Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	Closed	Randomstaplers (t)	29 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 7 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	10 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 7 hours	Wolfdog (t)	2 days, 20 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	9 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Beshogur (t)	1 days, 2 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	4 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 7 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	3 days, 23 hours
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka	New	DinoGrado (t)	3 days, 4 hours	None	n/a	DinoGrado (t)	3 days, 4 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	New	Titan2456 (t)	1 days, 21 hours	None	n/a	SheriffIsInTown (t)	1 days, 21 hours
Ryan T._Anderson	New	Marspe1 (t)	1 days, 14 hours	None	n/a	Marspe1 (t)	1 days, 14 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

West Herzegovina Canton

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Aaron Liu on 16:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

West Herzegovina Canton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Disagreement over whether or not the flag and coat of arms(referred to as the symbols) of the canton are official and whether or not they should be included in the infobox. The parts of the canton’s constitution that used to define these symbols were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. The canton then amended the constitution to address the ruling in 2000, and defined the symbols in local law in 2003. There is dispute over whether the 2003 law is legal or not i.e. whether or not the 1998 ruling annuls the 2003 law. The 2003 law can be found at the canton's official website. The 1998 ruling has been linked below.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:West Herzegovina Canton#Flag

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide opinions that can help us reach consensus

Summary of dispute by Santasa99

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Highest interpreter of laws and constitutionality in every normal country is Constitutional court. In 1997 Constitutional court has ruled that symbols are unconstitutional, and provision of that ruling is clear: 1) ruling and provisions for the Canton 10 (Hercegbosanska županija); 2 ruling and provisions for the Canton West Herzegovina (Zapadnohercegovačka županija).

Secondary sources report on most recent various reactions (political parties, MP's, etc) confirming illegality of forced usage : Livno-Online, Mayor of the local municipality, RTRS, Federalna RTV, SrpskaInfo

Now, we have editors who want to include them into Infobox as representative illustration where the official symbols should stand. They say that after the Constitutional court rules symbols unconstitutional, local ethno-nationalists in local governing bodies can just walk away back to their local institutions and enact "new" law with the exact same substance by playing tricks with protocol numbers and dates, and thus bypass the Constitutional court ruling, as if the court is not highest interpreter of law and constitution. What they actually say is that locals can simply fool ~~full~~ the highest court in the land by walking them in circles - court rules the symbols unconstitutional, local change few letters and hyphenations put the new protocol number and date and voila, Constitutional court has to rule again.

The most worrying aspect of this dispute is that editor(s) insists on symbols which were obviously deemed unconstitutional, and on the basis of discrimination of other two constituent peoples at that. Forced usage makes two things evident: that ethno-nationalist bickering at the local level, where one majority discriminate against other two, is nothing short of breaking the law and disrespect for both the Constitution and Constitutional court (ruling); the other is that the country is sometimes unable to enforce the rule of law, or most of the time. The symbols are used only by these two cantons, wherever and whenever they can, but as we can see from links, not without outcry of various concerned parties and players, and no other instance of government is recognizing them in other official instances (institutions, documents, etc.).

Summary of dispute by Governor Sheng

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I claim that Željko Heimer and the valid cantonal law are sufficient sources for the cantonal flag to be considered official. The dispute arose after User Santasa99 asserted that the Constitutional Court made a decision on the Constitution of the Canton in 1998 and declared the constitutional provisions on the flag invalid. However, the law we are discussing was adopted in 2003 and is not covered by the decision of the Constitutional Court from 1998, which exclusively discussed the cantonal constitution, but not the cantonal law.

At first, Santasa99 rejected Heimer as a reliable source, then he claimed that the canton fraudulently passed the law out of nationalistic impulses. And he claims - although without a source - that the decision of the Constitutional Court from 1998, which discussed one matter, suddenly refers to another matter voted in 2003. I consider such a stance to be original research, and us such, not allowed at Wikipedia.

User Aaron Liu provided a third opinion, stating that the flag should be included in the infobox and considers it to be official. Their third opinion wasn't taken into account by Santasa99. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Herzegovina Canton discussion

Hi everyone ! I am the DRN volunteer that is here to bring a conslusion on the matter. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to post them on this discussion or on my talk page Craffael.09 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors on West Herzegovina Canton

The canton then amended the constitution and defined the symbols in local law in 2003. The symbols stayed the same, the amended law did not change anything of concern to that Constitutional court ruling; whatever they changed did not amend concerns from the Constitutional court provision. Not to mention that we have no information on why the local canton's law is amended in the first place, maybe they had no intention to amend concerns from the provision at all. There is dispute over whether the 2003 law is legal or not. No, dispute is about the Constitutional court 1997/98 ruling and is it relevant regarding the symbols abused by two cantons, which obviously is relevant (I quoted provision that specifically tackle what, and how, and why are symbols problematic and unconstitutional in TP discussion). As if the court is really a bunch of inapt lawyers, who while writing their ruling could not foresee any future manipulations and trickery, who could not understand what the real concern is in the first place - the symbols which discriminate against other constituent peoples, and are thus against the country's constitution.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, dispute is about the Constitutional court 1997/98 ruling and is it relevant Isn't that exactly the same as whether or not the 2003 law is legal? Your argument is that the 1997/98 ruling annuls the 2003 law, if I recall correctly Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they obviously didn't bother to amend what Cc found in violation of the Constitution, did they. The unconstitutional symbols stayed the same, or you think locals can play the Cc for fools. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what you are talking about is not the law, there is no new law, those are some amandmants on the same constitution of that canton. And they left out symbols, which they didn't bother to amend per ruling of the Cc ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a law, it's literally called "Law on the use of the coat of arms and flag of the County of West Herzegovina" (Zakon o uporabi grba i zastave Županije Zapadnohercegovačke) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, it's a law, the links earlier provided in TP directed to the constitution of the canton. But, that's not important, what's important is does that law tackle what Constitutional court found in violation with a state constitution, or is it simply (re)written in complete disregard for that Cc 1997/98 ruling, just with a new protocol number and date. (Ruling is clear and can't be disputed here on wikipedia as a source, nor is it disputed in that country as evident from those links above.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling can't be disputed but interpretations can and need a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You got the secondary sources, as an interpretation by various actors and reported by state media - I intentionally used state media with a base in all three peoples' majority areas (Serb, Croat and Bosniak), although Federal RTV is run by both Croats and Bosniaks and current director is appointee of Croatian HDZ party, the same political party which is responsible for misuse of symbols in those cantons. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll review them. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They did. See amendments 15~16, published 2000 Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How? By reusing the same discriminatory symbols? Symbols which are created to reflect only one peoples tradition and discriminate against other two constituent peoples, which is exactly what 97/98 ruling is all about and what makes them against the state constitution. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santasa99 (talk · contribs) did not at all demonstrate that the flag of the Canton 10 is unconstitutional, nor could they. You will notice that the secondary sources they used to talk about the issues Canton 10 is having. Thus, his point is complete the target. Canton 10 is a separate canton, and there were two separate rulings by the Constitutional Court. Canton 10 failed to adapt its constitution, while the West Herzegovina Canton followed the court's decision and made amendments. Santasa99 is misrepresenting sources in this case. Santasa99, can you find any source stating that the flag of the West Herzegovina Canton is unconstitutional, or you can provide only the sources talking about a completely different canton? --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same flag, same symbols, and the same Cc ruling for both cantons (links above). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you fail to argue how the law we're discussing is not in force? The provisions of the cantonal constitutions were *deleted* by the court. This is not the case regarding the 2003 law we're discussing. It's valid. Governor Sheng (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First consensus and vote

After reading the arguments and visiting the concerned pages, I have come to a first consensus. We shall vote on it, and if everyone agrees, then I will close this ase as resolved.

Santasa99 (talk · contribs) Aaron Liu (talk · contribs) Governor Sheng (talk · contribs)

The consensus is as follows : Taking in the different facts, I think we must not add the symbols iin the infobox but mention the lawsuit and different info on the subject in the article.

You are asked to vote Agree or Disagree followed by the reason of your choice.

Craffael.09 (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, that is always most appropriate way, when facing this very particular kind of situation.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Partly Disagree. I think everyone can agree that the lawsuit and different info should be included in the article, but me and Governor Sheng still think that the symbols should be added in the infobox. The argument that the local government defined the symbols in a law and no new constitutional rulings have discussed it is not an interpretation but the argument that the previous court ruling applies to the current law is an interpretation.Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time you speak in G.Sheng's name, how you do that? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can guess. There isn't any new stuff other than the sources you brought up and unless it is extremely indisputable they won't change their opinion. The source isn't indisputable as it talks about Canton 10 which displayed an incredibly similar flag. They are different flags though. You can see that the chains here are white. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's same flag, same symbols, and the same Cc ruling for both cantons (links above). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I couldn't find any evidence that canton 10 also amended the constitution the same way as west .. did Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did the West Herzegovina canton amend the concerns raised by the Constitutional court rulings - discriminatory symbols remained. The rest I explained several times - the Constitutional court has ruled on symbols as they are designed in certain way which is against the state constitution, and it does not need to come up with a new ruling every time someone change the date on the local law. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is West amended their constitution to move the flag to a law while canton 10 didn't. While I agree that this is trickery, that's my original research interpretation, and to put that interpretation into the article requires secondary sources. Also, the flags are slightly different. Canton 10's flag has a white chain while the symbols have a gold chain. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The symbols are official. The fact is that the constitutional court didn't even discuss the law we're talking about and we cannot know the position of the court as it stands to know, we can only guess. However, this would constitute original research. The law itself is completely valid and in force by every criterion. Also, the fact that Santasa99 was unable to find secondary sources to prove his point – all the secondary sources he mentioned talk about different Canton with separate issues – is evidence good enough that the flags are actually official and constitutional. Everything else is indeed just their original research. For example, the same criteria Santasa99 is using here could be used at Posavina Canton. The flag of Posavina doesn't represent the Serbs, and thus one could say it's discriminatory and just remove it and explain their edit with the 1998 decision of the constitutional court. But, that would be hardly imaginable as it would be and is - original research. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to provide more then I provided by linking Cc decisions, I used media just to direct neutral and uninvolved editors to the factual situation on the ground. It is usually your burden to provide reliable secondary sources when you want to include something into the article - rest of your post is misdirection. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I have. I have presented reliable secondary sources. And yes, the secondary sources you provided do not discuss the same issue as we do, and they are misleading. You failed to find a single article mentioning the flag of the West Herzegovina Canton being unconstitutional, but you found a bunch for another canton that failed to amend its constitution. Why is that I wonder? Governor Sheng (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the vote is done, I have a clear idea about where we're heading. Now, let's take it down a notch and try to make everyone agree. I want ONE user from each side of the conflict write a SHORT paragraph where they will try to prove why they're right by adding reliable sources, link to WP policies,etc... Craffael.09 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a nice compilation of the constitution and amendments translated into English from the OHR, an official BH office. It states that the constitutional ruling declared articles 8~10, which define the symbols, to be unconstitutional. However, article 7, which states that the canton has symbols, has not been declared unconstitutional. The canton amended their constitution in 2000 to address the ruling, and removed articles 8~10, while changing article 7 to say the symbols will be defined in the law of the canton. Three years later they published a law that defined the symbols. Both the amendment and the law haven't been challenged by the Const. Court, so I believe the symbols are constitutional and official. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highest interpreter of law(s) and constitutionality in every normal country is Constitutional court. In 1997 Constitutional court has ruled that symbols are unconstitutional, not law or some article (primary source(s)) that talks about them or some later amendment(s), but specificity of these symbols design as they are conceived and described to represent only one constituent people. The Constitutional court clearly described them as discriminatory on that ground, discriminating against other constituent peoples, which brings them in conflict whit the state constitution, and regardless how many new versions of the local laws and amendments canton is willing to enact, as long as they continue to refuse to alleviate / respond to what was Constitutional court main concern, as worded in their ruling, these symbols remain unconstitutional and illegal. Original ruling and provisions are clear about thet: 1) ruling and provisions for the Canton 10 (Hercegbosanska županija); 2 ruling and provisions for the Canton West Herzegovina (Zapadnohercegovačka županija).

Secondary sources report on most recent various reactions (political parties, MP's, etc) confirming illegality of forced usage: Livno-Online, Mayor of the local municipality, RTRS, Federalna RTV, SrpskaInfo.

Constitutional court is not a bunch of inapt 2nd grade lawyers, who while writing their ruling could not foresee any future manipulations and trickery, who were unable to tackle exactly what the problem was/is. Like in ever normal country, Constitutional court ruling is very much clear and definite, and they do not need to come up with a new ruling every time someone gets a wild idea that facelifting of the problematic law/article, while refusing to tackle and change the essence of the problem, will somehow be enough to screw with the Constitutional court and higher levels of government and bypass its ruling with ease.

