONALISM which would be in the case of flooding of Belarusian nationalistic point of view into Lithuania's article);
2) I also disagree that this subsection should concentrate only on the national emblem of Belarus (1918+) and completely ignore the fact that Belarusian territories were part of Lithuania for centuries and used the coat of arms of Lithuania (important: not national emblem of Belarus), including in the 20th century (e.g. Grodno's case), as according to Britannica there were no unique national Belarusian symbols until the 20th century - that's objective WP:NPOV;
3) I disagree that this subsection should be completely rewritten with different sources as it would mass-remove the current objective information and WP:RSes of this subsection.
That being said, I think this: User:Pofka/sandbox/CoA of Lithuania: Belarus improved version of the current subsection fulfill all the previously mentioned requirements (and should be used if the current version is WP:UNDUEly long and should be trimmed). -- Pofka (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, the scope of this section should be a description of the coats of arms similar to the coat of arms of Lithuania, which were used on the territory of Belarus and by the Belarusian states and institutions in history and now. My proposition User:Marcelus/sandbox6 focuses on that. Of course, it can be expanded with information that falls within the scope.Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The scope of the section on Belarus should be about the use of the Lithuanian coat of arms on the territory of modern Belarus in the timespan since Belarus first gained independence in 1918. The coat of arms, that was officially used by Lithuania but also Belarus briefly after WWI and in the early 1990s, is the same, as is written in enough WP:RS.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
Are there any other issues besides the Belarus section? There are two proposals to replace the Belarus section. One of them is longer than the other, and, although there is some commonality between them, the shorter version is not a subset, or close to being a subset, of the longer version. Does anyone have a compromise?
Will each editor, regardless of whether they have developed a version of the Belarus section, please make a one-paragraph statement in support of their choice for the Belarus section.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Ninth statements by editors (Lithuania)
Tenth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
This discussion is becoming repetitive. To answer an editor's question, it is repetitive because I am asking for concise answers and getting long answers. However, now that we are in agreement that there are two proposed versions of the Belarus section, an RFC will be used to choose between them. The RFC will be developed within 24 hours. Each editor may make a one-paragraph statement supporting their choice of the Belarus section. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Tenth statements by editors (Lithuania)
Eleventh statement by moderator (Lithuania)
A draft of the RFC is available for inspection at Talk:Coat of arms of Lithuania/Belarus RFC. If there are no questions about the RFC, it will be moved from the subpage to the article talk page, and will be made into a live RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Eleventh statements by editors (Lithuania)
I would just like to point out that the title of the parent section of the disputed section was changed during the dispute. This changed the scope of the disputed section and distorted the perception of the ongoing discussion.Marcelus (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
As the user who did the edit explained, the section was renamed to more correctly reflect its content (which goes beyond the section of Belarus). There is nothing wrong with that. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Twelfth statement by moderator (Lithuania)
I have launched the RFC to decide between the different proposals for the section. Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Twelfth statements by editors (Lithuania)
No issue, I'm just working still on references in my proposals, I hope that's ok.
Back-and-forth discussion (Lithuania)
@Pofka Can you answer clearly what you think the scope section should be?
I don't know where you get the impression that focusing on Belarus in any way ignores the fact that Belarus was part of the GDL. You have to take into account that this section functions as part of the article. I don't know what you mean by "Belarusian national movement" type of content, are you against any mention of the existence of the Belarusian national movement?
We need to establish one thing to go further. The national symbol of Belarus established in 1918 is derived from the Lithuanian coat of arms, used in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, but is by no means identical to it. Since 1918, there are two separate national coats of arms: Lithuanian and Belarusian. Do you agree with this statement or not? If not, why not? Marcelus (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cukrakalnis can you cite a source that claims Belarus used the Lithuanian coat of arms and not its own, which was derived from it (from the GDL coat of arms)?Marcelus (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Dividing the coat of arms of Lithuania into the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the modern Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Belarus (briefly in 1918, then 1991-1995) is splitting hairs. Two of the three states that used this officially were called Lithuania, ergo Coat of arms of Lithuania is the main article title and anything else is a redirect.
