Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 184
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 180 | ← | Archive 182 | Archive 183 | Archive 184 | Archive 185 | Archive 186 | → | Archive 190 |
Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to inability to discuss on the article talk page. This is a difficult case because User:ThaddeusSholto is making it difficult, so I will explain. There has been discussion on a user talk page. The filing editor has tried to copy it to the article talk page, and been reverted. There must be discussion on the article talk page before there can be a discussion here. The filing editor should attempt a new discussion at the talk page. If that resolves the dispute, good. If that discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be opened here. If that discussion is reversed, erased, or reverted, that should be reported to WP:ANI as a violation of talk page guidelines. User:Ubcule should resume new discussion at the article talk page. User:ThaddeusSholto should take part in the new discussion. If that doesn't work, the next stop is WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dispute over which similar terms should or shouldn't be combined together into a single disambiguation page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Conversation took place, originally at User talk:ThaddeusSholto, then was transferred to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation). (Please note that page may be blank as ThaddeusSholto disagrees with my right to transfer the existing discussion there and deleted it (see talk page history). I don't agree that they have the right to do this, and have posted further replies there). How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would appreciate some input from those with a reasonable level of familiarity with disambiguation pages and hatnotes into the initial arguments about which terms should and shouldn't be combined into a single page. (The latter half of the discussion veers more into interpersonal/conduct dispute, but I am not seeking help to resolve that aspect here).
Summary of dispute by UbculePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To cut a long story short, this is essentially about whether "Holmes and Watson (disambiguation)" and "Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson (disambiguation)" should be separate pages (combining the two as variations of the same name) or not. This is one version and this is the other. Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment from ThaddeusSholtoI am just now being notified about this so I will say this and be done: I already notified Ubcole that my view was that disambiguation pages are to sort article with similar titles not to be a directory for everything that is thematically similar. Since they kept arguing and wanted to edit war I simply divided it into two disambiguation pages which to me seemed to remedy the issue. At that point, Ubcole decided to drag this to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) by naming me and asking fo others to chime in [4] and when I pointed out that was not the correct venue [5] he claimed he didn't want to discuss it with me even though he named me directly.[6] Then he cut and paste the contents of my talk page to Talk:Holmes and Watson (disambiguation) [7] and when I reverted it and asked him to start a new conversation instead of pasting my words to yet another venue, he did it again.[8] I asked him to stop harassing me and he replied that he didn't think it was harassment[9] and then started this to continue doing exactly that. Harassing me. Nobody should have to have the exact same discussion in four different venues just because one person won't stop harassing them. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
|
Algorithm
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. Block evasion. Request the unblock on the talk page of the IP address, rather than just by using a different ISP to use a different IP address. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The problem is the etymology of the word 'algorithm'. 'Algorithm' is a Greek word coming from the words 'algos' (meaning labor, pain) and 'arithmos' (number). The other persons involved in the dispute support the (false, in my opinion) theory that its origin is the name of an Iranian scientist, al-Khwarizmi, which according to their opinion was transliterated as 'Algorithm' in Latin. To support their false opinion they invoke the title of a 12th century's book, "Algoritmi de numero Indorum", claiming that the word "Algoritmi" appearing in the title was the translator's Latinization of Al-Khwarizmi's name (!!!!!). Obviously, the word 'Algorithm' cannot be the author's name because the book's title means "Numerical algorithms of Indians". My opinion has been that both versions could be mentioned in the article, but the others insist that only their (obviously false) opinion should appear. Why? They have also blocked my IP because, they say I did edit war, while it is clear that they were who did it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:89.210.76.117 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Favonian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sj%C3%B6
1. Redo my edits 2. Unblock my IP. 3. Tell them that they cannot forcibly make the world believe their obviously wrong opinion. Summary of dispute by FavonianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Sj%C3%B6Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Algorithm discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | no reliable source exists for proposed changes Nightenbelle (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by 124.248.190.148 on 05:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Mongolians do not require a visa to visit China. There is one editor who refuses this correction. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_Mongolian_citizens How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By letting the blocking editor know that Mongolians do not require a visa to China. Summary of dispute by TwofortnightsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It surely can be frustrating not to see Wikipedia reflect your personal experience, however you need to remember that this is only because there is no verifiable source to back it up. Rules of Wikipedia, namely WP:V and WP:NOR, say that the content of Wikipedia is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors and that we can't include material for which no reliable, published sources exist. The only official sources on this topic by Mongolia and China say the following:
I hope you understand why we can't alter this even if you would scan your passport for us as you kindly offered. I do encourage you to look up a reliable source that would confirm that Mongolia does not issue ordinary passports. This could be relevant to change the article. At the same time I must warn you that if the reliable source explicitly says what it says (visa exemption applies to diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only) and you try to insert the opposite information to the article based on personal experience it is considered disruptive editing as you are fully aware of what the reference says in this regard and it's not ambigous as there is a word only in there. Finally, I suggest reading the page Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth as it lays out the policy in this regard and hopefully reduces your frustration on why your kind offer that says "I am happy to submit my passport photos showing no China visa and a dozen China entry/exit stamps in the last few years." cannot be accepted and why on the other hand we accept the Chinese and Mongolian Ministries as reliable sources.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Deos711. I am a Mongolian citizen with an ordinary passport and like any other Mongolian, do not require a visa to visit China for 30 days. 2. English sources are sparse, but here are 2: A) https://www.passportindex.org/comparebyPassport.php?p1=mn&fl=&s=yes B) http://www.mfa.gov.mn/?page_id=18131&lang=en 3. in B), China is listed under "Countries that granted visa-free entry for Mongolian nationals" category. 4. Remark says "up to 30 days for diplomatic, official or official E passport holders only". 5. Currently there are only 3 passport types issued by MNG: D (Diplomatic), A (Alban - Official), and E(Engiin - Normal). From the Mongolian embassy in Beijing page: "Е серийн буюу үндэсний энгийн гадаад паспорт шинээр олгож болно." - It explicitly states that E series passports are ordinary/normal passports. 6. There are numerous entries on the Talk page pointing out this fact. 7. Twofortnights does not allow edits and keeps reverting the page as if it was his own. 8. We would like to ask the community to allow this change to reflect the facts as this article is a common reference for Mongolians planning to travel abroad and wrong information causes real life problems. Visa requirements for Mongolian citizens discussionGood Day, I am Nightenbelle, and I am going to volunteer to take on this dispute. I've read the discussions here and on the talk page up to this point and I understand both of your concerns I think. It sounds like Twofortnights is attempting to ensure the most accurate information is on the page for passports. And it sounds like Deos71 is saying that some of the details included are uneccessary to locals due to only 3 kinds of passports existing. Might I suggest leaving Twofortnight's description but adding a sentence that says something to the effect of "These are currently the only passports available in Mongolia, making China effectively Visa free for all Mongolians." Would that solve the problem to both of your satisfactions? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
|
U.S. Route 2 in Washington
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The other editor was notified properly of this filing, and has chosen not to respond within 72 hours, which is assumed to mean that they decline to take part in dispute resolution, which is voluntary. The unregistered editor is advised to register an account, and to continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There has been an ongoing dispute over sources specifically over access date, publishing date, and link changes with a registered and auto-confirmed user. The updates are necessary for verifiability purposes. About a month ago as I was updating the sources the user began reverting changes and edit-warring and also making statements that did not assume good faith. After explaining why it should be status quo ante bellum. He continued to be unwilling to discuss and continued edit-warring even after I told him to stop. The best place at this point to resolve is here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:U.S._Route_2_in_Washington How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Try to reach a consensus about whether or not the links should be updated Summary of dispute by SounderBrucePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