Last but not least - how Aaron and Sheng intend to present secondary sources against the definite ruling of the highest court in the land? Which secondary source could exert such power and influence to invalidate one country's Constitutional court ruling, so that we as a project should have every right to dismiss it? Until this point, these two editors have only primary source(s) in form of official local websites/documents. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you cannot use sources for canton 10, which hasn't amended its constitution to remove articles 8~10 which were deemed unconstitutional, to say that the flag of West .. Canton is unconstitutional. Only interpretations of laws and rulings. (e.g. the claim that even after the law and amendments the flag isn't const.) I'm also pretty sure we were tasked to write a short paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional court never ruled on law and its article(s) as such, it ruled on the laws(s) content, a content regarding specific way symbols were supposed to reflect state constitution. As long as the canton's symbols are defined in discriminatory way, thus against the state constitution, they will always be deemed discriminatory and as such in breach of state constitution and the way explicitly defined by the state constitution, so, not a million of law amendments will have any relevance, unless they amended what Constitutional court regarded as unconstitutional - this is clear even to laymen. In simply words, symbols are and will be unconstitutional as long as they stay discriminatory in such a way so that do not reflect other constituent people's tradition(s), and regardless of how many additional amendments are enacted without amending Constitutional court requirements they will stay unconstitutional; simply put it, as long as those local amendments did not resolve/amend what was deemed discriminatory, i.e. unconstitutional, by the ruling of the Constitutional court, amendments have no relevance. Not to mention that we have no idea what the reason or motive for these amendments was, who says that they were meant to amend anything regarding Constitutional court ruling if they choose not to alleviate any of the Constitutional court concerns.

Aaron Liu brought before us re-print of the cantonal constitution form 1994, which passed through several iterations over the years with several amendments (only amendments from 2011 is left-out). Aaron Liu is right only as far as his claim that canton, at one point actually recognized that the symbols are unconstitutional, and we can corroborate that by noting that articles 8, 9 and 10 are all deleted

(footnote on p.2: By ruling of Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. U - 7/98 from 07. VII 1998. (Federation Official Gazette No. 34/98) was fixed that Article 8.9. 10. and 30. of the Constitutional is not in accordance with Constitution of Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.; this is official translation). However, Arron misinterpreted article 7, which states that, indeed, cantonal symbols will be used but not any symbols, instead, until canton decade on appropriate symbols they will use symbols of the Federation. Article 7.(see footnote 3) The Canton has a coat of arms, flag and seal. The looks of the coat of arms, flag and seal of the Canton their use and protection shall he regulated by the of the Canton. The Canton may also have other symbols on which the Cantonal Assembly decides.Article 8. (deleted) Article 9. (deleted) Now, footnote 3 says following: Article 7 was amended. Article 7. The Canton has a coat of arms, flag and seal, as well as other insignia, which the Canton Assembly shall decide upon. The insignia of the Canton from Paragraph I of this Article shall be used with the Federation insignia in accordance with the laws of the Federation and Canton. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your interpretations need a reliable source. Also, the footnotes denote the parts BEFORE amendment. You can read the amendments themselves to prove it. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So do yours, even more so because burden is on you, you want to include symbols into infobox. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is your source, you brought it up as a source to validate your point. Second, it's all clear, they removed articles which describe symbols' designs (8, 9, 10 and 30), leavening only Article 7, which states obvious, that canton has symbols, and in footnote 3 they explain that symbols from Paragraph I of the Article "shall be used with the Federation insignia in accordance with the laws of the Federation and Canton". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That part is AFTER the amendment, as evidenced by the amendment itself here. Plus, I don't need a secondary source for this since I am not interpreting it. I'm merely stating what it says. However, your claim that the constitutional court ruling still applies to the current symbols IS an interpretation, so you need a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? What exactly are amendments all about if they did not amend symbols - what is the point of such amendments, what is the point you are trying to make with explaining that they made some amendments? Whatever that they did, they never amended symbols, and that is whole point of the Constitutional court ruling: unconstitutional names for the cantons, and unconstitutional symbols, and the rulings elaborate in detail "the how and the why". If cantonal leaders tried to play some trickery with some misinterpretations and legislative games, I do not understand why are you following them in their footsteps.

But, to cut to the chase, maybe Ombudsmen of BiH carry lot more weight, and their report is, in this context, as fresh as the morning's dew (Oktober 2018) - page 123. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:03, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you are trying to say with that report. From what I see and put into Google Translate it recognizes the symbols? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Ombudsman's report? I don't see nothing but a quote of the law itself. This is actually another proof of how wrong you are. The ombudsman of BiH actually recognises it as an official flag. (p. 63). The page your're reffering to (p. 123) actually discusses the same thing as both Aaron Liu and I are talking. The cantonal consituttion. The ombudsman doesn't discuss the law itself, and at the same time holds that the flag proscribed by the law is official. It says that the cantonal consitutiton is not in accordance with the constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for a completely different issue. It does not mention the flag as being problematic at all! Governor Sheng (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, from what I see it talks about how the thing about favoring Croats and Bosniaks wasn’t amended Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to intervene here. Santasa is plainly wrong. The constitutional court deemed certain provisions of the cantonal constitution as unconstitutional, not symbols themselves – ("It is established that the arts 8, 9, 10 and 30 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton are not in the accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Utvrđuje se da čl. 8, 9, 10. i 30. Ustava Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona ("Narodne novine Županije Zapadnohercegovačke", broj 1/96), nisu u skladu s Ustavom Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine.). Otherwise, the flag itself would be banned which is not the case at all!

Second, although the Constitutional Court is the interpreter of the law, the constitutional court never discussed the law we're discussing here, therefore the constitutional court didn't have a say in this matter.

Third, the explanation of the court's decision is what it is, but it was limited exclusively to the cantonal constitution. If we're gonna play lawyers here no court is allowed to discuss beyond the limit of the claim itself - this is the principle of every legal system, and so is of the Bosnian one (Art. 2 Law on Civil Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). But, since we're not gonna play lawyers we're bound only by the rules of Wikipedia. And the most relevant here is WP:OR. In short - you need to prove that the court's decision that was limited to the cantonal constitution encompasses all future laws. Not only that, but such rule doesn't exist in ANY legal system in the world.

Fourth, the decisions of the courts may be as they are, but God knows that the court mustn't make the same decision in every similar case (for example the issue of slavery in the United States). Santasa here uses original research for the second time claiming that the court would make the same decision over and over again, which is also against WP:CRYSTALBALL.

The Constitutional Court isn't a bunch of second-class lawyers, but the Constitutional Court is not obliged to make the same decision over and over again, especially so because they're actually appointed by politicians. Not that I'm judging their credibility in general, but they're not so fine and dandy.

And last but not least - you don't actually have the decision of the constitutional court as your source - because such decision wasn't made - it does not exist. And Željko Heimer, whom I mentioned on the relevant talk page is a very good secondary source actually. Santsa is actually claiming that a credible and reliable source - Željko Heimer is wrong and that the existing law is not in force – all of this without any backup whatsoever, except their own interpretation of things, which is a school example of original research. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This probably took some time to write, but you somehow left out parts that do not fit this narrative of yours. I have quoted in Talk Page the provision of this ruling which in plain language elaborate on reason ruling is the way it is in the first place - you can go there and read it if you wish. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts? Do you mean this one? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also very important to which Santansa referred - the Ombudsman's "Report on the appearance, use and protection of state and official symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina" (p. 65) - which clearly demonstrates that the flag is official. [1]. The ombudsman's role is the protection of human rights though. Not that it is important in the matter, but it's worth metioning. Governor Sheng (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You can play this game till kingdom come, but it won't change the fact that you have only partisan source, which is document(s) from cantonal government, which is invalidated by the Constitutional court ruling - its provision is clear: Starting from the definition of the Constitution of the FBiH highlighted in Amendment III (1), which ensures the constitutionality of Bosniaks and Croats in the territory of the FBiH, which consists of federal units (cantons) with equal rights and responsibilities, this court finds that the fundamental idea of the equality of these two peoples must be maintained at the cantonal level as well, that is, at all levels of the Federation. This idea must also be expressed in the symbols of the canton (coat of arms and flags). The insignia of the canton must not represent the traditions of only one constituent people, because this is against the fundamental idea of the Constitution of the FBiH. Therefore, the coat of arms and the flag must express the affiliation to the Federation and the canton. This means that they also must contain the regional geographical characteristics of the canton (Article I.2.). Given that the coat of arms and the flag in Art. 8 and 9 of the Constitution of West Herzegovina Canton, are conceived in such a way that they highlight the traditions of only one constituent people (Croats), they are in contradiction with the Constitution of the FBiH.. I have provided you with both Constitutional court decision and the secondary sources (media (even that Željko Heimer explains that they are unconstitutional) and Ombudsmen report, not that I had to do that, because burden is on you to provide exceptional sources for the exceptional claim, especially in controversial issues). Now, this attempt to misdirect what Ombudsmen report actually saying is a bit too much - Chapter IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA is what matters, all that precedes this chapter is just copy/paste listing of local constitutions, not their approval. Under that final chapter ombudsmen concluding statement on page 123. is as follows: By the decision of the Constitutional Court of the FBiH, case number: U-7/98 of July 7, 1998, it was determined that Art. 8, 9, 10 and 30 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton (Official Gazette of the West Herzegovina Canton, number 1/96), are not in accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. At some point (per canton constitution which is linked by Aaron) canton decided to delete articles 8, 9, 10, 30, leaving only article 7 which simply state that canton has a flag and coat of arms (without any further description), but in footnote they explain that federal symbols will be used. I have nothing more to add to this discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can play this game until queendom comes, but it won't change the facts that you don't have any sources that say that west..canton's symbols are unconstitutonal! The footnote is pre-amendment! That is evidenced by the amendment itself here! "Ombudsman concluding final statement" is still copy and paste from constitution! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have only half a dozen of state media links, beside Constitutional court link and Ombudsmen concluding statement? Do you have sources that say otherwise, I mean beside the Amendment that says nothing about the flag's and coat of arms' design? No, footnote is on already amended constitution, because that document which you provided earlier is constitution in its entirety, complete with amended articles 7, 8, 9, 10, and 30; this link above is just amendment in a separate document - but this is irrelevant because both say exactly the same thing. And that last sentence claim is utterly dishonest, which can attest any uninvolved editor around this project. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, now that I reread your long paragraph that probably took some time to write but somehow left out parts that do not fit this narritive of yours, I retract my last sentence. However, the rest I says remains true. The half a dozen state media links are all about canton 10 which is a different story since canton 10 didn't amend its constitution to remove articles 8~10 which directly goes against the ruling. The footnote says 3 In Bold-Underline - According to Amendments XV-XVI to the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton ("Official Gazette of the West Herzegovina Canton", 14/00), Article 7 was amended. followed by the pre-amendment parts of the constitution. While it is not very clear whether Article 7 was pre or post amendment, a look at amendments XV-XVI themselves, which I've linked to, can clear this up. Amendment XV says Article 7 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton shall be amended to read: “The Canton has a coat of arms, flag and seal. The looks of the coat of arms, flag and seal of the Canton their use and protection shall be regulated by the law of the Canton. The Canton may also have other symbols on which the Cantonal Assembly decides.” It should be clear by now that the article 7 inside the footnote is pre-amendment, as with all the other footnotes. The amendment removed The insignia of the Canton from Paragraph I of this Article shall be used with the Federation insignia in accordance with the laws of the Federation and Canton. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These repeats of my words in whole sentences, to me sound very ironic, and I believe that you are now on the verge of breaching WP:CIVILITY. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's supposed to be ironic since these repeats apply. I guess we're both in the wrong per WP:NICE then. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing exceptional about this. You, Sanatasa, saying so doesn't make it so. Heimer doesn't say the flag is unconstitutional, but the cantonal constitution's provisions were deemed unconstitutional, not the new 2003 law. The burden on proof is actually on you since you're the only one claiming that the decision of 1997 has repercussions on the 2003 law. Says who? Governor Sheng (talk) 20:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's all take it down a notch. Remember to stay civil and do not forget that all this is about a flag and some symbols. Never forget to comment on content, not contributors. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by alternate moderator (West Herzegovina)

This discussion seems to have stalled, and I will try to restart it. Please read the rules. Please answer two questions concisely. First, are the editors still interested in moderated discussion? Second, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is or issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:44, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

1. I can't speak for everyone here but I am still interested. 2. The issue is whether or not the 1998 ruling on a constitution applies to a 2003 law which reintroduced the flag in the constitution deemed unconstitutional. Santasa believes that it does apply in his own interpretation, which would require a source per WP:PSTS Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Santasa presented sources that said a different canton's (canton 10) flag was unconstitutional. However, that canton is a different situation as canton 10 didn't reintroduce the flag in a law. 3. Me and Sheng's viewpoint that canton 8 has a flag doesn't need a secondary source as the law that reintroduced the flag exists. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a) Attempted inclusion by two editors of an unofficial symbol(s) into Infobx (navigational templates, etc.), as a representation of what should be an official symbol(s) instead;
b) All stated and demanded under 2. should now be applied by two editors in their attempt to include unofficial symbol(s) as a content where the official should be used;
c) Heard of WP:BURDON ?