The most palpable expression of this potential rivalry is that both states used the same symbol as their national emblem in the 1990s. This consists of an armed medieval knight carrying a shield bearing the device of a cross with two cross-bars, sitting on a horse facing to the left which rears up on its hind legs.[1]
As a result of this historical claim, in 1918 the Belarusian Democratic Republic adopted as its state emblem the state symbol of the Grand Duchy - a coat of arms depicting a knight on horseback - which also became an official symbol of post-Soviet Lithuania. Lithuanians call the coat of arms "Vytis" (the White Knight), and Belarusians call it "Pahonia" (the Chase), but it is the same.[2]
This is not splitting hairs, because the independent Belarusian state is a separate entity from Lithuania. So, calling the national symbol of Belarus, "the coat of arms of Lithuania" is wrong. It can be called "derived from the coat of arms of Lithuania", but only that. As you rightly pointed out, only two of the three countries mentioned called themselves "Lithuanian." Marcelus (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
You are splitting hairs by separating a symbol, which sources agree is one, into three parts.
It can be called "derived from the coat of arms of Lithuania", but only that. No, what you're saying is WP:OR. WP:RSclearly say it is one symbol.
As you rightly pointed out, only two of the three countries mentioned called themselves "Lithuanian."Only? The Grand Duchy of Lithuania certainly used the coat of arms of Lithuania from the late 14th century onwards until 1795 (600+ years of use by a Lithuanian state). Then, the modern Republic of Lithuania used it (1918-1940; 1990-now) for the entirety of its existence, i.e. 53 years and counting.
The post-WWI Belarusian state used it officially for as long as it existed - which was very short. If we're generous, perhaps 2 years. Belarus then used it for four years (1991-1995), when the Belarusians democratically decided in a referendum that they prefer the Soviet coat of arms to the Lithuanian one. The tally of years is +650 years of use by a Lithuanian state versus roughly 6 years (if we're generous) by a Belarusian state. Ergo, Belarus was indeed using the coat of arms of Lithuania as its own. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Even your source is saying that. Cheesman, Clive; Williams, Jonathan (2000). Rebels Pretenders and Imposters. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 170: The reverse shows the knight symbol from which the modern Lithuanian and Belarusian emblems derive. You are trying to push your own view. Of course Belarus emblem is derived from Lithuanian, but as a result it's a Belarusian emblem. One doesn't exclude the other. Also you are being dishonest saying that Belarusians used it only for 6 years, while in reality it's a symbol of Belarusian national movement since 1918, and the section should reflect that. Marcelus (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The source literally spells it out for us: The most palpable expression of this potential rivalry is that both states used the same symbol as their national emblem in the 1990s. (Cheesman, Clive; Williams, Jonathan (2000). Rebels Pretenders and Imposters. New York: St. Martin's Press. p. 170) Stating something written in a source is not me somehow pushing my own view. It is inadequate to call it a Belarusian emblem, because it was rejected by Belarusians in a democratic referendum after relatively brief usage.
Also you are being dishonest saying that Belarusians used it only for 6 years I didn't say that Belarusians used it only for 6 years. I said that the Belarusian STATE. Belarus =/= Belarusians. There is a difference between a state and a nation.
...in reality it's a symbol of Belarusian national movement since 1918 The section always reflected that though, it's already there in the article. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying what article reflects or not, I'm arguing against you insist on calling Belarusian coat of arms as a Lithuanian coat of arms. Marcelus (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
@Marcelus: This section with its subsections focuses on the usage of the coat of arms of Lithuania in other countries (e.g. in Poland, Belarus, Germany, France, etc.) and similar coats of arms (Ukrainian, Belarusian, etc.). I already explained multiple times that your suggested version (User:Marcelus/sandbox6) is unacceptable because it is poorly referenced and without valid reasons it requires to completely rewrite the entire subsection "Belarus" and to remove easily WP:VERIFIABLE online WP:RS (e.g. Britannica), facts about Belarusians usage of the coat of arms of Lithuania (it does not even mention facts that the Belarusians used the coat of arms of Lithuania for over 500 years as they had no own national symbols, per Britannica) and Polish interwar repressions of the coat of arms of Lithuania in Belarus, etc. I also already explained that since 1918 the Belarusians in Belarus used the coat of arms of Lithuania as well (e.g. 1st Belarusian Regiment, Lithuanian Ministry for Belarusian Affairs, Grodno Military Command) and national emblem of Belarus (officialy they do not use any horse rider now), so in this subsection we must cover three periods: 1) 13th century - 1795; 2) interwar period (since 1918); 3) 1990+. Moderator already requested to explain what content you want removed and why (e.g. you still haven't provided valid arguments why WP:NPOV Britannica and facts based on it should be censored but you keep "Belarusian nationalists..." in your newly rewritten version of the subsection). -- Pofka (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This section with its subsections focuses on the usage of the coat of arms of Lithuania in other countries (e.g. in Poland, Belarus, Germany, France, etc.) and similar coats of arms (Ukrainian, Belarusian, etc.). - you renamed the section at 22:27, 28 February 2023, from Similar coats of arms, to Coat of arms of Lithuania in other countries and similar coats of arms.