U.S. Route 2 in Washington discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
DOOM: ANNIHILATION
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. I will go ahead and close this one as per User:Rosguill. I will note that article titles are case-sensitive. Redirects can be used to deal with common case errors, but editors should try to follow the Manual of Style with regard to case, and sometimes ignoring the rules results in errors. This dispute is being closed because there has been no discussion on the article talk page, only via edit summaries. If the filing editor needs advice on how to use talk pages, ask for advice at the Teahouse. Discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Armegon continues to misrepresent source material information and spins them negatively. For example, he uses a source to say say a;; fans reacted negatively to the trailer. The source does not say this. In fact, it's not something that can be confirmed unless every DOOM fan on the planet was asked. I have simply edited his comment to say "some fans" reacted negatively. This more accurately reflects the source. He continues to change it despite several warnings. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I've asked him repeatedly How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Simply agree to the addition of the word "some" before "fans reacted negatively. This is accurate. Armegon's soucre could not possibly know if every DOOM fan in the world reacted negatively. So in order to be fair, adding the word "some" is fair and more truthful. Summary of dispute by armegonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
DOOM: ANNIHILATION discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | One side of the dispute is declining to participate. As DRN is entirely voluntary, we are thus left with no option other than closing this discussion. As the filing editor appears to be in a one-versus-many dispute, their options at this time is to either concede the point, or to pursue an RfC, with the latter being a good option if and only if they think that there is a significant chance that the broader Wikipedia community would oppose the current majority opinion on this issue. signed, Rosguill talk 00:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Tercer on 10:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The graphs in List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Launch_statistics are overloaded with detail, making them hard to understand. I think this is clearly a case of WP:FANCRUFT. Particularly problematic is the "Booster landings" graph, as it contains 8 different categories, detailing what happened in the early SpaceX landing experiments. It is even hard to explain them in the captions, which have the confusing names "Parachutes failure", "Ocean failure", and "Ocean touchdown". I don't think this detail is relevant, but the other editors insist it is. My suggestion is to merge them together into a "test" or "experiment" category. I would also merge "Ground-pad success" with "Drone-ship success" and merge "Ground-pad failure" with "Drone-ship failure", as I think this is too much detail for the graph, but that's a minor problem; merging the experimental categories together is enough to make the graph readable. I would also remove some detail from the "Launch outcomes" graph, merging "Loss before launch" with "Loss during flight", calling it just "Failure", and merging "Planned (commercial)" with "Planned (Starlink)", calling it "Planned". These merges would bring the graph into line with all other "Launch outcomes" graphs in Wikipedia. I would also merge "Falcon 9 Full Thrust" with "Falcon 9 Block 5" in the "Rocket configurations" graph, calling it "Falcon 9 Full Thrust". Block 5 is just a variant of the Full Thrust rocket, which in this graph is considered to be contain the Block 1, 2, 3, and 4 variants. This is how the graphs would look like with my suggested changes. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List_of_Falcon_9_and_Falcon_Heavy_launches#Booster_landings How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can help by giving a perspective from people who are not necessarily SpaceX fans, answering two questions: 1 - Do you find all these details relevant for the graph? 2 - Do you find the graphs easy to understand? Summary of dispute by FcraryThe problem is that the subject is complex, and we are struggling with clear presentation of sufficient details to capture the important content. This has been discussed at length on the article's talk page, and only one editor seems to have a problem with the current form (although I think the captions could be improved.) The discussion has been exacerbated by the use of pejorative terms and phrases like "fan" and ""infatuated with this trivia." Fcrary (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by OkayKenjiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MfbPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by InsertcleverphraseherePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The consensus is clear: against the OP. There is no need for a DRN case at all. I otherwise decline to use this informal venue entirely, which is completely optional. I will continue to comment on the talk page and not here. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 11:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC) List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
2014 Scottish independence referendum
| Procedural close due to one of the two participants being indef blocked for sockpuppeting signed, Rosguill talk 19:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Jmorrison230582 on 20:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Baloopa33 has added text and sources to the lead of the article (e.g. 1. I have concerns that this text does not represent the sources neutrally (WP:NPOV) and predicts the future ("there will be no second referendum"), violating WP:CRYSTAL. I stated these concerns on the user's talk page and the article talk page, then offered a compromise of adding the sources to the body of the article but with a different text. The user has since re-added their text to the article lead, which I believe violates WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2014_Scottish_independence_referendum#"Once_in_a_generation" User talk:Baloopa33 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Suggest a text that is acceptable to both users. Summary of dispute by Jmorrison230582; Baloopa33Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2014 Scottish independence referendum discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Australian Greens
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor has made one comment to the article talk page within the past month, which does not qualify as extensive talk page discussion. The filing editor has also not notified the other editors. The lack of notice can be cured quickly, but there needs to be discussion on the article talk page. If the discussion takes places and is inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The opening line refers to the Green political party (of Australia) as "a centre-left" party. This is under dispute, there have been edits back and forth between "centre-left" and "far-left". There have also been continual edits removing a "citation needed" tag for the claims. I.e., some editors refuse to come to a consensus and refuse to provide a citation supporting there view. As it stands the article states "centre-left" with no citation to support this and any attempts to change this or add a "citation needed" tag are immediately reverted with no valid reason given and no attempts to join the extensive conversation on the Talk page. It would be good to have either consensus on the party ideology (e.g. far-left, left, center-left, etc.) and to have a citation for any claim, rather than people editing it to reflect their opinion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have attempted to discuss adding at the very least a "citation needed" tag for the unverified claims. I have directed people reverting edits back to the Talk page to get them to discuss their point of view. Others have discussed changing between "far-left" and "center-left". It is discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Greens#Ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Greens#Greens/Centre-left How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The dispute could be resolved by editors being forced to provide evidence (i.e. a citation) of the party's political position. Or, if no evidence can be provided then the claim could be deleted. Currently it is edited to reflect opinions. Opinions are not encyclopedic content. Note: I don't care what the final party position reflects (e.g. left, center, right), as long there is evidence to support it. Summary of dispute by The_Drover's_WifePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It is a political party. There isn't going to be an authoritative source that can arbitrate exactly which flavour of left-wing the party is, and the same applies for every progressive political party in the world (or, on the other side of politics, for conservative parties): you can find sources that support particular language, but there will always be sources that support using different descriptions. This is the kind of thing that can only be resolved by coming to a talk page consensus about which language to use based on a body of sources, rather than a specific citation that's going to be able to resolve the issue once and for all. And so, somebody who hasn't engaged in any discussion whatsoever (what do they support? who knows?) but has an edit history filled with culture-war issues, insistently adding a citation needed tag to the lead section is just trolling behaviour. I'm not particularly concerned which terminology we actually use (centre-left? left-wing? could be either?), but if someone disagrees with the one that's currently in use, they need to take it to the talk page and articulate why so we can have a discussion about it rather than slap on a citation needed tag that is unanswerable because, by definition as a political party ideology, no authoritative source exists. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Vif12vfPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Australian Greens discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Fox News 2