Additional comment - if we disregard the fact that we are debating in circles, and that this issue exhibits nationalistic connotations, which is noticeable from the article's TP, along with the fact that the problem is recurring despite symbol(s) repeated rejection accompanied by stronger arguments in all discussions since 2007. For example, in the first "3O" back in 2009, the volunteer User:Anachronist expressed a very strong opinion and took an equally strong position that the symbol(s) should not be included in the project in any official capacity - it should be emphasized that unlike Aaron Liu who became fully involved in this dispute, Anachronist limited himself solely to providing explanations in the capacity of "3O" volunteers. Also note, however, that we have an article(s) in which the symbol(s) in question are described and/or used as civic symbols of Bosnian Croats, its usage during the war by the Croatian nationalist militia and dissolved para-state of Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna notwithstanding. Even first volunteer mediator here, User:Craffael.09, came up with a following suggestion: Taking in the different facts, I think we must not add the symbols iin the infobox but mention the lawsuit and different info on the subject in the article. The issue is very simple - either we as a project respect the highest interpreter of law and constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Constitutional court, or not.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’ve heard of burden, I’ve even heard of the teapot floating in space theory. However, we don’t need a secondary source as we aren’t interpreting the law or ruling. The canton passed an official law that defined their flag, and that law has not been overturned. You, however, need to provide secondary sources to justify your interpretation that the law has been overturned by the ruling, and the canton 10 sources won’t do. Plus, I’m pretty sure the ombudsman report which recognizes the flag is a secondary source. I also didn’t find any comment by Anachronist, could you link me to their comment?

Finally, Comment on content, not contributors. And I’m not a nationalist either I’m not even European or of European heritage. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: I think this refers to the discussion here: Talk:West_Herzegovina_Canton#Infobox_symbols. My username at the time was Amatulic. I recall being engaged in the discussion more than just offering one comment in my initial opinion, making several additional comments on the page afterward. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are using my secondary source, namely Ombudsmen's report, as your own now, while openly misinterpreting it no less? (By the way, please be careful what words you choose to put in my mouth - who commented or said that you are nationalist?) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu, first 3O starts here. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page 123 merely restated the constitutional ruling in a different way and still only mentioned that it disproved the aforementioned parts of the constitution and says nothing about the law. In fact, it even recognizes the symbols as defined by the law on page 65. 5.8. West Herzegovina Canton The official characteristics of the West Herzegovina Canton are defined by the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton, by the Law on the Coat of Arms and Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton and By the Law on the Use of the Coat of Arms and the Flag of the West Herzegovina Canton. Also, sorry for misinterpreting your talk about nationalistic connotations, I thought that was directed towards me and Sheng.

Unfortunately the first 3rd opinion discussion has been cluttered by Aradic-es's exceptional uncivil stupid circling of invalid arguments, which made it hard to read, so here's my take which may have some misinterpretations: The 2003 law, which made the symbols official again, wasn't brought up at all in that discussion, so that Ardic-es's argument's key point is different from my argument's key point, and you cannot use hat argument to disprove the 2003 law. My current argument does not involve WP:SYNthesis at all as my sources explicitly say the symbols are official. Therefore, a lot of that discussion isn't very relevant to the current discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one day Herceg.Bosna will rise again, and the little local nationalists' heaven will again be able to freely pass chauvinist, discriminatory laws, without trickery and disrespect for the rule of law, that will then become the prime laws of the land which nobody will be able to contest and interfere with. But until that happens, I will stick with the Constitutional Court as the ultimate interpreter of the law and the constitution in the country, whose two rulings (U-11/97 and U-7/98) with its Judicial reasoning can't be clearer about the how and the why. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:03, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, const court is highest interpreter of law but they still haven’t interpreted the flag law. Maybe one day court will rise again, and the little chauvinist, discriminatory law will be overturned, but until that happens, the symbols are still official. Even if they are, in theory, unconstitutional, they still remain as the official symbols and should be included in the infobox. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by alternate moderator (West Herzegovina)

Please read the rules. Again. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in a space that I provide for you (where it can be ignored). We already know that back-and-forth discussion has not resolved the issue, so try addressing your comments only to the moderator. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the back-and-forth, your answers may not have been clear. So we will start again. First, in one sentence, are you still interested in moderated discussion? Second, in one paragraph, please state what you wish to change in the article , or what you want to leave alone that someone else wants to change. If you have any questions about the rules, you may also ask questions about the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

Sorry about the back and forth, I didn’t read the rules clearly. I’d prefer having back and forth allowed, but as it is going around in circles I accept these rules. I'd like the symbols to be added to the infobox. From what I can tell both sides agree on adding info about the ruling and amendments and the flag law to the article.Aaron Liu (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in support of adding the symbols - the flag and the coat of arms - in the infobox, as per all the above said. The explanation of the court's rulling can be added to the body of the artice. --Governor Sheng (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I concur with Aaron - information about the whole issue can be added into the article, appropriately illustrated. We even already have subtitle Flag and coat of arms, however, underdeveloped and lacking all the background info.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)

It appears that three editors have said that the symbols should be added to the infobox, and that no one has said that they do not want the symbols added to the infobox. If no one disagrees, I will close this dispute stating that there is a rough consensus to add the symbols to the infobox. If there is disagreement, please state it concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said that issue of symbols should be explained within existing article subsection, not in the Infobox. All of the editors except one who ever discussed this issue agree on compromise solution to include a description and background info about this issue within one of the article's (sub)sections, which I linked as Flag and coat of arms subsection in my previous post. As far as I can tell, in reality there are more of those who ever participated, more or less extensively, and said that symbols are unofficial and should not be added into Infobox - in this DRN, first volunteering mediator, then Anachronistic, and myself, making three editors, which is more than those two who would like to do that despite the fact that the symbols are unconstitutional, thus unofficial (but we are not counting votes, but stronger arguments, as far as I understand this process). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

Fifth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)

Okay. It appears that I misunderstood. It appears that there is a consensus to include a discussion of the symbols and the controversy about the symbols in the body of the article. Is that correct? It appears that there is disagreement about the infobox.

So, I will ask again, both about the infobox and about the text of the article. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the infobox and in the article, or what they want left the same that other editors want to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

I support adding the symbols in the infobox, as well as adding a further explanation in the body of the article. --Governor Sheng (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't even support a compromise to include - scratch this ~~anything~~ - a vague OR/SYNTH explanation of development subsequent to the Constitutional court rulings into the article section, unless reliable, impartial/non-partisan secondary sources are provided which explain and attest that local laws outside the local constitution can somehow supersede Constitutional Court rulings, while passing the law which adopt (in any time) the exactly the same symbols' design rejected as explained in the Judicial reasoning of two separate Constitutional Court rulings.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC) However, I do support inclusion into the article's section that symbols are used contrary to the Judicial reasoning, in local government website(s), or elsewhere if supported by reliable impartial secondary sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)

It appears that some editors want the symbols added to the infobox, and some do not. I am asking each editor to please provide a one-paragraph statement supporting or opposing the inclusion of the symbols in the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that there is disagreement about the discussion of the symbols and the controversy in the body of the article. I am asking each editor to state specifically what they think should be said in the article about the symbols and the controversy. It would be especially helpful to provide a draft paragraph, rather than just a comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

Again, here is the constitution of canton 8 with its amendments. The constitutional court objected to articles 8~10 which were moved to the aforementioned flag law which has no objections from the court. The ruling only applies to the constitution according to the text in the ruling itself. Even the ombudsman report, which should qualify as a secondary source, recognizes the symbols as official for canton 8 (but not 10). No amount of OR or SYNTH is involved on this side. However, Santasa's argument is basically SYNTHesizing the ruling and reports that canton 10(which hasn’t reintroduced symbols through "trickery")'s use of the symbols are unconstitutional to interpret that the flag law is unconstitutional, which is something no sources say. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the infobox. The flag and the coat of arms are official symbols, enacted by the 2003 law which is by every criteria fully in force, and these symbols should be added to the infobox. Regarding the paragraph that would explain the whole situation, I propose this draft:

The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton were originally regulated by the cantonal constitution. However, by the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the constitutional provisions on cantonal symbols were marked as unconstitutional. Acting on the court's decision, the Cantonal Assembly amended the disputed constitutional provisions in 2000. A new law on the flag and coat of arms was adopted in 2003.

--Governor Sheng (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional court ruled out symbols and in its judicial reasoning explained that their ruling is based on the fact that the symbols design discriminate on ethnic basis and is thus unconstitutional. Cantonal (local) constitution removed description of the design from the articles in constitution, but local, and only local institutions continue to use same discriminatory symbols. "Special Report on the appearance, use and protection of state and official symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina" date 2018 (fairly recently) by the Ombudsmen included in their report Conclusion that the symbols are unconstitutional. It is very important to emphasize that Aaron misinterpreting Ombudsmen report by claiming that report somehow recognizes the symbols as official which is not true - their report is clearly divided into sections, where we find their observation of the situation not its endorsement in the first sections, and then at the end we have section clearly labeled as Ombudsmen commentary and conclusions in which they conclude that symbols are unconstitutional as of 2018.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)

The language in the body of the article should be supported by secondary sources. The constitution is a primary source. The court decisions are primary sources. We should report what reliable secondary sources, such as newspapers, have reported. For instance, we should not explain the court's reasoning, but should report what legal analysts have explained about the court's reasoning.

Please make a one-paragraph statement as to what should be or not be in the infobox. If you have not already offered draft language for the body of the article, relying on secondary sources, please also provide draft language for the article body. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

The secondary source and a reliable one is the site led by Željko Heimer. (Per WP:RS/SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"). Heimer is a reliable secondary source since he is a notable Croatian vexillologist (article on him at the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia ([2]), at the Jewish Biographical Lexicon edited by Ivo Goldstein [3]). Both the flag and the coat of arms should be included in the infobox. The draft I previously offered is based on Heimer. (P.S. note the difference with the status of the flag of the Canton 10 at Heimer's site [4]). --Governor Sheng (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I don't think our side needs a reliable source to say that the ruling applied to the constitution since PRIMARY clearly states that stuff found in plain text of a primary source can be used. Secondly, I think the previously referenced ombudsman report page 63 should count as a reliable source that recognizes the flag. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsmen October 2018 "Special Report on the appearance, use and protection of state and official symbols in Bosnia and Herzegovina", Chapter IX. ZAKLJUČNI STAVOVI OMBUDSMENA BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE [transl. IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA], entire chepter gives a broad context, but more specifically page 123.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is very important to emphasize again, that Aaron misinterpreting Ombudsmen report by claiming that report somehow recognizes the symbols as official in page 63, which is not only untrue, but now becomes disruptive (this is because after several warnings about this meddling with the report's format and context, I have come to believe it's utterly dishonest and deliberate on Aaron's part) - Ombudsmen report is clearly divided into chapters and sections, where we can find their observation of the situation, not its endorsement, in the first sections (including their observation on page 63), and then at the end of the document we have a section clearly labeled as IX. CONCLUDING STATEMENTS OF THE OMBUDSMAN OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, in which they conclude that symbols are ruled unconstitutional.

౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent media sources - along with the 2018 Ombudsmen "Special report", we have some extensive legal commentary in media tacno.net (2016), intelektualno.com (2019), Heinrich Böll Stiftung|Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (2021), balkans.aljazeera.net (2016).

౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back-and-forth discussion goes in the place for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

None of the sources actually prove your point. Plus, the first link was written by a non-expert and some local politician apparently. Governor Sheng (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are fast in reading quite an extensive and elaborate body of legal commentary. Now revert yourself and remove my reply along with it - this is not the place for your responses on my statements. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a legal commantery, but a column. You were the first one to make a comment. Governor Sheng (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)

It appears that one editor has provided a one-paragraph statement for what should be in the infobox. The other editors appear to be presenting arguments, either to me, or to each other, or to the community. The purpose of this proceeding is to improve the article. If you don't say what should be in the article, then all the other discussion is for nothing.

Again, please make a one-paragraph statement as to what should be or not be in the infobox. Again, if you have not already offered draft language for the body of the article, relying on secondary sources, please also provide draft language for the article body.