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is quite dishonest on your part given that we are just discussing scope the section.
I will restore the previous name at this point, we can discuss changing it and change it after the dispute is over. Marcelus (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
it does not even mention facts that the Belarusians used the coat of arms of Lithuania for over 500 years as they had no own national symbols, the fact that Belarusian lands were part of Lithuania are mentioned before in the text, do we really need to repeat that? Is that edit satisfying to you?
The institutions you mentioned, as well as the "repression" mentioned, are WP:UNDUE.
We also need to establish one thing, both the current coat of arms of Belarus and those adopted in 1918 and 1990 are "Belarusian" coats of arms. It cannot be said that Belarus used the coat of arms of Lithuania, because Lithuania is a separate state. This does not mean that the former coat of arms of Belarus is not derived from or modeled on the Lithuanian coat of arms.
Please answer the question posed earlier: what you mean by "Belarusian national movement" type of content or that I keep "Belarusian nationalists...", are you against any mention of the existence of the Belarusian national movement? Marcelus (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Springbar
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Xlea Nollmav on 15:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Closed as wrong forum. DRN is for article content disputes, and does not consider disputes either that are pending in another forum, or that should be considered in another forum. This case is about acceptance of a draft. Editors who have submitted drafts that have been declined may ask for advice at the Articles for Creation Help Desk or the Teahouse. I think that advice at the Teahouse is more likely to be helpful. So the filing editor should ask for advice at the Teahouse.
I have a few comments. First, I concur with the reviewers User:AngusWOOF and User:Greenman in declining the draft. (It was declined, not rejected. The difference is that the author may revise and resubmit a declined draft, as they did.) It still contains promotional language. Second, the advice that you get may not be quite as specific or concrete as you would like, because the volunteer editors are not here to rewrite an article for you at your request, but they are helpful.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I submitted a page on behalf of my client, and from the beginning, I disclosed that I'm being paid to create this page. The first draft was rejected on January 17 by AngusWOOF for being promotional, lacking neutrality and needing more citations. I made a good-faith effort to rework the article, cutting out sections and revising others to eliminate any material that could be seen as promotional and to ensure a neutral tone. I also added a large number of credible third-party references (newspapers and magazines) to support information included in the article. The updated article was once again rejected on February 22 by Greenman, stating that it is "still exceptionally promotional" and that "this is why COI editing is discouraged." I received no concrete feedback about what specific sections are promotional that I could use to make any edits. In both of these instances, I've left comments/questions for those editors on the article's talk page and have received no response from either one. I understand that you would place more scrutiny on articles/creators who are being paid to create a page, but COI editing is still allowed. In fact, I would argue that individuals who are being paid to create a page are more likely to be neutral as they have a strong desire to actually get the page published. In addition, I have seen and edited Wikipedia pages that are more promotional or non-neutral (or lacking in citations) than the Springbar page. (Some examples of this are Horseshoe Hammond, Girls for Gender Equity, Airstream and Antonia Hernandez.) This is to say nothing of the fact that most people/companies that are being paid to create pages simply don't disclose their COI. I am attempting to go about this in a legitimate, honest way and feel as if I am being penalized for it — not to mention ignored. I believe the article provides a balanced, encyclopedic view of Springbar. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know what specifically is wrong with the article so that I can improve it.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would like to know if/what specifically needs to be addressed with the article in order to get it approved — concrete examples. Right now, I have no path forward. OR, I would like another editor (or multiple editors) to review the article to provide their opinion as to whether it is promotional. Thank you!