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as declined. One editor has stated that they do not wish to participate in moderated discussion, and two editors have declined to respond in five days after being notified. Resume discussion at the article talk page. If there is a rough consensus, either accept the rough consensus or use a Request for Comments to formalize consensus. Be aware that American politics discretionary sanctions apply to disruptive or tendentious editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Fox News's lead is not following reliable sourcing standards because it is using completely biased opinionated sources to establish a descriptive detailing of a company's page (i.e. the lead paragraph). I, along with many others, on the article's talk page, have discussed restructuring or removing the third paragraph of the lead because of biased sourcing and a reluctance to include information that is contradictory to the narrative portrayed by the sources in question. I have very rarely seen opinion columns used in the lead, especially for a news organization's article. CNN and MSNBC, for example, have many sources of biased reporting which are not permitted in those organization's articles within the lead by overzealous editors. When we present information that is contradictory to the opinions stated within the sources in question, such as this article[10] by The Perspective, that contradictory information is deleted. This is a blatant misuse of neutral point of view and the standards set fourth by Wikipedia to have opposing points of view. In addition, sourcing we have set fourth have been equally reliable when viewed within the "lens" of the existing sourcing. I hope to have this issued resolved. Many others have suggested the third paragraph of the lead of Fox News either be restructured or deleted. I have suggested removing the final sentence: "During Trump's presidency, observers have noted a pronounced tendency of Fox News to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with one presidential scholar stating, "it’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.", as it uses most of the unreliable sourcing, but I would suggest the entire paragraph be restructured.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[11]] [[12]] [[13]] [[14]] [[15]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Summary of dispute by SnooganssnoogansPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BullRangiferPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is not proper. Stick to using the talk page. Using this board to get around the consensus at the talk page is wrong. Close this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Edit5001Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Fox News discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Citizenship (Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response
| DRN is a voluntary process, and one side of this dispute is currently unanimously of the opinion that this request is premature. I suggest following through on asking for help at the Teahouse, continuing the conversation on the article talk page, and only coming here if there's still an unresolved issue after those steps have been taken. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Kmoksha on 15:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview 1. - There is a section "Indian Government Response" in article "Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019. But this section does not have any sources or content related to official statements made by Indian Government on 16 December 2019 and later and which were covered widely by Indian Media. Only links of statements of personal platform of Modi are referenced in this section. This in my opinion among other anomalies makes this Wikipedia article very biased. The individual ministers may have different opinions but there is an Indian Government Response based on consensus. My main concern is that Wikipedia article should not be biased one. 2. - I tried to edit the article to remove this issue. But those edits were reverted and vague notices accusing me of "Original Research" were put up on my talk page. Other than referencing links of Wikipedia policies, they did not specify what were the Original Research links put by me. I was told to discuss on Article talk page which I did. But the editors were unable to tell which were the "Original Research" links put by me as per their claims. The editors would not discuss details of why the links or content for 'Official Indian Government Response' were rejected by them even though I showed examples of some links which were secondary and reliable. I was then told to go to the Reliable Source Notice Board Forum. 3. - At the Reliable Source notice Board Forum, there has been support for adding the reliable links and content covering official statements of Indian Government for this issue. Until now, there has been no opposition for adding the Official version of Indian Government on that Forum. 4. - As the editors on the talk page have not shown much interest in talking regarding this issue and only make wild accusations on me, I have come here to ask for guidance what can be done to make the article non-biased. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#1st_para_of_%22Indian_government_response%22_references_Modi_instead_of_Indian_Government, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Are_references_of_Modi_response_on_his_personal_platform_violating_ContextMatters_for_section_%22Indian_Government_response%22_of_Citizenship_Amendment_Act_2019_? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can guide how to make this Wikipedia article non-biased. Should the content for official Indian Government Response on this issue be included in the section of same name of this article ? Summary of dispute by Kautilya3Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
There is no dispute here yet, because no concrete proposal for any content has been made. It would be premature to open a DRN case for it. There is some abstract demand saying that a government FAQ needs to be "covered". But what exactly needs to be covered? The OP has been advised to approach WP:Teahouse for guidance. It is not clear if he has done so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Vanamonde93Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I confess I have struggled to understand what Kmoksha is trying to get at, because their complaints on the talk page and their edits to the page itself seem to have a tangential relationship at best, and also because they have yet to familiarize themselves with many of our core policies. This request is premature. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Citizenship (Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
It is not clear why the Article Talk page editor wants me to go to Tea House forum. That does not seem to be forum for discussing specifically on the issues of the article. Why the editor does not want to discuss properly on the Article Talk page ? I have already gone to the Reliable Source Notice Board Forum. That was after the editor at the talk page asked me to do so. And the response there was supportive for adding "Official Government statements in form of FAQs for CAA". It proves that the proposal made by me is clear. Please see - [17] In spite of claims that the proposal is not clear by the Article Talk page editor, I had specifically mentioned examples of 3-4 links which could be put in the article along with relevant content from those links. But the Article Talk page editor did not show interest in discussing in detail even though they reverted my edit within minutes. It is highly doubtful that they went through my edit properly before reverting my edit. Still, I posted on the Article Talk page. They are just asking me to go to several forums and not interested in discussing the issue. Kmoksha (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Media coverage of Bernie Sanders
– New discussion. | Closed after the fact. Now pending at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute is very simple and revolves around Wikipedia policy: If newly added content has been challenged by multiple editors should it removed from the page until there is a consensus for the inclusion of the content? Some editors claim that the newly added content must be kept in the article until there is consensus for removal. Other editors claim that newly added challenged content should be removed from the article until there is consensus for inclusion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[18]] [[19]] [[20]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We just need a clarification on how Wikipedia policy works. Summary of dispute by MikkelJSmith2I'll adapt some of what I wrote in Village Pump, due to the fact that it resumed the situation. I think part of the confusion comes from what I did. It wasn't due to bad intentions. After all, I've been answering complaints and trying to better the page. I've made some changes regarding the complaints (added other sources for one claim where an editor said it was WP:UNDUE) and added multiple reliable sources to the page. To resume the situation, the page was reverted to before some changes were made since the changes in question were being talked about on the talk page. I did this because of what I understood about policy at the time, which I'm still not sure about since I've heard conflicting things now. Anyway, to go into more detail, what I did was restore Selvydra's edit, which fixed some stuff but still had some objected content in it as well as some fixes that other users had made: adding more sources to meet WP:DUE, trimming, the use of different words per MOS and replacing said with opined in other cases. The problem I guess is that we never really came to a consensus on the objected content on the talk page. That's not to say that we were idle, we went over some complaints, 4 of them have been resolved, see here [21] and I've answered another complaint. I'm currently waiting for the answer regarding that one. And, we will hopefully move on from there. However, in terms of some of the complaints, I need to mention that some objections went against the larger consensus at Wikipedia (i.e. the consensus from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). Some editors disputed the use of Fox News (the RS, i.e reliable part of that network), Business Insider (an RS), and op-eds that fell within RSes. Another complaint was the use of Paste, which is currently undergoing a RfC on the noticeboard (I was waiting for an answer there before doing anything) and a Tweet from ABC News (I've responded to that complaint by adding the reliable ABC News source, but I haven't had a response from anyone regarding my fix). There are other complaints regarding sources that are WP:BIASED and aren't listed on Perennial sources, such as Current Affairs, but we never really came to a solution. I was of the opinion that we should attribute some of them. So, I don't think any of the editors have bad intentions here, it's due to a difference in regards to understanding policy. For more background information see this conversation on village pump [22]. Thank you for your time and help. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SelvydraContext: This article underwent AfD early on, and it yielded no consensus. As a result, both sides ('delete' and 'keep') seem to be concerned that whichever side has priority (after 23 days) can stonewall the other's changes on that content, because consensuses may not be reached on the talk page, either. Concerns: Due to this bleak onlook on achieving a satisfying consensus, 'keepers' worry that everything in the article that the deleters disagree with will be removed, never to be returned. Meanwhile (correct me if I'm wrong), 'deleters' have expressed concern that 'keepers' can stonewall them from changing what's wrong with the article. Content & policy: I mostly agree with how MrX has summarized this below. Re: his 1. point: A significant amount of content has been removed by Snooganssnoogans and some others because they have found several biased sources as not RS (they're not listed as such in WP:RSPSOURCES), which resulted in WP:NPOV concerns being voiced (that, in left-media vs. mainstream media in the article, the former half is forward about its bias and is getting removed as not RS, leaving the latter half as the stronger voice in the article). Correction to the main Dispute overview: In Snooganssnoogans' dispute overview, I find the following representation misleading (emphasis added): Ultimately, I hope that the concerns of both sides can be alleviated somehow. The consensus dilemma shouldn't allow for either unfettered deletionism or inclusionism. Summary of dispute by MrXPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
From my perspective, the dispute centers around a couple of questions:
Summary of dispute by SashiRollsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't remember exactly where I was canvassed from for the AfD, but I'm pretty sure it was Snoog who brought me here. I agree people shouldn't get stressed out about things disappearing for a day or two or even (gasp!) a week... MrX & Snoog describe the AmPol rituals accurately, this is why I removed the 20K chunk of text once. Let them slash. As the Clintons liked to say in Haiti, build back better. Also, there is an open question about the CounterPunch entry on my TP, that is, it seems to me, not entirely unrelated to questions of wiki/media slant. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ChevvinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by WrestlingloverIssue I have first is the mischaracteration of the dispute when this is brought up. This isn't new material. This is material that has been around for weeks when in the history of this article is a very long time. This is material that has been discussed several times resulting in no consensus but all have already agreed on the material being there, in what manner it should be there. Now we have went to deletion entirely. Which I feel is an attempt at TE of sorts with the original editor that removed the material. The material is sourced with reliability under discussion for some of the material at stake. The main point of EDITCONSENSUS is that a consensus is established for the material to remove in the article is left undisturbed for a period of time. Once it is contested a discussion must occur with reasons the material should be released because immediately removal is a sign of edit warring that will occur between editors that wish have the material made. The third line of the policy lists that a new consensus for the editing of the old material is not established unless that removal is disputed. If it is disputed that new edit cannot remain and must be discussed. You can't establish a new consensus for the material to be removed unless it is undisputed. ONUS doesn't come into effect until after the material is being made because it is about inclusion of material that is under existing dispute. Not material at a new dispute. Believing otherwise would allow editors to randomly remove material on pages and disagree with its POV and hold the page hostage until a discussion is created to override their objection. This would be why improvement tags exist. To challenge existing material.--WillC 21:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by RmdscPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SharabSalam
Summary of dispute by Rafe87Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Ryk72Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
"Present" - Ryk72 talk 03:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SlywriterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It's my belief that this article serves as borderline propaganda and is not encyclopedic. Any attempt to change that is met with reversions and claims of silent consensus. Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadlines. This article is an attempt to cover events as they happen and has no view towards the long term. The article has become a collection of quotes that justify a position. These quotes are often non-RS/borderline RS, partisan media, or off the cuff remarks that are tied together, SYNTHESIS, to arrive at a conclusion. Finally, if this article is to exist in its current state then every Presidential Candidates' supporters would be justified to do the same quote farming to frame an article positively or negatively about how the media portrays them. Slywriter (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AhuntSorry, I have not edited the article or its talk page. Just gave one participant some general editing advice at User talk:Ahunt#Deletion, so really nothing I can contribute here. - Ahunt (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Media coverage of Bernie Sanders discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Statuta Valachorum
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. After a comment was made about the lack of discussion on the article talk page, there has been no further discussion either here or at the article talk page. There doesn't appear to be an active dispute. If there are any further issues, discuss them at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I put information in the article about Vlachs along with Serbs because in that area they are mentioned Vlachs in the books together with Serbs or without Serbs but with Uskoks, Hajduks etc(it is based on sources). And I deleted information that Vlachs are mostly Serbs because Croats are mentioned in that area and others who became Vlachs and this claim requires consensus. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Statuta_Valachorum#Last_change_of_article_and_possible_controversial_edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikola22#Removing_sourced_content How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think you can help because historical data, historians and books mentione Vlachs and others who are under the Statuta Valachorum. If data about Vlachs can not be entered and in the article there is information about the Serbs which are least mentioned there, I do not know which purpose is of existence this article with name Statuta Valachorum (Vlachs statute). What would happened if I start putting data which speak that half of Vlachs communitie are Croats(information from the 2019.) Summary of dispute by SadkσPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SlaterstevenSome does not mean most. Thus "some Croats" does not contradict (and thus overturn) "mostly Serb". Also as far as I can tell from discussion all the sources mentioned by the OP talk about the situation in the 19thc (or latter), not about what the term Vlachs meant in the document that is the articles subject (well that seems to be what the OP said anyway). Frankly it does not help matters that the OP tends to post tracts of text that are rather difficult to follow.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Statuta Valachorum discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer comment - There doesn't appear to have been extensive discussion on the talk page. Please try to convince other editors there before coming here. Additionally, given that the filing editor has generally failed to modify their position even when presented with strong policy-based arguments in previous discussions on this board (see this discussion in particular), I don't think that much good is likely to come from attempting to resolve this dispute here. signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
|
Tonalism
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. No discussion was had on the article talk page and the filing editor has now been blocked. This DRN seems to be premature. Please discuss and make a good faith effort to resolve issues on the article talk page before filing a DRN Nightenbelle (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Tonalism on 16:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I have posted a brief overview on Tonnalism, or more precisely American Tonalism, based on the authoritative text on the subject: A History of American Tonalism, 1880 to 1920, Hudson Hills Press, cited in post. This book won major academic awards and is the best selling text in the field (Outstanding Academic Title, 2011, American Library Association). Another editor repeatedly removes my post claiming that the source of my citation is not good enough. My post represents a generally accepted overview of the subject by those in the field. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tonalism How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am not sure "Modernist" can be convinced of the legitimacy of the source cited, therefore protecting my post may be the best solution.