Once again, do not reply to the statements made by other editors, except in the space for back-and-forth discussion. The back-and-forth is not being productive, and is diverting attention from stating the issues clearly in terms of improving the article. If I don't get useful answers, I will have to fail the discussion. I think and hope that there is at least the potential for an RFC, but there only is that if I can get concise statements of exactly what you want in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

I state again. I support including both the flag and the coat of arms in the infobox. I also support to, at the same time, include a short explanation about the symbols in the body of the article. I oppose adding only the explanation without adding the symbols in the infobox. Regarding the paragraph that would be in the body of the article, I stand by my previously offered draft supported by Heimer as a reliable secondary source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols ruled unconstitutional and without secondary reliable sources can't go into Infobox to illustrate it in "official" capacity, that's out of the question. Whoever want to describe this situation in the article body (like in the similar case in article Federation of BiH, where the unconstitutional symbols were moved out of the infobox to the appropriate section of the article) should do that in reliance to reliable secondary sources.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth statement by moderator (West Herzegovina)

One editor has proposed draft language for the body of the article. The other editors have not proposed draft language, and are making other points that are not directly responsive to my question about what the article should say. If there are no other suggestions, I will set up an RFC on the infobox, and will conclude that there is a rough consensus to adopt the draft paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really doubt that another RFC will generate (any) response. We already had one failed RFC a few weeks ago, one 3O successful before that, then second with Aaron as a volunteer, and now this DRN. It's not just obscure subject, wrapped in legal matters that repels editors, it's also under Balkan scope with nationalism looming. This already taking a toll and too much time, so maybe to try a direct approach to neutral peer(s) with extensive experience, or maybe administrative help or even WP:EXHELP could resolve Infobox issue. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth statements by editors (West Herzegovina)

An RFC would be alright, although I doubt the amount of participation it'll see based on how the previous one received zero attention (I was responding to 3OR). I propose the following ammendment to the draft:

I'd also like it if sources were added alongside the draft. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also ok with an RFC. I agree with Aaron's version of the draft, with Heimer as a reliable secondary source. --Governor Sheng (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to contribute content, but we know that description in the article body should rely on secondary sources, so I will go along with all that can be validated by secondaries. I have provided a list of secondary sources in previous post, and here's few more: Interview with an "expert in the field of constitutional law" and "former judge of the Constitutional Court of Yugoslavia and president of the Constitutional Court of FBiH" (Avaz, June 2018), and Osporene zastave i grbovi i nakon deset godina (Oslobođenje, February 2007). And if I must, here's my version, which is not that different from Aaron's: "The flag and coat of arms of the West Herzegovina Canton are the former flag of the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia and were originally adopted through the cantonal constitution, and its usage regulated by cantonal law. However, by 1998 decision of the Constitutional Court these cantonal symbols were ruled unconstitutional. Local authorities still haven't implemented this Constitutional court ruling." This much is possible to ref in secondary sources anything beyond this is Synth and OR.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC) I had to amend my version by adding "usage" in part of the sentence, "and its usage regulated by cantonal law." (All symbols are based on constitutional article where its design is adopted, and laws where its usage is regulated.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think just Heimer would be enough. I propose using the OHS constitution and the ombudsman report. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Also, why does the noticeboard currently seem to always try to transfer the thing to RFC when preliminary "hearings" fail? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back-and-forth discussion (West Herzegovina)

Long unproductive exchange Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't think that the fact that the first moderator asked if there was consensus is a valid point. Just like how Rob asked if there was consensus, the discussion seemed to imply there was and the moderator would have to ask. I can't claim that Rob thought my view was consensus therefore Rob agrees with me. In fact the volunteer's opinion shouldn't matter as that would make them a biased moderator, which leads to them being switched. The symbols haven't been ruled unconstitutional again yet. The 1998 ruling was on the constitution, not all future laws as stated in the ruling itself, unless you have a source that proves that the ruling made the law unconstitutional. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Also, Sanasa99's statement that there are "more of those who ever participated, more or less extensively, and said that symbols are unofficial and should not be added into Infobox" is plainly wrong, as it was visible from the article's talk page that Anachronist (talk · contribs) (in the discussion signed as Amatulić) [5] would agree to add the symbols to the infobox if users in the previous discussions would provide the law made after the decision of the court. The users were ignorant of the law, and the issue was never actually discussed. Governor Sheng (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean tricks played by local political nationalist elite which adopted the exactly the same symbols' design rejected as chauvinistic in two separate Constitutional Court rulings and as explained in the rulings' Judicial reasoning? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah... Your request for the explanation that "local laws outside the local constitution can somehow supersede Constitutional Court rulings" is really absurd. The court's decision was limited to the cantonal constitution. Such "rule" wasn't even established by the court itself. Making up things, and trying to get an explanation for them. Nobody superseded the court's ruling here. It was actually fulfilled. Do you have a source stating the ruling was somehow avoided? Or is this your own conclusion? Governor Sheng (talk) 08:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was not limited to anything unless you can provide reliable, impartial secondary sources that support your claim. Besides that, the thing is, Constitutional court rulings' have Judicial reasoning, and there court says what is the rulings' concern(s) in detail. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources for what? I already told you Heimer and the positive laws are the sources. You claim that the decision applies to all future laws is absurd and an outstanding claim without any reliable source whatsoever. You make a claim and ask sources for it later. This is not how things work here. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to all future laws that reject, bypass or in any other way disrespect Constitutional court ruling(s), unless you can provide reliable, impartial secondary sources that explain how these specific rulings do not "applies to all future laws". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is your own conclusion? Do you have a source it implies to all future laws and not only the cantonal constitution? This would be even against the Bosnian law – Art. 2 Law on Civil Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the court's decision is limited only to the claim). This is why it's an outstanding claim and I beg you to tell me what sources do you have for it? Governor Sheng (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have judicial reasoning that explain why such-and-such symbol design is unacceptable, which means that the ruling is not on article numbers and dates but on substance. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That maybe so, but do you have judicial reasoning that the decision is to be applied for all the future laws? Governor Sheng (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To make it as simple as possible: it is applied to a substance, which is discriminatory design, and for that it is eternal or at least as long as West Herzegovina is part of Bosnia's institutional system. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as we're concerned, the decision applies only to the cantonal constitution, which is explicitly stated by the decision itself. Claiming otherwise really needs to be properly sourced, otherwise it is just your own conclusion (OR). Governor Sheng (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decision applies to discriminatory symbols, and you are persistently discussing this in circles: three paragraphs above it was "this is your own conclusion?", then "that maybe so", now again "it is just your conclusion", and around we go - no, it's not my conclusion it is court's, it is written in several languages and available online. I have no intention repeating this anymore, really. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it IS your conclusion that the ruling applies to the law beyond the claim. The ruling wasn't applied to a substance, it's applied to the claim(const.) according to aforementioned article 2. The substance is the reasoning, not what the ruling was applied to. You need to find a source that says it applies to the substance.

Also, wow, 21 notices. That's a record. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu, beside the fact that I noted and warned you how your ironic repetition of my words and phrases won't help neither your argument or discussion as a whole, and beside being self-explanatory, I will respond to your Maybe one day court will rise again, and the little chauvinist, discriminatory law will be overturned, but until that happens, the symbols are still official. Even if they are, in theory, unconstitutional, they still remain as the official symbols and should be included in the infobox. statement. Respond on first sentence: court has risen once on the issue, and no amount of political trickery and law-breaking in local chauvinistic hotbeds will warrant another; and on second: if they are unconstitutional, in theory and in reality, they certainly can't be official, not even if one ~~supporting~~ relying on this logic is a lot more than just disrespectful to Bosnia as a state and its institutional system(s). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you calm down and stop labeling everything as nationalistic and chauvinistic, maybe other editos will be less offensive as well. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't I use those arguments when they are employed by the court itself in its judicial reasoning - discrimination on ethnic basis is called chauvinism. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These's aren't arguments, but labels. Do what you want, it was just a suggestion. Governor Sheng (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe you are right, maybe it would sound even better if we say an excessive desire by the top brass of Croat nationalist party of HDZ on local level to adopt symbols which discriminate people on ethnic basis, but it is really long. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Governor Sheng (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the ombudsman say that the symbols are unconstitutional? I only found it saying that the court ruled articles 8~10 unconstitutional.Aaron Liu (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Governor Sheng (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Governor Sheng@Santasa99Don't engage in back and forth except for here! Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the ombudsman: I've said this again and again, but in case it wasn't clear enough, page 123 in Chapter IX merely restates the court's ruling that articles 8~10 were unconstitutional and that the Canton hasn't fully complied with this decision. However, it is unclear which part of the decision it is referring to, and the previous sentence implies that it is talking about the aforementioned discriminating "provision". It doesn't say ANYTHING about the law on that page. Plus, the media sources repeat the ombudsman's point that Croatians are being discriminated against (or "criminalized" as the first one states) and sometimes go against the const court rulings, but never outright states that the flag law is unconstitutional. Source number 1 does say that the symbols are "forbidden" though, I'll give you that, but it looks like a column instead of proper legal commentary. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the source No. 1 (Tacno.net), beside the column wasn't written by an expert (but some local politician), the simple truth is that the flag actually is not forbidden and is widely used. Actually, the editor-in-chief of the said source Štefica Galić even reported the usage of the flag to the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton Prosecutor's Office, only to get the reply that the usage of the said flag is not a criminal act. ([6]). So the column of the source No 1 (Tacno.net) is unreliable. The other source I linked you to clearly refutes the claims of Tacno.net. Governor Sheng (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of sources falls under Conduct guideline and is a breach per WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, 2) point, and it's starting to bother me. Also, this is not the place for discussion on sources. If you have problem with the sources, I have prepared a response for that and for its misinterpretation, and I am ready to reply in proper forum. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contributors. In no way am I or Sheng misinterpreting sources right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, direct response on source thesis and particular argument should be appropriate. Dnevnik.ba is Croatian nationalistic right-wing media outlet under Croatian nationalistic HDZ party thumb, whose above cited short text (brief news-report) is the best example of its problematic modus operandi: in the text you cited they manipulated entire exchange between Galić and local prosecutor office into alleged claim that the flag is not illegal, but their own text actually shows that exchange never mentioned any conclusions on legality or illegality, instead prosecutor office replied that "criminal liability (krivično djelo) is not prescribed by law for displaying other flags on the territory of BiH, and the Law on the Flag of BiH does not prescribe criminal liability for displaying another flag either", instead prosecutor "established that the unauthorized installation of flags is sanctioned through a misdemeanor procedure (prekšajni postupak). However, there is even more problematic aspect in citing Dnevnik.ba news-article - you are trying to present it as if it's about symbols/flags we are discussing - it is not about the Western Herzegovina symbols. This whole matter reported in Dnevnik.ba was about some holiday celebrated in Croatian part of the city of Mostar in another canton, where the streets were decorated by the civil Croatian flag in civil capacity (it is of course basically a same flag of banned Herceg-Bosna para-state used both as a Croatian civil flag and is attempted to be used as official flag of two cantons before it was ruled out by the Constitutional court). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing you fail to realise is that Tacno.net writes how the flag *is* illegal, while the prosecutor states it ain't. Tacno.net also fails to discuss the 2003 law, which makes this whole column rather useless. Now, you do know that the cantons don't have jurisdiction over criminal law, the Federation does. So if something is illegal in Canton 10, it's illegal the same way in all of the cantons. The point is - the flag isn't illegal. You know this yourself very well, as the constitutional court cannot proclaim something as illegal, it can deem certain things as either constitutional or unconstitutional (it's not a regular court). Also, you won't label your way to convince others that you're correct here. Your whole comment is just OR, libelous, full of your POV and what not ("everyone I don't like are nazis and nationalists"). Governor Sheng (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not true - Tačno.net says this: Zastava Herceg-Bosne je proglašena nezakonitom i presudama Vrhovnog suda FBiH iz 1997. i 1998. godine, te skorijim presudama Ustavnog suda FBiH o neustavnosti grba i zastave Zapadnohercegovačkog kantona i Kantona 10, te naziva Kantona 10 (Hercegbosanski kanton). [transl. The flag of Herceg-Bosna was declared illegal by the judgments of the Supreme Court of FBiH from 1997 and 1998, and by the more recent judgments of the Constitutional Court of FBiH on the unconstitutionality of the coat of arms and flag of the West Herzegovina Canton and Canton 10, and the name of Canton 10 (Herzegovina Canton).] ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What verdicts? The author is non-expert. And again, if something is illegal in the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton, it's illegl in the entire Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Prosecutor said - it's not illegal. So one of them is wrong. Also, the most important thing here - the author is not an expert. He's not an establishet expert in this field, so either way, the column is useless as the source. And again, it doesn't discuss the 2003 law. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was declared illegal in 1998, but that part still doesn't say how the flag law is illegal. It just reaffirms that the court made a decision in 1998 that the symbols were unconst. That does not help the argument. Our argument is that a newer flag law in 2003 reintroduced the flags, and since the court's decision only applies to the const (evidenced by the text of the decision) the 2003 law still stands and the symbols are official and not unconst. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Aaron, it is exactly the same flag, identical to previous one - in general, it is a "variation" of Herceg-Bosna flag, but this claim is dubious too when the HB flag was never standardized by proper design - it never moved through proper channels to be adopted to represent Croats of Bosnia, it was not designed by designers chosen for the job by any official body. The flag was chosen by few people and adopted by few people, and that's why it appeared throughout the short history in many iterations: with silver, bronze, golden, white, and even a black triple wattle ornament in chief. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you replied to the wrong comment... Aaron Liu (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, if I missed the paragraph. To tell you the truth, I'm starting to get a migraine, so I'll probably call it a day. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Santasa on the notion that the source talks about that just using the flag isn't criminal. It just says that you can use this flag. It doesn't say anything about whether it's unconst or not. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of that. The thing is, however, that the author here implies that the flag is illegal for use as well (obviously not understanding what illegal means): "Let me remind you that the statement about the parasystem is made by a man speaking from a cabinet with an unconstitutional name, in which the provisions of the Law on the Coat of Arms and the Law on the Flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina are directly violated..." (Da podsjetim, izjavu o parasistemu daje čovjek koji se obraća iz kabineta koji nosi neustavan naziv, u kojem se neposredno krše odredbe Zakona o grbu i Zakona o zastavi BiH...). These provisions aren't violated, as the Prosecutor said clearly. The author has no idea what he is talking about and is not an expert here. That was the purpose of the whole article. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further: Tacno.net also fails to discuss the 2003 law, which makes this whole column rather useless, "useless" part is your opinion, and Tačno.net is not the only source that does not mention "law of 2003" - nobody mentions "law of 2003", not Ombudsmen, not Arnautović, not Galić, not Tačno.net, etc, which says everything we need to know about the "law". ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neither of them does, that's why all of them are useless in proving your point. Ombudsman does mention it and doesn't refute it. Governor Sheng (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have right on your own opinion, but for participation in complex discussions you also need to re-read the WP:RS and WP:VERFY ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act so offended. It's a discussion. We will find the solution in the end. :) Governor Sheng (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solution is in the article on Federation of B-H, whose symbol situation was/is the same, so its symbols are appropriately moved from the infobox to a body, and explained there. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to cause you any further migrenes (:P). However, I don't think it's the same situation there, the FBiH didn't enact any new laws afterward. P.S. It's a civilised discussion, we're all on the same side here; it shouldn't be an emotional burden for anyone. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per VERIFY, we need to find something in a reliable source that actually says that the flag is unconst. Tacno kinda says that but according to RS opinion pieces can't be used for factual things. Intelektualno just repeats the 1998 ruling without any commentary (content farm?). Henrich fails to discuss it at all. Alijazeera only says that the const court rulings often discuss the flags and doesn't discuss the legality of the symbols. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. On the other hand, both Heimer and Ombudsman mention the 2003 law. For Heimer it's official (I made liks to compare his take on Canton 10 and WH Canton flags). Ombudsman discusses the uncocnstitutional part of the cantonal constitution. However, after mentioning 2003 law, the Ombudsman doesn't mention it in his remarks as problematic in any way. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Santasa99: Again you're using the sources that talk about Canton 10 (Dnevni avaz). For what purpose? Also, the sconed souce (infobiro) cannot be even checked. --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, you are misreading the text and/or misinterpreting it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What am I reading wrong exactlay:

"How lucky that this is the only verdict that has not been implemented. Dozens of them have not been carried out precisely by cantons with a Croat majority. The Constitutional Court of the Federation annulled the flag of "Herceg-Bosna", the coat of arms of "Herceg-Bosna", the name of the Livno Canton, so the international community called it Canton 10 because of that verdict. The name of the counties in the Croatian cantons was annulled. And that flag that hangs on the fortress in Stolac and Bosniaks take it down, so they are prosecuted, it is the flag of the illegitimate creation of "Herceg-Bosna". Instead of the police taking down those flags, they hang on the road from Mostar to the end of BiH," (Kamo sreće da je to jedina presuda koja nije provedena. Nije ih provedeno na desetine upravo od kantona s hrvatskom većinom. Ustavni sud Federacije je poništio zastavu „Herceg-Bosne“, grb „Herceg–Bosne“, naziv Livanjskog kantona, pa je međunarodna zajednica zbog te presude nazvala ga Kanton 10. Poništen je naziv županija u hrvatskim kantonima. I ona zastava koja visi na tvrđavi u Stocu pa je skidaju Bošnjaci, pa budu procesuirani, to je zastava nelegitimne tvorevine „Herceg-Bosne”. Umjesto da policija skida te zastave, one vise na putu od Mostara do kraja BiH.)

Literally, the West Herzegovina Canton wasn't mentioned once in the article. One gets an impression you're googling terms and link random articles. Governor Sheng (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He talks about the symbols of Herceg-Bosna, used in "Croatian cantons" - how many "Croatian cantons" using Herceg-Bosna symbols. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty vague, don't you think? One could say that a person has to use his imagination to figure out which cantons the guy is talking about. But that would be OR, now wouldn't it? Governor Sheng (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, not really. Nothing is vague, so to neutral reader everything is clear and understandable. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only see "the cantons with the Croat majority that Serbs in the constitutions of these cantons did not recognize their national capacity" a couple times, "The name of the counties in Croatian cantons was cancelled" and rulings on Croatian cantons were "not implemented precisely". The "precisely" thing is vague, I think that's what Sheng's saying. I don't see it saying that Croatian cantons adopting the Herceg-Bosna flag are always unconstitutional, and to an extent it doesn't say that Canton 8 with their flag law escapage has unconstitutional symbols. Everything else is indeed clear and understandable. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bad translation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have all the rulings, since we have many different secondary source talking about the same thing, we know exactly what he's talking about even if does not mention canton(s) by name - to avoid any unnecessary eventual discussion, read carefully and in its entirety WP:SYNTH. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Particular concern of yours expressed as and rulings on Croatian cantons were "not implemented precisely". The "precisely" thing is vague, is bad translation and context lost in completely jumbled syntax. This word "precisely" does not mean anything in this context - any professional translator would maybe use "the very cantons" with Croat majority or probably would simply use "the", which would in turn give a clearer version: "Dozens of them have not been implemented by the/the very cantons with a Croat majority.". He says exactly what you implied in I don't see it saying that Croatian cantons adopting the Herceg-Bosna flag are always unconstitutional - he says that these cantons still using Herceg-Bosna symbols despite being ruled unconstitutional, by refusing to implement Constitutional court order. And then he even doubles down by providing further context. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for moving the goalposts here and kinda splitting hairs, but that sentence still says "dozens" of rulings instead of saying which ones, cantons still using symbols despite unconst without specifying which cantons, so the thing is still a bit vague.

I'll also say this again: I HAVE read SYNTH, we are NOT SYNTHing. Our argument is that the flag law reintroduced the symbols, and that's what Heimer and the Ombudsmen both say, not synthesis of multiple sources. We still need to find a reliable source that says that the const court ruling extends to the flag law or a reliable source that just says that the symbols are currently unconst after all rulings an dlaws and blah blah blah to claim that the symbols are unconst, else that is OR. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu:, I agree with your ninth statement. The more sources the better. --Governor Sheng (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Queen of Scots

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:E8C5:7383:9B84:E222 on 15:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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.

Location of dispute

Mary, Queen of Scots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

An edit to include the ordinal number ‘one’ in the header of the article infobox, to show as “Mary I”, was reverted. Discussion has followed on the article talk page without a consensus being achieved. Having brought the discussion as far as I can, I do not personally regard the objections to the inclusion of the ordinal number as being justified. However, I do not wish to edit the article without consensus as I feel that an edit war may ensue. I continue to regard the inclusion of the ordinal number as an improvement to the article.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#Mary I

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If possible, propose a way forward from the current impasse resulting from a lack of consensus.

Summary of dispute by Celia Homeford

This dispute involves whether or not to include a single character in the infobox, namely an ordinal, "I". Doing so is unnecessary, unusual and undue. We don't apply numerals that are not generally in use. 'Mary I of Scotland' is about as common as 'Elizabeth I of Scotland' in gscholar searches: Mary I of Scotland Elizabeth I of Scotland. We wouldn't put 'Elizabeth I' or 'Elizabeth I and II' in the infobox of Elizabeth II. We shouldn't do it here either. No confusion arises from the omission of a numeral that is not in general use. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Deb

This is a content dispute, in which I have taken the side of the anon simply because I can't see the logic in the opposing arguments. I would prefer that it had not come to this. Deb (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by GoodDay

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

My stance hasn't changed. The intro should begin with Mary I, the infobox heading should be Mary I. She should be shown as "Mary I" in the infoboxes of her father & son's pages. Indeed, her own page itself should be 'moved' to Mary I of Scotland. Anyways, back to the main dispute here. No one is going to confuse this monarch, with the English/Irish monarch of the same name. One ruled Scotland & was a member of the Stuart dynasty. The other, ruled England/Ireland & was a member of the Tudor dynasty. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, how could an editor be confused about which Mary I, we're speaking of, within her very own bio page? GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by EmilySarah99

I could understand her being refered to without a number if she were the only Queen Regnant of Scotland, but Mary II reigned over Scotland aswell, requiring Mary, Queen of Scots to have a regnal number. EmilySarah99 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Summary of dispute by DrKay

Comment on content, not contributors Craffael.09 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opening party is a SPA obsessed by a single character. DrKay (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can disprove both their arguments by using logic:

"The intro should begin with Elizabeth I, the infobox heading should be Elizabeth I. She should be shown as "Elizabeth I" in the infoboxes of her father & son's pages. Indeed, her own page itself should be 'moved' to Elizabeth I of Scotland. No one is going to confuse this monarch, with the English/Irish monarch of the same name. One ruled Scotland and not Ireland & was a member of the Windsor dynasty. The other, ruled England/Ireland & was a member of the Tudor dynasty. ... Furthermore, how could an editor be confused about which Elizabeth I, we're speaking of, within her very own bio page?"

"I could understand her being refered [sic] to as Elizabeth II if she were the second Queen Regnant of Scotland, but Elizabeth I reigned over a different country, requiring Elizabeth to have I as a regnal number."

These statements are logically equivalent to the opening statements of GoodDay and EmilySarah, and many people believe them. If GoodDay's and EmilySarah's summaries are true in terms of logic, then so are these statements. However, are these statements logic? Or are they bias POV? DrKay (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Johnbod

As DrKay says. To below: "SPA" means "single purpose account" and they are certainly that. WP:COMMONNAME here is utterly clear, and overrides the "logic" arguments. There is no possibility of confusion. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Queen of Scots discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Again, comment on content not contributors Craffael.09 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they count as an SPA, they made one reverted edit that doesn't push any POV and then started discussing it (neutrally?) on the talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“

Number of edits: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose." More important than the number is the content of those edits. Labeling a new account as an SPA after very few edits may be construed as biting the newcomers.

”

— WP:SPATG

Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 50 edits. All on the same topic. DrKay (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single edit to the article on 25 September, which you reverted. You refused/declined to engage with me on your talk page afterwards. Following two days of silence from you, I took my query to the talk page, and here we are… You only engaged on the 10th of October at the Straw Poll. You appear to have more of an issue with my lack of moniker/pseudonym than with the content of my single edit, which you reverted and declined to have the courtesy to inform me as to why. Perhaps if I signed in as User:DrBee and had a few Barnstars on my talk page your attitude towards me would not cloud your contribution to the discussion?

Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain is clear. The inclusion of the ordinal number does not contravene these guidelines and it would both alert and inform the reader to the fact that more than one Mary Stuart reigned as Queen regnant of the Kingdom of Scotland and would be consistent with the other 32 articles featuring a monarch of Scotland which include an associated ordinal number in the infobox header. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this is not the place to discuss about that kind of thing as it has no reallink to this discussion Craffael.09 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie. It's foolish to do so when everyone can see the edits. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I’m not in Kansas anymore, Toto… We are talking about Mary, Queen of Scots edits, are we not? I will not deny nor dispute having edited other articles, but to the best of my recollection, my single edit on this article was reverted, and by you. If you refer to other articles, please feel free to point out any edits elsewhere which you feel were of a type which would qualify as that of an SPA. In the meantime, anything you wish contribute to the ‘discussion’ would be welcome. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming all IPs starting with 2A00: who editing to the article starting 23 Sep are the same person, they have only made 13 11 edits. All of the rest were discussing with you. Plus I'm skeptical that 2A00:23C7:6987:8F01:6CEC:115F:AAF5:EFEF is also them anyways, so they have only made 4 2 edits. Discussion should not be counted towards SPA. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC) On a recount I only counted 11. Not sure how the extra two got in.Aaron Liu (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to confirm as follows… 09:34 25 September and (as discussed on article talk prior to my doing so - my bad for having forgotten) 09:13 30 September. My other edits, apart from the 2 on the article page, (one reverted, one not), have been on the article’s talk page or the talk pages of the editors above. Now, can we get back to discussing the actual issue, please? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous. All the edits on this IP range since June are the same editor. That is self-evident. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be redeculous. There are only 3 IPa that start with 2A00 since June and all of them are in September. Unless you're gonna count ALL of the IPs in the UK from June which requires evidence else it violates WP:AGF. Plus, aforementioned IP with 9 edits has a differenet M.O.. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same IP editing Pillar box and Pillar Box War. The two issues are obviously connected. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! You’re just going to have to take my word for it DrKay, doctor of psychiatry you may be, but you’re no Sherlock Holmes. I made the edits I have detailed above, and if your objection to the proposed change to the infobox header is based solely upon your seeing evil in all that anon editors do, then your paranoia is duly noted. And I’m sorry, I have been the first to remind people of the need to assume good faith, but I didn’t come here to devote time and effort in attempting to engage with others, in the hope of improving this Wikipedia article, to be called both a liar and ridiculous by an admin. If that’s all that you have to bring to the table DrKay, then don’t let the door… etc.