Summary of dispute by Greenman
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AngusWOOF
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I originally AFC declined the article for excessive promotional verbiage and suggested it be rewritten by someone not associated with the group. It doesn't mean they shouldn't rewrite at all, but that would be my preference
"Renowned for its style, durability and comfort, the Springbar canvas tent helped revolutionize the camping industry and has become known as an icon of outdoor style and design"
The next year, AAA Tent & Awning began selling Springbar canvas tents through its catalog under its Skyliner brand. The tent was popular among customers looking for a tent that was spacious, strong and easy to pitch. Kirkham Sr. continued to refine the design over the years
From this design, he continued to innovate, creating versions of varying sizes and features — from a two-person tent to a large modular tent called the Leisure Port, which campers could add rooms onto as needed
The Springbar design quickly caught the eye of other outdoor brands.
Jack Kirkham Sr. passed away in 2008 at the age of 90, leaving behind a thriving legacy, having made his mark on the outdoor industry. His simple, spacious canvas tent design helped make camping accessible for more people at a time when interest in outdoor recreation was just beginning to grow
Known for their spacious, simple and stylish design, as well as their superior quality and lifetime guarantee, Springbar canvas tents revolutionized the camping industry, making camping more accessible and appealing to the masses. Since their introduction in 1961, Springbar canvas tents have become an icon in the outdoor industry.
Springbar canvas tents are supported by Kirkham Sr.’s simple frame design, which combines flexibility and tension to create a structure that is spacious, strong, quick and easy to pitch and capable of withstanding strong winds and rain.
I didn't think to have to spell it out at the time since it was pretty much throughout the article. If it can be rewritten neutrally and without the promotional adjectives and buzzwords, the original editor can redo it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Springbar discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed indecisively. One editor, who is a mathematician, says that the subject of countably valued functions is obvious, and does not require mention in the encyclopedia. Another editor, who is a mathematician, says that countably valued functions are an important concept, in particular with regard to stopping times, but is no longer interested in discussing. I don't think that they are obvious, but I am not a mathematician, and articles in Wikipedia on mathematics are not written only for other mathematicians.
If countably valued functions are an important concept that is distinct from simple functions although a generalization of simple functions, they can write a properly sourced article, which may be a stub or a longer article, on countably valued functions. If such an article is written, anyone who thinks that the concept is obvious and non-encyclopedic can nominate it for deletion, and the community (or a subset thereof) can decide whether an article is in order.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The section "Countably valued functions" is obvious in nature and should not have been added, per WP:ONUS. This section adds nothing of substance and only clutters up the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tensorproduct
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Simple function discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Procedural close The article has a list of books at the bottom, but not a single footnote, so that an independent wikipedian will have hard time verifying the statements of the article. In particular, I see no referenxe that says that countably valued functions is an extended definition, not to say this thingy is studied at all. (If there were such a ref as I described, than of course it belonngs here; I ve seen several math articles that discuss extensions of the concept / artcle subject. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes both of them are listed. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Ixtal: Thanks for notifying me. But I have no longer interest in discussing with these people and I don't care what happens now. I am a mathematician with long research experience in a field where this expression is used (for stopping times), so it's not nonsense when I say, this term is important. But I waited for more than 3 weeks for a response on the discussion page. I didn't get any. Then this other user said, "don't waste time from wikipedia users" - that's not an enviroment I support. --Tensorproduct (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
It is not clear to me what if anything the article content dispute is about. The filing party says that the countably valued functions section is obvious in nature. Obvious to whom? Nothing in the article is obvious to me, which suggests that the filing party may be assuming that the reader already has to know particular areas of higher mathematics.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
It is also not clear to me what if anything the editors want here. So I will ask the editors first to read the usual rules, and then to make a brief statement. Please state what if anything should be improved in the article, and how you think that discussion here can improve the article.
Also, please explain, to a computer scientist, exactly what is a simple function. Is it defined by the fact that it can only have a finite number of values? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Hi, I answer two questions (btw. the article is not by me):
1. Use of simple functions: the answer for your question is "not only". Simple functions are a finite sum of indicator functions times "some value". An indicator function is a function which associates the value to some set and everywhere else and usually written as or (for example the indicator function of the interval is at else ). Now simple functions do not only attribute the value to that set but some general values. So simple functions are of the form
So you can think of them as counting the weights of some sets at the places where the set is. These functions are essentials in defining any kind of integral.
2. Countably valued functions: If one extends the definition of simple functions to infinite sums (but countable), then one gets countably valued functions. Note that not every extension to infinity is countable, there exist at least two infinities and in mathematics, so that is why we distinguish between "countable" and "uncountable" infinity.
I added this expression to the article, because it is not obvious that a "Countably valued function" is essentially a simple function extended to "countable infinity". The user "StrokeOfMidnight" reverted my text and said that this is obvious. Do you think it is obvious? I don't think so.