|
Jennifer Freyd
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as probably resolved. Six days have passed since a volunteer said that this case appears to have been resolved, so we will conclude that it has been resolved. If there is any new disagreement, it can be discussed at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This is refreshing an old discussion from the talk page from 2014 - an old accusation of childhood sexual abuse by her father - with citations from mainstream sources including the Baltimore Sun News and Stanford University Magazine. And as a result of these accusations, her parents disputed Freyd's claims of sexual assault, and then co-founded the False Memory Syndrome Foundation - which had a large membership (and may have closed in 2019?). The editor in question appears to be editing both WP articles with primary sources and engaging in edit warring. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Unclear how to proceed, the subject of the article's career was centered around childhood sexual abuse and it is published in mainstream sources, so it appears to be a non-controversial topic. The editor may have a COI or simply may be a new editor and not realize all of the mistakes made in their extensive edits? This article has a long history of COI edits however. Summary of dispute by Senor CrocodilePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am grateful to Joojay for educating me, as a new contributor, on my errors, which were well-intentioned but ultimately not constructive. At this point, I better understand Wikipedia policy in terms of what is “fair game” regarding sensitive/“controversial” content on a living person’s Wikipedia page. I better understand how to engage more constructively in collaborative editing on matters of dispute. Another contributor helpfully updated the False Memory Syndrome Foundation paragraph in a way that improves the accuracy of the content. I also added a notation about the dissolution of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as of Dec 31, 2019, citing a secondary source for this fact. I think that these collective contributions have made the Wikipedia page more useful, accurate, and easy to read. I appreciate the patience and help from more experienced contributors/editors in helping me learn how to be a better Wikipedia contributor. Happy new year Senor Crocodile (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Jennifer Freyd discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer comment – from reading Senor Crocodile's statement here, it is not clear that there is still a dispute to be resolved. I also see that another uninvolved editor has clarified policy matters on the talk page, so even if there is still a dispute I'm not sure that it's necessary or useful to hash it out here at DRN. signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
occupational stress
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. Filing editor blocked for two weeks for edit-warring. Another editor has expressed the view that closing the thread would be desirable. So I am closing this thread. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Be concise. If discussion is unsuccessful, another thread can be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In the opening paragraph of the article there is a large heavily weighted section on various professionals who are involved in the area of occupational stress for some reason and this adds nothing to the article's quality. Nothing has been summarized either as far as what is actually in the article. I have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It says the lead should summarize the contents and main points. I have suggested getting rid of the section because it adds nothing to the article and there is no discussion at all about professionals who deal with occupational stress. So I've asked why is this section included and have been met with no real policy response. After circular heated discussion resolution is now required to cool things down as I want to resolve this. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Occupational stress How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Cool things down and add guidance. Summary of dispute by Iss246Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have been editing the occupational stress encyclopedia entry since December 6, 2019. The entry was in poor shape when I started. Each day, I made a few edits. Then on December 27, Lightningstrikers came on the scene. He objected to my writing in the lede that occupational health psychology plays a major role in research on occupational stress. He asserted, without evidence, that clinical psychology and counseling psychology play a large role too. I have nothing against those to branches of psychology; I've published in clinical journals. But what Lightningstrikers claims is not true. Clinical psychology and counseling psychology have a played a small role in occupational stress research. I documented that small role in the End of Argument section of the occupational stress talk page. I also documented, in the slots provided, the reasons for additions I made to the occupational stress entry when I made those additions. I also cited a blog of a psychologist, well-known for his research in both i/o psychology and occupational health psychology, who indicated that it was a struggle to get the i/o psychology establishment to accept research on job stress.[1] I also noticed something odd. I noticed that Lightningstrikers claimed to be a new member of WP. I remember when I was a new member. I was unsure of myself as an editor and unsure of what levers to pull. It took time for me to adapt to the WP environment. I really don't think he is a new member of WP because he demonstrated very quickly that he knew what levers to pull to try to undermine my edits. His MO is highly similar to an editor named Mrm7171 who was banned from WP in the context of a different, earlier set of assaults on my edits when those edits pertained to occupational health psychology. Iss246 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by CaroleHensonI believe that the expressed issue is actually a minor one that I thought was best to take to WT:LEDE or the WP:Teahouse. There is a sentence about the extent or not occupational stress involves a number of disciplines. It may be that the sentence may have issues, but there have been a number of stated reasons for removing content from the Lede (not summarized in the Lede, not an international organization / viewpoint, questioned source, questioned meaning of the content from the source) and circling conversations (ask, answer given, ask again, etc.) meant we not only didn't get anywhere, but I think all parties became exhausted.
I think, though, this is really an ownership conflict between Iss246, who has contributed much of the article content for years -- and Lightningstrikers who has made edits, but not added much content, per page statistics. I am very uncertain and have tried to determine what exactly Lightningstrikers really wants. The focus on removing content - without getting into doing research to find sources to support content to add to the article or discuss why content should be removed makes consensus very difficult. Lightningstrikers has been warned about making disruptive edits and removing or replacing cited content that they do not like by six or so users (as summarized here starting December 26, 2019, but seems to totally disregard. An ANI issue was opened against Lightningstrikers, which is where I came in, but it seemed to be mostly a content dispute issue and/or a sockpuppet issue and administrators didn't address the issue. I think that if they continue the way that they are: wanting to delete content, not engaging or following advice for getting information elsewhere if they don't believe me, not providing sources for content addition or removal, and continuing to asks questions if they don't like the result doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Building an encyclopedia, but following some deep-seated objectives that are unclear to me. I think that Lightningstrikers could benefit by finding a mentor, taking tutorials, or engaging with Teahouse or guideline talk pages to better navigate through Wikipedia editing, which is not always easy. It can be difficult. Absolutely. It seems that mostly Iss246 has been worn down by the user and others who exhibited very similar behavior over a number of years. I think they could benefit, once constructive discussions may take place, from being open to compromise and work on consensus. I am not sure what more you may need. If you want examples of attempts to communicate with Lightningstrikers, the best thing to do is to look at Talk:Occupational stress, but I am happy to get more detailed with specific diffs if that would help. Otherwise, I think it is better for Lightningstrikers to use other WP resources to get questions answered. I don't think they believe anything I have to say and has just become a migraine-producing enterprise that I would prefer not to be a part of.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
occupational stress discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
User talk:PhanChavez#New_User_Dispute_Resolution_Request
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | This forum is for content disputes, i.e. disagreements over what the content of an article should be, not disagreements over whether an article should be created. If you just want advice, please go to the teahouse. |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by PhanChavez on 20:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview As a new user, I have undertaken some due-diligence, reading, review, trying to understand Wikipedia. The Dispute resolution process did not seem appropriate, so I followed the directions to post on my own talk page, with a "helpme" tag, to which I received the response: "Do not use the help me template for this. You can go to WP:DRN. Praxidicae (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)" Interpretation: Follow dispute resolution procedures when admins, reviewers and editors do not take the time to fully review things, talk about it, and then when asking for help, be told that dispute resolution is needed, and so now I'm back here. Now it is well and truly out of my hands and understanding. (Circular on Wikipedia's part.) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PhanChavez How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A suitable and in-depth explanation is provided on my own talk page. As well as Praxidicae's unhelpful "helpme" comment (circular, pointing right back here to dispute resolution). How you can help: Please provide an in-depth set of instructions (specific steps) about how I should proceed, such that I can (A) resolve this dispute cordially and meaningfully, and (B) see-through my initial AfC (without cursory dismissal). Summary of dispute by PraxidicaePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Robert_McClenonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't think that this is the sort of article content dispute that is normally addressed at this noticeboard. I think that the issue is that User:PhanChavez wants to create an article on Group of Five conferences, and I declined their draft at AFC because I said that they should discuss it at a talk page, and that now PhanChavez is running around to every forum that they can find asking for help. I think that what PhanChavez should do is to slow down, wait 48 hours, and then ask for advice at the Teahouse. I will allow another volunteer here either to accept this as a dispute or to close it or to take some other action. I don't think that this is the sort of article content dispute that is addressed here, but if another volunteer wants to moderate, I will listen and maybe comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Cardsplayer4life_2ndversePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