And as for pillar boxes, I am guilty of uploading images to articles and editing their infoboxes, including to Crown of Scotland, Royal Observer Corps, Rock Ptarmigan, Vipera berus and other edits to articles consisting mostly of grammar corrections, general housekeeping, and image uploads, and to my knowledge yours is the only revert of any such edit. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain why you're so obsessed with me and a single edit that I made to one character? DrKay (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. as part of my obsession with wikipedia I'd like to tell you that it's TWO characters

2. This entire discussion is about a single edit! That doesn't change anything! While I think there's something fishy with how IP is so familiar with policies, I'm gonna AGF. IP simply wanted to know why it was reverted and contested that! Are you opposing contribution to Wikipedia? The IP is from UK and they edit stuff about UK, and not all UK topics fall under a single purpose! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe we should just stop for now and wait for a volunteer.Aaron Liu (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you kind of were supposed to wait, but it's okay. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:DrKay. LOL. I have neither the time nor the energy to be obsessed with you, sorry to disappoint. I am merely here, not for the first time, (I edited under my own moniker years ago, but it became too time consuming and my password/email is long forgotten), to try to improve an article. My edit was reverted by you, who didn’t have the courtesy, or the time or energy possibly, to respond to my genuine query as to why you did not consider my edit to have improved the article. Your lack of response led me to the talk page. Whether you engaged at any stage thereafter, mattered not, although I always feel the more the merrier where such discussions are concerned - avoids group think/echo chambers. But we digress… I’d be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere. Is your chair/chaise lounge comfortable? What is your hourly rate? (Just asking for a friend… )

Now, anybody care to discuss the proposed change and (any) solution to the current impasse? Or do we go round in circles discussing my previous edits on a now defunct user account? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...How? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Johnbod. I agree that WP:COMMONNAMES should apply, and indeed all sections of Wikipedia:Article titles. However, this discussion does NOT concern “Article titles”, but rather the absence of an ordinal number in the infobox header. There is no attempt to change the article title but to address an omission/perceived inconsistency. (For those who seek to play the man, not the ball simply because I lack a moniker/pseudonym, kindly refer to Wikipedia:Assume good faith in addition to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Thank you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Okay everyone. I am the mediator for this conflict. I hope that we can all come to an agreement peacefully. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for volunteering - hopefully we won’t take up too much of your time. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:E509:812F:E048:6334 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

;) 23:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I knew you were bias as soon as you complained about Johnbod's summary of the dispute even though his summary has similarities to those of Deb, Emily and GoodDay, which you didn't complain about. Deb mentioned logic, so did Johnbod. GoodDay mentioned confusion, so did Johnbod. Johnbod raised common name, which you ignored. You have no basis for a complaint. Now, you're "first statement" confirms that you are bias. DrKay (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not question my goodfaith please. Craffael.09 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

Comment by another volunteer:

Attention is called to the following in the page header of this noticeboard:

If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.

Are there concerns about the neutrality of the moderator? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well,DrKay questioned my neutrality , to wich I replied the comment below.Craffael.09 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, DrKay, the comment I made on Johnbod's summary and on yours was becauseyou were commenting on contributors and not on content, which has no place in DRN.

Secondly, I have an opinion, of course, I am not a machine, but I am still acting as an impartial, fair mediator with a neutral POV as my opinion will not influence this discussion, contrary to your beliefs.

Now,let's go back to the real subject of this discussion.

Craffael.09 (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except Elizabeth II had a different numbering system. She was under Churchill’s convention. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just say her number was I, I have no idea why one would confuse a Scotland monarch with an England monarch within her own page. You see "Mary I of Scotland" and think "Oh! That's the monarch who ruled over England!"‽ Aaron Liu (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator

I see that there is a pretty active discussion on the subject, and that is great. Now, what would be great would be to take a good look at the concerned WP policies and guidelines and take it all down a notch. If someone can tell me if there has been any kind of edit war previously, that would be great.

So... The 1 of Doom, that humans fight over constantly is back in wikis near you ! If I can put in my opinion, if you follow history guidelines, we are obliged to put the I as there is a II. But hey, I'm supposed to be neutral,so...

Aniyway, if I could have ONE EDITOR' from each side of the conflict to write a SHORT PARAGRAPH about why they think they're right and withlinks and references of your choice if possible. Try to convince pacifically everyone else you're right ! Craffael.09 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT BY THE OPENING PARTY

This is not a discussion concerning the article title, therefore WP:COMMONNAME is not relevant. This discussion concerns the Infobox, specifically the header. The ordinal number “I” is not present in this article’s infobox header, therefore this fails to direct the reader to the fact that two individuals named “Mary Stuart” reigned as Queen regnant of the Kingdom of Scotland: Mary I (1542-1567) and Mary II (1689-1694). This despite the article’s lead stating a.k.a “Mary I” and the associated reference linking to a verifiable and reliable source, namely the National Records of Scotland - a government agency. Other articles concerning monarchs of Scotland contain associated ordinal numbers in the infobox header, including; Malcolm I of Scotland, Duncan I of Scotland, Alexander I of Scotland, David I of Scotland, William the Lion, Robert the Bruce, James I of Scotland, plus 25 others who are associated with an ordinal number. Despite being better known as “William the Lion” and “Robert the Bruce”, ordinal numbers appear as “William I” and “Robert I” in their respective infobox headers. As to confusion with other monarchs with the same name/ordinal number, confusion would not appear to be an issue with the infobox ordinal number at “Henry IV” of England, France, Castile or the Holy Roman Empire. Neither is there confusion or controversy resulting from the long-time stable article List of Scottish monarchs, where Mary, Queen of Scots appears as “Mary I”. Where online searches are concerned, “Mary I” tied with “Queen of Scots”/“Queen of Scotland”/“of Scots”/“of Scotland” returns about ~~146,000~~ 840 hits on Google,{see below} and about 100 on Google Scholar. (Comparisons in numbers of hits with “Elizabeth I of Scotland” on G-Scholar are irrelevant, as these concern an unsuccessful 1950’s campaign by nationalists to prevent Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom from using the ordinal number “II” in Scotland, the nationalist argument being based upon there never having been an “Elizabeth I of Scotland”. This issue was resolved by a convention advocated by Sir Winston Churchill concerning regnal ordinal numbers in the UK). I consider it to be an improvement to the article to include the ordinal numer “I” in the infobox header.

On a personal note - I have nothing more to add to the debate and will therefore take a step back. Whilst enjoying interactions with other editors, being accused by some of being a nationalist, a liar, being ridiculous and obsessed, and others assuming bad faith on my part and that of others, has reminded me why I let a once active user account lapse into disuse. Regards 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7C86:7B9B:E5E6:69DC (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood “short” but I guess this works. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry… (read quick…) 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7C86:7B9B:E5E6:69DC (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth I of Scotland, Donald I of Scotland, Constantine I of Scotland, ....

Massive distraction. The number of ghits is irrelevant Craffael.09 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, do look at those 146,000 ghits: 90% of them, and almost 100% of the reliable ones, relate to Mary I of England. DrKay (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a clarification. Which search term returned 146,000 hits? For some reason I can't view that statistic right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As well you asked… No idea what’s going on but Google isn’t bowling straight. Just did exactly what I did yesterday by placing “Mary I, Queen of Scots”, “Mary I, Queen of Scotland”, “Mary I of Scots” and “Mary I of Scotland”, all including the quotation marks, into the Google search box and the numbers coming up are totally different! I’ll be damned if I know how. Any expert on Google analytics out there, feel free to educate me. Anyway, what the search terms I used yesterday are showing today are as follows…

“Mary I, Queen of Scots”: = “About 15,600 results”

“Mary I, Queen of Scotland”: = “About 10,500 results”

”Mary I of Scots”: = ~~“About 53,400 results”~~ = “About 12 results” ???

”Mary I of Scotland”: = “About 66,000 results”

A lesson for me in taking numbers of returns to a search term on Google at face value. My apologies. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9C6:C0C2:E948:7B1B (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being driven to distraction…. checked the links and the numbers changed, again!!! See what you get yourself. Not sure if my browser compiles the returns in a cache somewhere and skews the results or if this is normal Google behaviour. Frankly I’ve no idea what’s going on with these search numbers, therefore place no weight on them whatsoever (until someone cares to explain how these discrepancies come about). And again I fully accept DrKay’s pointing out that there are three (four, including M,QoS) articles concerning monarchs of Scotland where an associated ordinal does not appear in the infobox header. 86.165.164.77 (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to the final page of the results to get the actual numbers:

72 ghits for Mary I, Queen of Scots, only a handful of which are reliable
37 ghits for Mary I, Queen of Scotland, only one of which is reliable
12 ghits for Mary I of Scots, none reliable

Celia Homeford (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. Just to complete the set, 121 ghits for Mary I of Scotland, no clue as to how many you would class as reliable. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:2C6E:A3C6:DF33:58DE (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with my classification. Wikipedia has decided that at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to know what metric you used for "Reliable". Genuine question.Aaron Liu (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a programme of some kind to run to confirm such? It would be time consuming in the extreme to go through them all, particularly when including those discounted ghits which don’t appear on the initial search, as Google “In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the *** already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.” Displaying those “omitted results” gives about:

290 ghits for “Mary I, Queen of Scots”
203 ghits for “Mary I, Queen of Scotland”
22 ghits for “Mary I of Scots”
318 ghits for “Mary I of Scotland”

Sadly, I don’t have the time to go through about 840 ghits to establish which are reliable, but either way, whether the ordinal number does or does not appear in the infobox header is not determined by ghits. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:2C6E:A3C6:DF33:58DE (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having clarified/corrected the ghits count and having conceded that, excluding the article being discussed, there are 3 articles from 36 which do not include the associated ordinal number in the infobox header, can we please proceed to the paragraph on behalf of those opposed, as per the moderator’s request? (Hello moderator, where art thou???) 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D555:5B1E:CBF5:D014 (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am here. 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

So now, we have the paragraph PRO 1, we just need the paragraph from the oppostion. Please do not reply unless you are part os the opposition. Craffael.09 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the Opposition

Comment on "logic"

I'm very puzzled by User:DrKay's attempt to draw comparisons between Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, who was never a monarch and wasn't called "Elizabeth of Scotland". (I need to check why that redirect was changed in 2012.) I'm also puzzled by his statement on the Talk page that "There's no convention for numerals here." when referring to the pages for Scottish monarchs, because there plainly is such a convention: see James I of Scotland and his successors, Kenneth III of Scotland, Constantine III of Scotland, and so on. DrKay happened to pick inappropriate examples to look at, early monarchs who are known by soubriquets such as Kenneth MacAlpin. Deb (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've changed the Elizabeth of Scotland redirect to a disambiguation page for clarity. Goodness knows how it got there. Deb (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Agressive tone. Take it down a notch and talk calmly. Try to limit the long back-and-forth discussions. Craffael.09 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or demonstrating the confusion that arises when editors use unusual or unfamiliar names? If the former, DrKay is clearly referring to Elizabeth II, and the events leading to the removal of the numeral from official use in Scotland. If the latter, it just proves what happens when people use an unusual or ambiguous form instead of a common name, like Mary, Queen of Scots. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Homeford There is no need for personal attacks - nor am I the one who is confused. Deb (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no personal attacks. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have refused to withdraw your obviously false statement proves that it is either yet another desperate attempt to derail the discussion or yes, you are confused. I never mentioned Elizabeth Stuart. Anywhere. On any page. DrKay (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned Elizabeth of Scotland, which at the time was a redirect to Elizabeth Stuart. I'm neither desperate nor confused. Deb (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit confused here, which statement are your referring to? Could you link the diff of the corresponding edit? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay Clearly, whatever you were trying to say in your "logical" argument above was lost on me. Perhaps you could explain it more coherently and, while you are about it, you can withdraw the accusation of lying. Deb (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think DrKay was trying to draw comparisions between Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth of Scotland. I think they were trying to draw comparisions between Mary I of Scotland to Elizabeth II to disprove GoodDay's argument. While that comparision is invalid as they used different ordinal conventions, DrKay still didn't try to compare Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth of Scotland. They didn't link to Stuart.Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the moderator has chosen to hide one side of the debate and permit false statements to remain on view. When Deb, an experienced editor who is an expert in the relevant area, is confused between 3 women who lived 4 centuries apart, how are ordinary readers to distinguish between two near contemporaries of the same name? Making their names more similar is not going to help. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay Kindly withdraw the accusation of lying, which you've now made twice without any justification. Most reasonable people, when confronted with a misunderstanding, will look back at their own original comments to try to understand why they might have been misunderstood. The fact that you decline to accept that your comments were confusingly phrased and thus likely to cause confusion suggests that you can only see one side of the debate. Deb (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of lying. When someone makes a false statement, they may do it either intentionally (which is a lie) or mistakenly (which is a mistake not a lie). I pointed out that you made a false statement about me. I did not say whether your statement was intentional or merely mistaken. I presume it is the latter. You are clearly confused and that's not because of my incoherence. If anything your confusion demonstrates that my argument has achieved its objective. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very puzzling, not to mention illogical, conclusion. Deb (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically his original "accusation" was that you made a false statement, not that you were lying. Re read it and you'll find that true. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The moderator didn’t hide one side of the debate, they merely hid the parts that were 1. About the filer not the content 2. Aggressive 3. Questioning the good faith of the moderator 4. About something that doesn’t determine the content (ghits)

Also, Deb's confusion isn't a very good demonstration of why people could get Mary confused. Deb was confused because of a misleading redirect that redirected Eliz I of Scotland to Eliz Stuart. They were also only confused about 2 women.