And as a side note about the two infinities we mathematicians have: One infinity you can use to build sums, i.e. and still end up with some finite number, the other infinity is too big for that. Hope I explained it good, please tell me if not. Best--Tensorproduct (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Statement one-half by moderator (Simple function)
If any editor thinks that there is a content issue about this article for which moderated discussion is requested, please state concisely what the issue is. Otherwise I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Simple function)
In the Talk:Simple_function discussion on February 23, Tensorproduct conceded the point, so if there are no other objections, the issue is settled. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't said I concede your point. I just said I don't care because I waited 3 weeks for an answer from you and you didn't respond. Even after I pinged you you just waited and not responded to me. Then this other user said "don't waste other people's time" which made me upset since I was waiting for more than 3 weeks for a respond. Clearly you were not able to give a convincing argument, why this term should not be explained in the article. Your argument was solely that it is "obvious".--Tensorproduct (talk) 11:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Simple function)
The relationship of countably valued functions to simple functions may be obvious to some mathematicians. Wikipedia is not written only for experts in fields. Mathematicians can review their knowledge of simple functions and countably valued functions from textbooks. Wikipedia is also written for educated non-specialists. The relationship of countably valued functions to simple functions is not obvious to a computer scientist, and, besides, computer scientists know that when a mathematician says "It is therefore obvious", it may mean that the remainder of the proof is lengthy and tedious, and the author doesn't want to reconstruct it. User:Tensorproduct did not concede that it was obvious. He agreed not to argue in favor of restoration of the section because User:StrokeOfMidnight had stonewalled.
I will only close this case as resolved if it is resolved. Otherwise, if I close it due to no discussion, I will close it as failed. I am neutral on content except occasionally. I am not neutral about stonewalling. And I am not neutral about claims that something in college-level mathematics is obvious.
If any editor thinks that there is a content issue for which moderated discussion is in order, please state what the issue is. If there are no answers, I will close this case as failed, because of apparent stonewalling. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Simple function)
Second statement by moderator (Simple function)
Please read or reread the usual rules. Will each editor please state briefly, first, whether you want to take part in moderated discussion, and, second, what any article content issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Simple function)
Moderated discussions are welcome, and I will participate in one.
The contentious issue has to do with so-called countably valued functions. I believe that these functions lack notability and should not be defined in the article. Even if they were notable, defining them would be superfluous since the reader would know what a c.v.f. is by, simply, reading the term: a c.v.f. is one whose values form a countable set. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
That is obviously not true what @StrokeOfMidnight: says. This expression is used in the literature, especially because it is used to define the Bochner integral. But it is also used when dealing with stopping times in Banach spaces and has also applications with stochastic partial differential equationes. Not true what StrokeOfMidnight says. --Tensorproduct (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Third Statement by Moderator (Simple functions)
I forgot to specify in the rules that there is to be no discussion on user talk pages. Discussion should be on this noticeboard. The issue appears to be whether there should be a section on Countably Valued Functions. I see three possible answers. First, we can include them in the article on simple functions, as is being asked by one editor. Second, we can instead have a separate article on countably valued functions, which are a related topic, but not the same topic. Third, we can say nothing about them, because one editor says that their meaning is obvious. It may be obvious to a mathematician, but it is not obvious to a computer scientist, engineer, or other person for whom mathematics is an essential tool. Please make a one-paragraph statement explaining your position on the documenting of countably valued functions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Third Statements by Editors (Simple functions)
Countably-valued function is a self-explanatory term that lacks notability and should not be covered on Wikipedia. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Tensorproduct, there are no countably valued functions in the articles you cited, despite you claiming otherwise, so I don't see how your argument is relevant.
Also, I would appreciate if you could post your comments here instead of my talk page, as you've recently done. StrokeOfMidnight (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
What? That I waited more than three weeks to get an answer from you? That you didn't want to discuss with me the topic even when I pinged you and said I want an answer? Yes, I will check whether the things you write are mathematically actually true. It's strange that you ignore my comments about the topic and selectively pick the ones that fit your narrative. Since I didn't get any response, I wrote on your talk page. --Tensorproduct (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
![{\displaystyle [0,1]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/738f7d23bb2d9642bab520020873cccbef49768d)
,_1919.jpg){kind=link}
,_1919.jpg){kind=link}