User talk:PhanChavez#New_User_Dispute_Resolution_Request discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Cenk Uygur
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as declined by other editor. Participation here is voluntary. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, and any of the parties do not want to engage in moderated discussion here, a Request for Comments can be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview This is about the addition of a "primary sources" tag to the Political Views section of the Cenk Uygur page. Originally I had cited many videos that were created by Uygur himself through his company's YouTube channel, but the content was taken down repeatedly by user Slywriter claiming an improper use of primary sources. Through talk pages Slywriter and I appeared to reach an agreement, but then a primary sources tag was added to the section by user wallyfromdilbert, even after my new edits were put in. The current disagreement is over whether there are too many primary sources used as references in the "Political Views" section. Specifically, I don't think we agree on how to classify a video published by a secondary source that contains footage of Uygur speaking. Is such a video a primary source because it shows Uygur expressing his views, or a secondary source because it was produced and published by someone other than Uygur or his company? Furthermore, I think there is a deeper disagreement on whether a subject's own expression of his opinions are considered more reliable/important than a second party's account of those same opinions. User wallyfromdilbert says on the talk page: "A reliable secondary source that includes quotes from Uygur means that an author has selected which quotes and views by Uygur are important and has been allowed to publish them by their publication's editors." To me, this means secondary sources are the gatekeepers with respect to which political views are worthy of representation on a person's Wikipedia page. To me this seems problematic; it means other people besides Cenk Uygur get to characterize what his political views are based on what they do and don't publish. For instance, many newspapers recently covered Bernie Sanders' retracted endorsement of Uygur over Uygur's past political views, but didn't give Uygur's current views for context. If newspapers are the arbiters, Uygur's past views appear to be his current ones. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Cenk Uygur#Political_Views_edit How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can help resolve the dispute by providing clarity on the definition of a primary source. For instance, is a video of Cenk Uygur giving a speech at Oxford University and published by the Oxford Union a secondary source on Uygur's political views? Or is it a primary source because it shows Uygur expressing his opinions directly? Summary of dispute by wallyfromdilbertThis seems premature, given that the OP has left only 4 comments on the talk page. Only one other person has supported the idea that a whole section on political views can be sourced to primary sources, and none of the other participants on the article's talk page have been included in this DRN request. To keep my response brief, interviews and speeches by an article subject seem obviously primary sources. They are even listed as examples in the WP:OR policy. Almost half the citations in the "political views" section are to the article subject's own website, which would be enough for the tag. However, most of the remaining ones are also primary sources, such interviews or speeches. Reliable sources should determine what is significant to include in an article (e.g., per WP:DUE), rather than the opinion of one editor. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Cenk Uygur discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Pashtuns
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for now pending more discussion on article talk page. If further discussion is inconclusive, a new thread can be opened here. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview We have now a issue in the Pashtuns page. First of all, there is a source which is this source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932.ece This source is about the "Pashtun" Hindu ladies of Quetta. The fellow Wikipedians I have mentioned used this source to say these are Pashtuns that are ethnically Pashtun and are Hindu. I had explained in the Talk page last year in 2019 February that this source was not right based on other sources given. I explained and cited them trustable sources showing that there is not such a thing as "ethnic" Pashtun Hindus as they are of Punjabi/Hindokwan/Sindhi Descent. So this source should be placed in the "Hindkowans" or "Hindki" pages as they are Pashto-speakers of Punjabi descent. So, if you are of (Hindu) Punjabi descent Pashto they call you indeed "Pashtun Hindu" or "Hindki" as they have the Pashtun culture and are billugal in Pashto. So therefore they should be not placed in the Pashtuns page. But Shashank did not agree with this in that time. As he said they are NOT of Punjabi descendancy but are 100% ethnically Pashtuns. So we placed with the help of other users the source as Disputed-Discussable (No reaction on neither side). Now 1 year later I finally found a source that is actually coming from the ladies themselves. https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/ Citation: “I was unaware of my identity as a Hindu Pashtun for the longest time. In Indian society, people are categorised on the basis of their caste and religion very early. To somehow adhere to the mainstream brackets of caste and religion my ancestors identified themselves as Punjabi I grew up thinking that I was a Punjabi,” says Shilpi. As you can see, after one year. I found a source that they say they are of Punjabi ancestry. But they are indeed "Pashtun" Hindus but of Punjabi ancestry also called Hindki or Hindkowans.
Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved
As the other Party does not want to click on the source and accept that they are of Punjabi ancestry. Just see whether it is about the same ladies and if they are really indeed of Punjabi descent or not. Here is the old source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932.ece Here is the new source found by me this year: https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/ Summary of dispute by Shashank5988Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Aman.kumar.goelPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Pashtuns discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed due to one of the participants declining to participate Nightenbelle (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview When I expanded a section called "Relationship to NRC" under Analysis of this Act, the opposing party reverted the edit. On the talk page he listed three objections to the new content: (1) that it incorporated opinion, not fact (2) that it contained original research and (3) that I deleted the old content without explanation. I did not agree that any of these objections was accurate. (1) The content was sourced to a leading national newspaper's "Explained" column; (2) my content accurately summarised the source; (3) I expanded the old content rather than deleting it. The talk page discussion did not produce any agreement. Rather the opposing party seemed to go off on extraneous tangential issues. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help us reach an agreement Summary of dispute by KmokshaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kautilya3`s proposal for expanding "Relationship of CAA to NRC" has not been discussed properly on the Article Talk page. Neither is there any consensus for that proposal on the Article Talk page. Other editors are opposing this proposal saying it violates Wikipedia policies. So, Dispute Resolution is premature. First, proper discussion at the Article Talk page must be done. The Nationwide NRC full details have not been yet declared but Kautilya3 had claimed that full Nationwide NRC rules were published in 2003. But when Kauliya3 was asked that "for a person X who is claiming to be a persecuted minority in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh and comes to India in January 2020, what will be documents required for that person to prove the claim and get citizenship of India." He has not even responded to that yet. Further, Kautilya3 has not given any reference of a wikipedia policy for his claims that everything written in an "explainer article" can be presented as factual in the Wikipedia article and written in Wikipedia`s voice. And the content of "Explainer article" and content of other sources referenced by Kautilya3 are inconsistent with the proposed content for the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmoksha (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Kmoksha, a DRN moderator will be able to check the talk page discussion that has been referenced, and make a judgement as to whether enough discussion has happened or not. The kind of question you have asked is exactly what I feel are "extraneous tangential issues". So, I think it will be fruitful to have the discussion in the presence of a moderator. The policy issue is not clear-cut: the specific content needs to be evaluated as to whether it forms "news" content or "opinion" content, which also could use the help of a moderator. You are welcome to decline of course. But please keep in mind that it will reflect badly on your conduct if you do so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Greetings, I am Nightenbelle and I'm going to volunteer for this one such as it is. I have to agree that this Request is quite pre-mature. Other interested parties on the article have just joined the discussion, and from what I can see there is a pretty good consensus going right now that the changes are not appropriate at this time. I am completely unfamiliar with the issue or the subject of the article, but I see three people explaining why the information should not e included and one person saying it should. If anything- I would do a Request for Comments if you want more input, but the journey towards consensus seems to be going well on the Talk page, so unless something new/different is added in the next day or so here, I would recommend closing the dispute until more discussion was had on the talk page. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
|
The Gentlemen (2019 film)
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as there has been no discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor asked a question aproximately 1 week ago and it was not answered by anyone. A Request for Comments or Bold Edit would be more appropriate at this timeNightenbelle (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I can't understand how the genre for this film is being presented as an action genre film, where it is has been presented as quite clearly a crime comedy. The film is comedic throughout the whole way through and is very much similar to Guy Ritchie's early work of Lock, Stock and Snatch which are both presented as crime comedies. There is very little to no action in the film apart from a couple of fight scenes that don't take up majority of the film. It is more of a crime comedy then it is a action crime as this would notably take away the fact of what is should be represented as. In almost all film reviews and interviews the genre's are stated including those with Ritchie himself and his producers who credit it as such. No one will answer on the talk page and even if i add references which are credible. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Gentlemen_(2019_film) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I just want a little clarification on this issue, and understand why the genre which it is, is not being presented as such, and why we can't come to a compromise. Summary of dispute by 77survivorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CodexJustinPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The Gentlemen (2019 film) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Chapter 1: The Mandalorian
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed due to lack of good faith effort to resolve on article talk pageNightenbelle (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview In television, a "guest star" is a large role which appears in multiple scenes, but is not a series regular. A "co-star" is a small role that usually only has a few lines. These are well-documented definitions. (Sources listed below) On each of The Mandalorian episode pages' sidebars, these labels are currently used incorrectly -- the guest stars are labeled as co-stars and vice versa. I corrected this on each episode page. These edits were reverted by user Cardei012597 who claimed the edits don't "benefit or enhance the quality of The Mandalorian episode pages." To me, correcting what is objectively a mistake does "benefit and enhance" the quality of the pages. Sources: https://www.centralcasting.com/different-tv-types-of-acting-roles/ https://www.castittalent.com/blog/2013/06/extras-co-stars-and-guest-stars-whats-what/ https://tophollywoodactingcoach.com/2014/05/difference-film-television-credits/ How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? If you look at my sources, I think you'll see that the Mandalorian pages currently contain errors that are easily fixable. I'm not sure why user Cardei012597 refuses to allow the corrections. Summary of dispute by Cardei012597Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Chapter 1: The Mandalorian discussionHi, I'm Nightenbelle and I'm going to close this dispute. 1 comment each on a talk page (and duplicating the same comments on a user talk page does not constitute an attempt to resolve on your own. Please engage in discussion on the article talk page first before requesting dispute resolution. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Martin Heidegger
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closing as failed dispute resolution. Editors continue to disagree on the issue of whether the article's coverage of Heidegger's Nazi affiliations should be expanded. At this time, editors unsatisfied with the status quo should convene an RfC if they wish to dispute this matter further. As for the second issue of whether the language is too dense, this has not been subject to recent discussion on the talk page, and attempts to address it within the scope of the same discussion as the Nazi issues are only likely to muddle the proceedings. I would suggest making proactive changes by copyediting individual paragraphs or sections one at a time, discussing any disputes that may then arise on the talk page, and only bringing those issues back to DRN if there is a failure to reach consensus after these steps have been taken. signed, Rosguill talk 21:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Filed by VeryRarelyStable on 01:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Content issues:
Wikipedia policy issues that have arisen:
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please give guidance on the policy issues outlined above: are we "breaching consensus" or are our opponents enforcing a pseudo-consensus? Are the sources we have consulted inadequate or poorly summarized? —Note: I will be away from the internet over New Year for nearly a week, starting from tomorrow. Letting other parties know now so that you know I'm not refusing to participate in the discussion. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 22:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Please advise as to whether the Martin Heidegger article and the Martin Heidegger and Nazism ought to be merged. It would be very helpful if editors with experience on biographies of other Nazi philosophers/pedagogues could opine here. These would include: Sbelknap (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SbelknapPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
•There is a serious problem with POV, where some editors remove material that casts Heidegger in a negative light. This ought be a biography not a hagiography. Instead, this biography has been split into one article about Martin Heidegger the Good and a separate article Martin Heidegger the Terrible. These two articles ought to be merged into a single article, as this would assist the reader seeking information about Heidegger. The splitting off of Martin Heidegger and Nazism into a separate article is the phenomenon that gets to the heart of the problem. •Some philosophers and scholars (particularly the analytically-oriented) hold that Heidegger's philosophy is mere wordplay, or is so obscure as to be incomprehensible, or is nonsensical. These critiques ought to be addressed in a new section, rather than in the fragmentary fashion seen in the current article. •There is substantial recent scholarship about Heidegger's Nazism and anti-semitism that is not given due weight in the current Martin Heidegger article. Attempts to correct this deficiency are reverted or edited away. There is a long-standing history of Heidegger apologism, going back to the French existentialists.[1] The availability of Heidegger's Black Notebooks and of the correspondence between the Heidegger brothers, Martin and Fritz, has made it clear that Heidegger's Nazism was not a passing fancy related to his rectorship, but instead was an essential part of his world view. There also is scholarship that finds Nazism and anti-semitism to be at the core of Heidegger's philosophy. Thus, these several schools of thought ought be given due weight. •Heidegger's romantic and sexual relationship with Hannah Arendt contributes to his notability, though less so than his philosophy or his Nazism/anti-semitism. This deserves its own section in the article. Sbelknap (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by SnowdedPer the discussion below, I am prepared to participate and will state a position of other editors agree to do the same -----Snowded TALK 07:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by FreeknowledgecreatorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I only intend to participate here if, at minimum, a majority of the editors listed decide to participate. Otherwise I will not bother. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TgeorgescuPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't have a problem with the arguments of the other side, except that I think that the proper article for their edits is Martin Heidegger and Nazism instead of Martin Heidegger. So, they seek to edit the wrong article. Oh, yeah, I got bored by being called a Heidegger apologist. As for his philosophy being "nonsense", analytic philosophers will say that about any "continental" philosophy, except perhaps Aristotle.
Quoted from memory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Martinevans123As per User:Epinoia below, who has summed it up very well. I would add that there has also been far too much debate over what should appear in the lead section, to the detriment of fixing what's in the main body. The lead section is supposed to simply summarize what's in the entire article, which should be in good shape first. Heidegger was notable for being a philosopher, not for being a Nazi. His supposed anti-Semitism is at odds with his relationship with Hannah Arendt. I also think the proposed merging of the main article with Martin Heidegger and Nazism would be a mistake. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by EpinoiaThere has been a concerted effort on the part of two editors to characterize Heidegger's philosophy as nonsense and to maximize his Nazi associations and present his work as not philosophy but hate speech. These are extreme positions not in keeping with a neutral point of view and are based on minor sources and fringe sources, such as Faye, and not on mainstream academic scholarship. Most reliable sources agree that "Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), so his work is demonstrably not nonsense. Heidegger's Nazism is well represented as it is noted in the lead and in the article sections "Heidegger and the Nazi Party" and "The Farías debate" as well as in the content fork article "Martin Heidegger and Nazism". - Epinoia (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC) Martin Heidegger discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
VeryRarelyStable, it is the new year and I see that you are back online. Are you ready for this DRN process to begin? signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
(Heidegger) First statement by moderatorOk, in that case I think that we're ready to begin. Please keep your comments clear and concise, refrain from making any edits to Martin Heidegger that relate to the issues at hand while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, and review WP:DRN Rule A before responding. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here unless I explicitly give you space to do so. Focus on content and avoid commenting on other editor's behavior.
(Heidegger) First statements by participants
(Heidegger) Second statement by moderatorIn people's first statements, most editors have focused on the issue of whether the articles Martin Heidegger and Martin Heidegger and Nazism should be merged. Some other suggestions, such as simplifying the article's prose, have also been suggested. For the sake of streamlining this discussion, I would propose that we focus on the question of whether or not to merge the articles; questions of reading level can be resolved afterward, although those issues would ideally be best resolved just by making appropriate copy edits where possible, rather than through a formal discussion. VeryRarelyStable and Sbelknap have advocated merging the articles. However, they have not specified exactly which content should be merged. Could these two editors please clarify whether they think that the entire content of the two articles should be merged, or whether there are only specific sections or claims in the Nazism article that need to be merged, as well as whether there is any information in the main article that they feel should be cut to accommodate the merge? I would note that the current revisions of both these articles are around 60k characters long. WP:SIZERULE states that even articles with 60k characters of prose should As an addendum, it would appear that the current section on Nazism in Martin Heidegger is about 10.5k characters long and the lead of Martin Heidegger and Nazism is about 2k characters long, so a total merge of the two articles that replaces the existing content of the existing Nazism section with the non-redundant content of the Nazism article would likely result in an article with about 108k characters of prose. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
(Heidegger) Clarifying comments from pro-merge editorsWikipedia biographies of modern intellectuals are often (usually?) longer than 100K, because we have their works, their influence on other intellectuals, and the course of their lives to consider. The biography of Ludwig Wittgenstein is 135K (exclusive of citations and bibliography), and is better written than the Heidegger article. If one reads the wikipedia biographies of Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Rawls, Russell, Quine, Sartre and others, it seems unreasonable to compress these biographies of philosophers to 60K or even 100K. I propose merging the Martin Heidegger article and the Martin Heidegger and Nazism article into a single Martin Heidegger article. There is some overlap between the two articles, so simply adding up the number of characters in the two articles to estimate the length of the combined text is not reasonable. I expect we would all agree with VeryRarelyStable that neither general readers nor scholars will find much of use in the description of Heidegger's philosophy in the current article. It would benefit from the same concision that is found in wikipedia biographies of other prominent philosophers. Based on my reading of both Heidegger articles, I expect that the merged Martin Heidegger article would be about 110K in length, after concision of bloat and duplication plus addition of material on Nazism. Finally, several engaged editors assert that tertiary sources give short shrift to Heidegger's Nazism, but what they cite are encyclopedias of philosophy in support of this assertion. Britannica and other general interest encyclopedias devote more than a single paragraph to Heidegger's Nazism. I would suggest that biographical encyclopedias would be more relevant as tertiary sources than encyclopedias of philosophy. Sbelknap (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(Heidegger) Third statement by moderatorThank you for the clarifications. In order to more clearly establish what the appropriate amount of weight for Nazi-related content is, I think it would be helpful if people could provide citations to reliable sources covering Heidegger's career as a whole (whether focusing on his biography or on the body of his work, but preferably not sources that focus on a singular concept from Heidegger's philosophy), with a brief summary stating what proportion of the cited source is spent on Heidegger's Nazi affiliations, and also what proportion is spent on the influence of Nazism in Heidegger's philosophy relative to coverage of his philosophy as a whole. I think that it could also be pertinent to provide citations to newer literature with a narrower focus, if there is reason to believe that this reflects a new consensus about the relative importance of Nazism in Heidegger's work that may not be reflected in older publications. Additionally, I would ask anti-merge editors to comment on whether VeryRarelyStable's suggestion in the final paragraph of the above section is an acceptable compromise. This does not preclude further discussion of the matter as a whole, I just want to get a sense of where people stand on possible compromises. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
(Heidegger) Collection of sources for assessment of due weightCritical Horizons 19:4 entire issue on Heidegger & Nazism (link here is to editor's introduction)[3]
(Heidegger) Anti-merge editors' response to VeryRarelyStable's compromise suggestion
(Heidegger) Fourth statement by moderatorI think that we've reached an impasse here, as editors have declined to provide additional examples of encyclopedic coverage other than Britannica and editors not in favor of a merge have rejected VeryRarelyStable's compromise proposal. While Britannica was cited by Sbelknap as an example of an encyclopedia giving more weight to Heidegger's Nazi affiliations, Snowded's assertion that Britannica spends 20% of its Heidegger article on his Nazi affiliations puts it rather close to our current coverage of the subject, which is about 18% Nazi-related (17% in the actual Heidegger and the Nazi Party section, and a few scattered paragraphs and sentences in the lead and biography sections. I'm going to open up space for editors to make further comments or arguments below, but my impression at this time is that we are unlikely to make further headway in this venue. Should the discussion conclude here, the minority position editors have the choice of either conceding the point or moving to an RfC. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
(Heidegger) Fourth statements by editorsI feel I need to clarify that the split is not five editors against two. Several other editors have come along with edits supporting our side, had them reverted, and stopped trying, or (in the case of one or two IPs) been blocked. The most recent to try this on the page itself was Azerty82, and before them 88.217.152.166, and a while earlier there was Wolfdog. On the Talk page we had Chumchum7 and TonyClarke come in and try to make some sense of things, shortly before I applied for a DRN; they found they got nowhere and didn't come back. Sampling the page history, I find that these issues go at least as far back as 2015, with an editor called Philippe BINANT. Sbelknap and I are just the two who haven't given up and left. I'd like to return to the comprehensibility issue, because I don't want to leave the impression that it's an afterthought. Back in September 2018, I tagged some parts of the Philosophy section as incomprehensible. Months later, in July 2019, an editor reworded a sentence and removed the "incomprehensible" tag. Finding the passage no easier to follow than before, I put the "incomprehensible" tag back. There followed some back-and-forth both in edits and on the Talk page, and soon I was told – by two opposing editors, both of them parties to this discussion – that the "incomprehensible" tags had only been put up recently, not months before as I was claiming. Which, having myself put them up months before, I knew was incorrect. But my restoring them was edit warring and "breaching consensus". Edit summaries and the Talk discussion on the issue state both that Heidegger is inherently incomprehensible and cannot be clarified to Wikipedia standards and that the passages are already perfectly comprehensible and need no further clarification. I'd like some outside perspective on whether or not these passages do meet Wikipedia standards. More than that, however, I'd like some assurances that future attempts to clarify the Philosophy section will be met with constructive criticism rather than stonewalling. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Reflist
|
Montenegro
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closing due to one of the editors involved choosing not to participate Nightenbelle (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I do not wish to edit war over this, and therefore I went per Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. We have a dispute: should the ongoing protests in Montenegro be called /massive/. We also have a dispute over the information which clearly states that church officials were attacked while protesting and afterwards, including a vladika (bishop). I for one think that the information is notable enough and that it should be included and placed per NPOV. References such as Russia Today and Serbian medias have been removed, on the notion that they are "fake news" and no proof or reference for this claim was provided. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like you to help to calm things down, to discuss per Wikipedia:Civility and to see what makes sense here. Summary of dispute by Sideshow BobThere is no dispute here to speak of, if we disregard the ongoing obsession of this particular user with my Wikipedia activity, which borders on stalking. I merely stated that a section regarding the ongoing current event should be kept to a minimum in a country article, and note the most important points, rather than cherry pick individual events. Sources I removed were heavily biased articles which could be produced for both sides of the dispute and add nothing of encyclopedic value, since Montenegrin and Serbian media are being used as propaganda outlets on both sides of the dispute. If you feel that anything important has been omitted, feel free to be bold and continue editing, rather than waste everyone's time here. Also, for more detailed account of the ongoing events, there is the 2019–20 Montenegrin crisis article, and constructive input is always welcome. Sideshow Bob 08:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC) Montenegro discussionGood day, I'm Nightenbelle, and I am volunteering to mediate this issue. However, Sideshow Bob (talk · contribs), are you choosing not to participate? Both parties have the right to choose wether or not they will participate in dispute resolution. Before we go farther, I want to make sure both Sadko (talk · contribs) and Sideshow Bob are willing to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
|