Plus, your side still hasn’t provided a ~~short~~ paragraph explaining why it shouldn’t be there. Please do so. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Elizabeth I of Scotland has never redirected to Elizabeth Stuart. Ever. And there are definitely 3 women: Elizabeth Tudor, Elizabeth Stuart and Elizabeth Windsor. You are yet again merely confirming my proof that people can be easily confused. DrKay (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Elizabeth of Scotland not Elizabeth I of Scotland. That was a tyypo. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by alternate moderator (Mary of Scotland)

This discussion seems to have stalled, and I will try to restart it. Please read the rules. Please answer two questions concisely. First, are you still interested in moderated discussion? Second, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is or issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC):[reply]

Hi. “This discussion seems to have stalled” as those involved have been waiting since October 31 for one of those who “oppose” to post a paragraph stating clearly their objections to the proposed change. This paragraph was requested for the second time by the first moderator (user:Craffael.09) on November 04, and we still await a post from OPP 1. (PRO 1 “COMMENT BY THE OPENING PARTY” was posted November 01). Given that those who oppose, despite the arguments placed here and elsewhere by myself and others, appear unlikely to acquiesce to the proposed change, I feel that there is little point in regurgitating the same points via “second statements” and instead am inclined to move to WP:RFC or WP:RFCL. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D555:5B1E:CBF5:D014 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)

Third statement by alternate moderator (Mary of Scotland)

Please read the rules again.

It appears that one question is whether to put a regnal Roman numeral I in the infobox, so that her name in the infobox will be Mary I. Are there any other issues?

It appears that supporting statements have been made, and that no opposing statement has been made. Any editor who disagrees with including the numeral should make a one-paragraph statement. If there are no opposing statements, I will close the discussion saying that a rough consensus has been reached to include the numeral.

If there are any other issues, please state them in one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the opening party, I confirm no other issues exist - your summary above accurately reflects where we are. 86.132.114.132 (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)

I think the numeral should be included, as it is in the infoboxes of other Scottish monarchs such as James I of Scotland and David I of Scotland. I do not understand the argument that this could cause confusion - in my opinion it does quite the opposite. Deb (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The numeral should not be included because as shown above it is not in general use and causes confusion. DrKay (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by moderator (Mary of Scotland)

It appears that one editor opposes the inclusion of the numeral in the infobox, and says that it will cause confusion. I will ask any editor who says that the numeral will cause confusion to say what incorrect conclusion could be drawn from it. Is it incorrect, or merely unfamiliar? It is true that the regnal numeral is not in common use, but an encyclopedia sometimes provides information that is true and not well known.

If we do not have agreement to use the numeral, we will start a Request for Comments. So I will advise the editors to be thinking of how they can clearly and concisely present their views to editors with no prior involvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)

Fifth statement by moderator (Mary of Scotland)

Since we do not have agreement on the regnal number in the infobox, an RFC will be used. A draft of the RFC is at Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots/RFC on Number. The current draft RFC is very brief and does not provide a case either for or against the use of the regnal number. So I am asking each editor to write a one-sentence or two-sentence statement as to why the regnal number should or should not be used. I will then choose the supporting statement and the opposing statement that I think are the clearest and most concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 5.1 by moderator

The RFC is not live yet. It is a draft. When it goes live, I will move any statements that have been entered in the Survey, because their timestamps will be before the RFC went live. You may make your brief supporting statements either here or in the draft RFC. When the RFC goes live, I will move any statements to this noticeboard, so that you can copy them back into the RFC with a new signature. (I don't want to confuse the closer with timestamps predating the publication of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. However, in the event that the apparent ‘radio silence’ on the part of those who oppose the inclusion of the regnal numeral persists, will the RFC be able to proceed if one side of the argument declines to engage? On the 8th you requested ”any editor who says that the numeral will cause confusion to say what incorrect conclusion could be drawn from it”. Despite being active elsewhere on Wikipedia in the interim, none of the editors who have participated to date in order to oppose the inclusion of the ordinal number have clarified their position in this respect within the timeframe (48 hours) specified in Wikipedia:DRN Rule A.10. Might I suggest your contacting directly those (three) who oppose in order to determine if they wish to withdraw their opposition to the inclusion of the ordinal, or to invite them to continue to participate in the process of resolution if their opposition persists? (Happy to proceed to RFC in any event, but conscious of taking up too much band-width on the part of other editors). Thank you. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)

Sixth statement by moderator (Mary of Scotland)

I would like to make the RFC live within 24 to 48 hours. I asked editors to make brief statements supporting and opposing the addition of the regnal number. If I don't get any further answer, I may conclude that there is a rough consensus to add the regnal numeral, since there has been no answer to my question of why it will cause confusion. So please, either provide your statements within 24 hours, and the RFC will go live, or I will conclude that there is a rough consensus to add the numeral. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)

Back-and-forth discussion (Mary of Scotland)

For balance, and as the admin who reverted the edit to the article, perhaps user:DrKay would care to expand their sentence above to a full paragraph, as “OPP 1”, and support their points with evidence? For example, how an edit which they reverted in a matter of minutes caused confusion? (Please avoid referencing the “logic” discussion above, where user:DrKay’s own contributions could be said to have been the source of confusion - entirely unrelated to the proposed edit to the infobox). For clarity, please could they also include in the paragraph the source for the definition of what quantifies as “general use”, whereby such is defined as, for example, a term which exceeds about 850 ghits and/or about 100 g’scholar hits. Thank you. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:5966:CC3F:1385:75C0 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I think IP means not referencing the "Comment on logic" section from deb, not the statement from DrKay. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:5966:CC3F:1385:75C0 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Economy_of_Bangladesh

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Mehediabedin on 16:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:Economy of Bangladesh#Gulshan skyline (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

A user User:Solomon The Magnifico mentioned in the talk page of an article (Economy of Bangladesh) to resolve conflict with another user (User:AMomen88). The issue was the photo of the infobox. Two users got into edit war for infobox photo. The other user gone from the discussion after got insensible words from him. Then I tried to solve and proposed anither photo because I believe that his photo is not suitable (low quality and unsuitable size for infobox). But he said some baseless and insensible things to me. Even he accused me of bulling him (but I believe that was misunderstanding and I clarified him). That's why I need conflict resolving.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I tried to be diplomatic and find photos that match the concern of both. The discussion happened in Talk:Economy_of_Bangladesh#Gulshan_skyline

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By choosing better photo for the infobox of Economy of Bangladesh ot helping by choosing any image we proposed.

Summary of dispute by Solomon The Magnifico

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I placed File:Gulshan Avenue.jpg in the infobox. This is being opposed by the two editors Mehediabedin and AMomen88. The picture captures most of Gulshan Avenue, which has the largest concentration of companies and local and foreign banks in all of Bangladesh. Gulshan is described in many sources as Dhaka's CBD. The Dhaka Stock Exchange has also shifted from the old CBD to a location near Gulshan. Most international companies, banks and hotels operating in Bangladesh are based in Gulshan. The image I placed has good resolution. It also captures the avenue's large concentration of commercial buildings. In fact it focuses on the most dense commercial zone in Gulshan (which is Gulshan 1). The other images suggested by the two editors are in areas which are on the sidelines, in terms of Dhaka's financial industry.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For merely placing the image, my edits were falsely labelled as vandalism. Some comments felt like bullying. Judging by the behavior of both editors in Talk:Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (where one of them is pushing historical inaccuracies and another is reverting wholesale without explanation), it appears to me that they could potentially be politically-motivated as pro-opposition editors who do not want Bangladesh to be shown in a realistic light. I'm just trying to be encyclopedic. Instead, I have to face what seems like a concerted effort by both editors to obstruct my edits in two articles.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if some comments felt like bullying to you. Because I am not native in English so that can be happen. Even I clarified my action after accusing by you But what you said to AMomen88 was more than bullying. Even after mentioned me to the discussion you didn’t give respect to other editors in the talk page. You said he don't like Gulshan that's why he is removing your photo! Same type of accusation was made by you against me in the article of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Let me ask a question, did I edit anything in the article without proper discussion or sources?? No, then how can you say that that was politically motivated? I am just proposing a lead section that can be changed by other editors suggestion. So how is that politically motivated? And even is this related to the photo issue in Economy of Bangladesh? Was objection to use your photo was politically motivated? Or are you want to say that I don't like Gulshan? Calling other "Monster" isn’t encyclopedic behaviour. I agree that AMomen88 also said some bad things. But saying rough things to other editors who don't think your photo as suitable can't be encyclopedic. Edit war isn’t encyclopediac. That’s why I had to intervene in articles you both engaged in edit war. Because I need to resolve the conflict between you two. But I couldn’t think that for that act I will get some baseless accusations. Mehedi Abedin 07:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by AMomen88

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Economy_of_Bangladesh discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors of this filing, and is reminded to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Sorry for being late. Just now I informed them. Mehedi Abedin 07:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Note - It appears that the filing editor has notified one of the other editors but not the other one. If they have both been notified, please provide diffs showing that they have been notified. Otherwise please notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I notified other in the talk page of Economy of Bangladesh earlier. Mehedi Abedin 05:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Statement 1

Good day - since all involved have either been notified or have made their way here, I am willing to mediate this dispute. However, in addition to the normal rules we follow here- I'm going to add another: No editor may make any comments about another editor- this includes their motivation, where they live, why they are editing, their political motivations, anything at all about the people. The dispute up till now has been exceedingly uncivil- I will not have that here. You are all to talk to me only, not to each other. Do not even respond to what the other editors have said- just respond to me or my questions. Do all involved agree? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's Statements

@Nightenbelle: As I said earlier, the dispute is about File:Gulshan Avenue.jpg. I can't possibly understand why the two editors are opposing this image. It is a photo of Gulshan Avenue, as the description of the photo lays out. It is one of the clearest photos of Gulshan Avenue that I found on Wikimedia Commons. It has a good resolution and captures the concentration of commercial buildings on the main road really well. Gulshan Avenue is a prime business hub of Dhaka and Bangladesh. One of the opposing editors has no problem with an image of Gulshan per se but is absolutely opposed to this image because the other opposing editor wants to insert an image of a shopping mall and an office block, File:Panthapath.jpg, which is located in Panthapath. Then again, one of the opposing editors has emphasized about Dhaka's status as a financial center. In that case, why have an image of a shopping mall instead of the avenue with the largest presence of local and foreign banks in all of Bangladesh? Bangladesh Monitor describes Gulshan as "the Central Business District and the highest-rated market in Dhaka". United Group (Bangladesh) calls Gulshan a neo central business district. The real estate brokerage BTI says Gulshan managed to steal the spotlight in the past few years. Indeed, the Dhaka Stock Exchange has shifted to a place near Gulshan (though not within Gulshan itself). In terms of the financial industry, all banks have a presence on the street of Gulshan Avenue (which makes the street unparalleled in terms of financial access in Bangladesh). Standard Chartered, Citibank, HSBC are the three largest foreign banks in Bangladesh and all are located in Gulshan. Other foreign banks like Woori Bank, SBI and HBL are also located in Gulshan. Bangladesh has dozens of banks and all have offices in Gulshan, including public sector banks and private sector banks. Some banks are also based in Gulshan, including Eastern Bank, United Commercial Bank, NRB Bank, and Shahjalal Bank. One of the opposing editors thinks Gulshan is only a hub for the private sector. That's not true. State-owned banks have branches in Gulshan as well, so that should address his concerns.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightenbelle: If anyone want to use photo of Gulshan I have no problem. But I saw that AMomen88 want to use photo of Panthapath, but to me using photo of Panthapath isn’t suitable (because we can see some commercial buildings but not the whole commercial environment of Panthapath). But there is another issue. It seems to me that the photo of Gulshan, while using in the infobox, show excessively long (maybe I should use the word "large") and blurish a little bit (maybe that's because it shows longer in the infobox). That's why to me it is not suitable to use in the infobox. I proposed Solomon to choose another photo of Gulshan because they don't show longer in the infobox and if your photo don't look like longer thing in infobox then it will not seem blurish (note that I use smartphone to browse Wikipedia). Because it seems blurish in the infobox, it looks like low resolution photo. It will be good if any photo, shows long in the infobox, can be ignored. Mehedi Abedin 05:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightenbelle: File:Gulshan Avenue.jpg is a very clear picture. It is not blurry at all. It captures Gulshan Avenue in all its glory. I find it to be a good symbol of the local economy.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Statement 2

We are off to a very bad start folks. I did not ask for summaries. I've read your summaries above. I asked if you agree to follow all the rules. Not one of you answered that question. You did break the rules by commenting on the other editors instead of sticking to JUST the content.

So I ask again- do you all agree to the rules I stated above? If I do not get a clear answer this time- I will close this dispute as failed.15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor's Statement 2

Yes I agree. Mehedi Abedin 14:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Statement 3

Thank you. Still waiting on 1- but we'll continue and assume they will post their agreement above in time.

Next- I would ask each of you what you think the ideal photo for this article would be. Please don't just describe one or the other of the photos in debate- but I would like to know what you think makes a truly perfect photo for this article. What should it show? What would make it high quality technically? It may well be that neither picture is your ideal- that doesn't mean we won't use one- my goal here is to agree on a baseline that we can then work from to determine a good photo. 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Editor's Statements 3

For me, the ideal photo should not seem oversized in the infobox. We should not use longer or larger-size-like photo because then its noisiness or blurish characteristics will easily be seen. Also, there are some photo that are large but when we set in infobox it seems small, but there are exceptions. So we don't want these execptional photo for the infobox. We should prefer landscape photo. There are some case I have seen that a photo was seen perfect in Desktop mode, but the same photo seemed blurish in the mobile mode. So we should choose photo that will seem good in both mode. The photo is for the infobox of "Economy of Bangladesh", that means the photo has to be from commercial areas in Dhaka, its capital. The photo has to be better portray the country's economical environment. So we need to choose photo of commercial areas from Gulshan, Motijheel, Paltan, Bashundhara etc. The photo has to be a perfect skyline photo. We can use old photo, but that doesn’t mean that the photo have to be from so far like 5-10 years. Photos from 1-5 years is okay if we can't find perfect photo from latest commons uploads. The photo have to be present the country's commercial or economoical environment that doesn’t mean the photo must contains office buildings of popular companies, but we should prefer. Also, we shouldn’t focus on only the buildings of private companies in the photo, we should prefer photos that will portray both private-government setting of the economy. Mehedi Abedin 15:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the limited collection available on Wikimedia Commons, I found File:Gulshan Avenue.jpg to be ideal because it has a concentration of commercial buildings in the new CBD. The Category:Skyline in Dhaka on Wikimedia Commons has only one picture of the old CBD.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Solomon The Magnifico: please describe what makes a picture ideal- don't give examples- we are looking to make a list of qualities here. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Book of_Daniel

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Billyball998 on 00:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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.

Location of dispute

Talk:Book of Daniel (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I believe that I have properly demonstrated that their are other mainstream opinions on the dating of the book, and I believe that the article should not be written in a way that treats a 165 BC dating as fact. I believe a 165 BC date should be represented as the majority opinion, but wikipedias voice should not assume it to be true. Other editors disagree and think that other views (besides the 165 BC dating) represent fringe views. The reliability of the sources I provide is discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Book_of_Daniel

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Daniel

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=1121787778&oldid=1121787351#Book_of_Daniel

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1121589392#Billyball998_is_sealioning

I also previously opened a DRN but it was too early.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think my sources demonstrate that there are other mainstream opinions (please see the reliable sources noticeboard linked above for a list of my sources). I would like an admin to weigh in whether or not I have a reasonable point. I would like to have the article written in a way that does not assume any dating as it is still a debated point. Thanks.

Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

To clear up misunderstandings: there are plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist scholars who deny the 160s BC dating, but by and large they aren't mainstream Bible scholars, and generally speaking they don't publish such POVs in mainstream scholarly journals, but in their own walled garden of pious theological journals.

On my own talk page it is written large: The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.

The OP is the one claiming that a controversy about the dating of Daniel is raging in the mainstream academia in the 21st century. If it raged in the 20th century, then it is simply a thing of the past, already left behind. To this date, no WP:V evidence has been produced to that extent (i.e. 21st century).

A very generous assumption is that Beckwith (2002) reflects the situation of the debate up to and including 2001 AD, i.e. more than 20 years ago. And Thompson (2020) is in fact a 1993 book, i.e. not written in the 21st century. But in fact the newest source cited by Beckwith dates from 1997, i.e. 25 years ago. So it debates no scholarly publication from the 21 century.

And Haughwout (2013) is simply not WP:RS according to Wikipedia's WP:PAG.

To answer OP's statement: in the mainstream academia the dispute about the dating of Daniel ceased more than a century ago. Another dating than 160s BC is simply dead in the water, as far as the mainstream academia is concerned.

Seven WP:RS have been produced for the WP:RS/AC claim (Dunn 2003, Portier-Young 2016, Theophilos 2012, Lester 2015, Ryken & Longman 2010, Tucker Jr. 2020/2012, Collins 1998), including one RS that has an axe to grind against the scholarly consensus, nevertheless renders it for what it is.

If you need a jump-start for the dispute between the mainstream academia and very conservative evangelicals, see [7] written by [8]. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Dumuzid

So, substantively, I agree with tgeorgescu here, but I think as a threshold matter, this is not really a dispute resolution matter. There is a clear consensus against the proposed edits. This is not a dispute that needs resolution, it is simply that Billyball998 has failed thus far to carry the burden of persuasion to include his preferred version (no offense intended, of course). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Iskandar323

As Dumuzid notes above, the matter is one of threshold. A couple of sources doubting the prevailing dating consensus does not mean that the current dating consensus is seriously up for question. Every theory has doubters, and every good academic should have doubts, but the prevailing consensus remains the prevailing consensus. It is worth noting that of the sources asking questions the 2nd century dating scheme, none that I have seen have presented a theory with a specific alternative dating estimate, so the only sources running counter to the prevailing dating consensus are those mirroring it - making it all the more clear that it is the prevailing consensus, as the only one garnering critical attention. Yet in the process of this academic questioning, no substantive alternative is presented. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by warshy

I've presented my arguments on the long wall-of-text discussions of the matter on the talk page caused by the same OP that is now still trying to keep going with with it. The consensus, based on the most updated academic reliable sources is that Daniel is a late book of the Hebrew Bible, part of "Writings" section in the Hebrew Canon, and the only book of the Hebrew Bible of which large, substantial parts are written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. I have also said many times that this is a clear case of WP:STICK, but this user apparently has the time needed to keep disrupting the routine building of the encyclopedia, based strictly on reliable sources. His motivation, and the amount of time he has spent on this so far, indicates to me a clear religious fundamentalist bias. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Achar Sva

The dispute seems clear - the article states that Daniel is a 2nd century work and the OP believes that the possibility of a 6th century date should be discussed. I'd just add that authorship and divine origin is bound up with this - if Daniel has a 6th century date then the author is presumably Daniel and the book accurately reports on his experiences with dreams and angels. Achar Sva (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to argue but this isn't true, even many traditional views don't believe Daniel wrote the book. All I'm presenting is evidence that the 165 bc theory is not a consensus. Any date from 550-130 bc is left open. Billyball998 (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Book of_Daniel 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.

National anthem of Hong Kong

– New discussion.

Filed by Styx & Stones on 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

National anthem of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

This dispute has previously been the subject of an edit war. The key points in contention are the following:

1. What is the legal standing of the March of the Volunteers in relation to Hong Kong? In particular, there is debate over the wording and interpretation of the 1997 Basic Law (Annex III) and of the 2020 National Anthem Ordinance.

2. Should this disambiguation page exist in its present form (perhaps it should be turned into a redirect instead)?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

We have discussed this extensively on Talk:National anthem of Hong Kong.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help us to form a consensus that is in accordance with Wikipedia's policies.

Summary of dispute by Bailmoney27

"March of the Volunteers" is the anthem of China. I believe that the Hong Kong Basic Law is unambiguous in its adoption of the national symbols of China, which include the national anthem, in Basic Law Annex III, effective 1 July 1997. I have provided my interpretation of the law on the Talk page in question, which was corroborated by a second editor and supported by the CIA World Factbook. This seems to be a dispute over the wording used in the dab page, which probably should be a redirect in the first place, as a dependent territory like Hong Kong cannot have its own national anthem by definition. Perhaps a redirect to "March of the Volunteers" would work better; the historic anthems and protest songs are likely not what a reader would be looking for when searching for this phrase.

Summary of dispute by 82.38.166.227

“March of the Volunteers” is not the national anthem of Hong Kong.

Although Basic Law Annex III confirmed the resolution that “March of the Volunteers” as the “National Anthem of People’s Republic of China”, it is a respect & acknowlege only. It will not auto applied to Hong Kong unless it is enforced by further legalization (e.g. Article 23), as Hong Kong is running under “one country, two system” as agreed by the Joint Declaration from 1997.

Even the latest “National Anthem Oridance”, the infamous legislation forcing people “respect” and criminalise abuse of the “national anthem of PRC” is also define that “March of the Volunteers” as the “National Anthem of PRC“, not Hong Kong.

A more accruate description is - national anthem of Hong Kong is not exist, “March of the Volunteers” is be used by governement or some individuals for represent of the region.

In the pasted 200 years, Hong Kong have different anthem be used, such as ”God save the King“ is de facto be used for almost 180 years. “Glory to Hong Kong” is used by the majority (please see result of 2019 district council) from the 2019, be regarded as the anthem of Hong Kong and frequently be used in international.

It is important that those songs, including the “March of the Volunteers” is being regonized by the readers how & why they are used as the anthem of Hong Kong and that‘s why the disambiguation page should be exist and record those above. My suggestion and resolution is convert the current disambiguation page into article and explain what happening behind.

Summary of dispute by Purin128AL

"March of the Volunteers" is China's national anthem, while Hong Kong uses it the represent the region after 1997. Whether the anthem is Hong Kong's anthem or China's anthem but Hong Kong is using it is not particularly stated in the law, so I believe there is room for debate there. However, I disagree with the proposal to completely redirect the page as it wipes out the fact that historical anthems were being used, and other songs that have been considered as the unofficial anthem locally and by international media such as CNN. It is incorrect that readers would not want to know widespread unofficial anthems and historical anthems of a country/region, especially when the time period Hong Kong used God Save the King/Queen is 6 times longer than March of the Volunteers (156 years vs 25 years).

One way to resolve this issue is the keep the page but simplify and reword the introduction, just as pages like National anthem of Norfolk Island.

Another way is to turn the disambiguation page into an article, which I think is the best way to resolve this issue. The use of China's national anthem in Hong Kong and its legal status in the Basic Law and National Anthem Ordinance can be explained. The complex identity crisis and local people's disagreement on the anthem should be addressed with sources in the article, as readers would want to know the reason behind the multiple incidents relating the Hong Kong's anthem, such as the recent controversy of the wrong national anthem being played in Korean rugby sevens and the "boo-ing" of the anthem in previous years. Content can be constructed and/or extracted from China–Hong Kong football rivalry, National Anthem Ordinance, Hong Kong national security law and Hong Kong–Mainland China conflict. Historical anthems during British rule and Japanese occupation should also be mentioned, as of the current date, the British rule of Hong Kong lasted for more than a hundred years, while Hong Kong has only been a SAR of China for 25 years.

National anthem of Hong Kong discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Styx & Stones' Personal Opinion. When I filled out the form to request the DRN, I wrote it as neutrally as possible. To be clear about my own personal stance, I agree with Bailmoney27. The laws are unambiguous when read in their entirety - the Basic Law of Hong Kong has adopted March of the Volunteers as being the applicable national anthem of Hong Kong (as part of the PRC). I also question the need for this disambiguation page at all - since Hong Kong is a SRA of the PRC, and there is very little precedent for similar pages for internal regions of China. Styx & Stones (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards