Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 143

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 140Archive 141Archive 142Archive 143Archive 144Archive 145→Archive 150

Talk:Battle of Hastings

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This article describes the Battle of Hastings. At present, the article contains what I believe to be a non-NPOV account of the battle, that says the battle took place at Caldbec Hill, a mile or so away from the traditional battle site at what is now Battle Abbey, on a different hill. I added text to the article briefly explaining the traditional site and explaining that it was disputed, and also tagging some possible "weasel words" (most modern historians claim ...) My contributions were referenced, but a user immediately reverted them. I have tried to engage e user in discussion, but she seems very set on her ideas. She is claiming that the information I added was not supported by references (not true!) and she seems to feel a sense of ownership on the article. I feel that there is no possibility of a consensus, and it would be good to get others involved.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Bringing the perspectives of additional editors to help reach a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Ealdgyth

There are two parts to the disputed edit:

  • The first part is :"The traditional site of the Battle of Hastings is Senlac Hill, the site of the present-day remains of Battle Abbey, and William the Conqueror is said to have directed that the abbey's high altar be placed on the exact spot where Harold died; the battle is said to have been fought on the land to the south and west of the abbey." this sentence is sourced to this source. Nothing in the source given says anything about "the traditional site of the Battle of Hastings is Senlac Hill, the site of the present-day remains of Battle Abbey" nor does it say that "William the Conqueror is said to have directed that the abbey's high altar be placed on the exact spot where Harold died" nor does the source say "the battle is said to have been fought on land to the south and west of the abbey". A further problem is the information about the siting of the high altar is already in the article later on, so doesn't need repeating here, in the middle of the description of the preparations before the battle. The high altar site is discussed in the aftermath section where the foundation of the abbey is discussed.
  • The other part of the disupted edit is "In 2013, Channel 4's Time Team TV programme performed an archaelogical investigation of the battlefield using landscape analysis and a LiDAR survey, claiming to have found a "new site" for the battle on Senlac Hill; however, English Heritage observed that the "new site" was already part of the traditionally understood battlefield, and although Time Team's work was valuable and developed understanding of the battlefield, the site was not "new"." This is undue weight for both the location in the article (right in the middle of the discussion of the preparations) but also is undue because it discusses one of many surveys, but none of the rest of the archaelogical surveys are discussed at all in the article. This is quite correct, because articles should be based on secondary sources, not primary ones such as the actual surveys. It appears that the Time Team survey didn't turn up anything that even English Heritage found to change the viewpoints on the battle, so it's quite clearly recentism and undue weight to discuss one survey that doesn't seem to have had any major changes in the historical thought on the battle.
I'll also note that I reverted the addition once. It was re-added, reverted out by a second editor, re-added again, and reverted once more by the second editor. So it's hardly a two person dispute. There has been additional input, by the editor reverting the readditions of the material twice. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Side note - I was not automatically notified of this filing - I only received notice when Parsonscat placed the notice on my talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Hastings#Dispute30Sep2016 discussion

  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The two editors listed are not the only editors who have discussed the article. The other editors should also be listed. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to list and notify all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Thanks, Robert. At the time I raised this, only two editors - myself and User:Ealdgyth - were involved in the current discussions. I gather that Ealdgyth canvassed another editor outside this process who joined in after this referral - see the discussion on the Talk page. To the best of my knowledge, nobody else is involved.
There had been some earlier discussions about a different edit with a very different slant - though those were gone long ago. I was not part of those discussions. I've added subheadings to the talk page to separate these, and added a Wiki link to this page. Please let me know if you feel more needs to be done. I understand that Ealdgyth will have been notified automatically.
The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've added explicit notifications to the talk pages of User:Ealdgyth and User:Dudley Miles. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Ealdgyth's account is pursuasive. Time Team is better than much tv, but does not amount to a WP:RS, especially in such a much-trampled context. If academic consensus actually changes, we will have other sources to work from. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Johnbod. "most modern historians claim" isn't WP:WEASEL as long as the references support the claim, and that phrase and others like it are commonly approved at FAC. WEASEL is "some guy said". - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with John. A popular television show does not strike me as an RS for such a topic, and even if it were, the sheer preponderance of sources which do not support its claims (I mean, this subject is covered in hundreds of [better] sources) means that it would be WP:UNDUE to include the claims in such a prominent position. Let's take another example: I love Mythbusters, but I would not use their "Myth: Busted" claim to support any statements in the article Mobile phones on aircraft. I would expect much more rigorous testing, in controlled conditions, before adding any claims about cell phone interference - or the lack of it - on flights. (Disclosure: I was notified about this dispute by User:Brianboulton at my talk page in the context of my TFA coordinator duties).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Me too (discosure; I was asked to take a look at this thread prior to the DRN being opened). Time Team isn't appropriate as a source by Wikipedia standards, and certainly not the later episodes when they abandoned even the pretence of being serious research. Per comments on my talkpage, I do feel that a case could be made for brief mention of Time Team and their claims if only to make it clear that no reliable source supports them, in order to prevent good-faith users being confused when they see that Wikipedia doesn't match what they've seen on TV, but it should just be a passing mention, not given equal weight to more credible theories. ‑ Iridescent 17:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • While I enjoy watching the show, "Time Team" isn't a reliable source for an encyclopedia. We should be basing the article on academic sources. I'd echo Dank's comments on weasel words. As an aside, I would have expected this conversation to have been occurring on the talk page of the article - it appears to have been taken to dispute resolution after only a few hours of talk page discussion, which seems unduly hasty. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • There are two related parts of the disputed edit. The first starts by stating that the traditional site of the battle is Senlac Hill, and as Ealdgyth has pointed out this statement is not in the source cited. The second is discussion of claims in a Time Team TV programme, and I agree with most other editors above that this does not belong in the Battle of Hastings article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
  • What Johnbod, Dank, Crisco, Iridescent, Hchc all said. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. The ground rules are as follows. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia including in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to deal with issues about the editors. Uncivil comments or complaints about the editors may be hatted. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Every editor must check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and answer all questions at least every 48 hours. Avoid discussions about the article on the article talk page or user talk pages while discussion is in progress here, so that discussion is centralized here. Discussion elsewhere may be ignored. I do not claim any special knowledge about the battle, although I know that it was a Norman victory and effected the Norman conquest; I expect the editors to supply any relevant details. Will each editor please explain, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

To be useful as a moderator, this will also need you to carry out some basic background reading, Robert. I'll expect you to do so when asked, within 48 hours. If you need access to JSTOR or similar facilities, let me know, and I'll point you in the direction of editors who can help. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
No. That isn't my interpretation of the job of the moderator. Maybe you are teasing me. If so, on the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic or humorous. If you mean it, I think it is up to the editors to present me with the facts, including the disputed facts, and disputed facts appear to be a key point in this case, and I don't intend to arbitrate the facts, but to let the editors present the agreed facts and the disagreed facts. I will only arbitrate any matters of policy, and in this case the key policies appear to be verifiability and neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
If you're not prepared to do the research, Robert, I don't think you are very likely to add much here in a dispute about academic content. You've already accepted a case before it was thoroughly discussed on the talk page (a couple of hours is clearly insufficient), tried to hide editors' comments with hat notes, made demands that I check this page every 48 hours, etc. As per the guidance at the top of this page, I don't believe you're likely to be a neutral party, and would request that you either withdraw from the case or take the objection to the DRN talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
On the one hand, see the mediation policy, and in particular Control of mediation. In short, the mediator is in charge, within limits. On the other hand, “If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.” Going to DRN talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

  • Per my comments in the hatted box above, I'm not involved in this dispute but was asked to comment on it as someone who's written a number of articles on English history. The basics of the dispute are that the site of the Battle of Hastings is not known with certainty. The current academic consensus is that it took place on and around Caldbec Hill, but the 2013 television programme Time Team claimed that the site was actually nearby Senlac Hill. One editor wants this theory given equal prominence with conventional academic thinking; everyone else who has commented thus far feels that to do so would be giving undue weight to a fringe theory, and be an example of recentism since it's not proposed to give equal treatment to other "alternative site" hypotheses. ‑ Iridescent 07:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I summarized my issues with the edits above. The first sentence is not supported by the source given for that sentence in the edit and the sentence also repeats information already in the article. The other sentences are undue weight both in positioning in the article and in content, as no other survey or TV show on the battle is mentioned in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ditto - as per my comments above. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ditto - my comments were given above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Nathancurtis1#Reference_errors_on_4_October

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I keep getting hit for advertising, I am not advertising, I am simply trying to make a biography Wikipedia page. This has a grueling and difficult process. I have asked over and over what I need to change but nobody will tell me. Before being hit for advertising it was said my references are not good enough. The person I'm helping write this page is an internationally known poet and lyricist. If I could please have some kind of help.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to chat live, edited the draft numerous times, tried to contact the people who say things are wrong.

How do you think we can help?

Tell me what exactly is wrong in my draft.

User talk:Nathancurtis1#Reference_errors_on_4_October discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Saraiki dialect#Requested_move_21_September_2016

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Saraiki is a language. But in wikipedia Saraiki is shown as dialect. Furthermore in page of Saraiki dialect, Multani, Riastti and Thali are written as dialect of Saraiki. All source show that Jhangvi and Shahpuri are also dialect of Saraiki. So all these be written as dialects of Saraiki.Paine Ellsworth

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page, Give refernces.

How do you think we can help?

Saraiki be shown as language. Multani, Riasti, Shahpuri, Jhangvi and Thali be considered as dialect of Saraiki language.

Summary of dispute by Paine Ellsworth

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

Summary of dispute by SheriffIsInTown

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

Summary of dispute by Andy M. Wang

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

Summary of dispute by Mar4d

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

Summary of dispute by Smsarmad

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


Summary of dispute by Anthony Appleyard

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

Talk:Saraiki dialect#Requested_move_21_September_2016 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Amman Message

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Amman Message includes a reference to "true Salafi thought." The meaning of this phrase -- as it now appears to me -- is not entirely clear. I first made an edit to to the link embedded in the phrase changing it from "Salafi movement" to "Salaf". My understanding is that Salaf is a noun in Arabic and Salafi is an adjective so Salafi thought would mean thought attributed to the Salaf and not Salafi movement thought. Another editor understands the world Salafi to necessarily mean Salafi movement so he reverted my edit. I reverted his edit and explained my reasoning. He reverted my edit again.

My resolution to that was to remove all links since neither of us has a source. He has since reverted that edit. In an effort not to edit war I now seek mediation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried compromising but if it's either his edit or nothing. I don't know what else to do.

How do you think we can help?

I can't think of any other compromise but to include no source. Since that's a no starter for the other editor. You can help by suggesting other compromises.

Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzo

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

Talk:Amman Message discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Red Shirts_%28Southern_United_States%29#Red_Shirts_.28Southern_United_States.29

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have removed the qualifier "white supremacist" from the description of the Red Shirts, since there were black members of these groups. This is referenced in many of the documents in the "Further reading" section of the entry. I kept having my edits undone by agtx and Tom(North Shoreman), and they have ignored my presentation of proof to back up my edits. Agtx even took exception to my changing the qualifier to "Democrat", even though that is mentioned in the opening paragraph of the entry itself. I have explained my position and backed it up continuously and benn accused of breaking the rules and bias by these two, so I decided to bring the issue here for resolution, as the conversation is starting to get personal and offensive.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I think I have exhausted any other steps, as these two users seem to have decided that any proof I provide to back up my request is somehow "biased".

How do you think we can help?

I would suggest that the qualifier "white supremacist" be removed from the entry, and is proven to be false by basic searches of historical text, even among Wikipoedia itself. I suppose that the adjective could be replaced with "Democrat" or rewritten all together. Perhaps with the sentence "The Red Shirts were paramilitary groups made up of both white and black members...".

Summary of dispute by Tom(North Shoreman)

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

In addition to the parties listed, User:Hmains has also reverted the originating editor's edit.

No reliable sources have been provided by KAvin that say that white supremacy was not the motive of the Red Shirts. The source he refers to (but fails to provide any quotes supporting his view) as well as three reviews of the source that I provided simply address the motives of why a few blacks participated in a white supremacist movement. KAvin's argument is that since some blacks participated it couldn't possibly be a white supremacist movement. This is pure synthesis and original research. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by agtx

This dispute is about whether the Red Shirts (Southern United States) should be described as a "white supremacist" group or not. Currently there are two reliable sources for that description: a Washington Post piece and a PBS documentary. Kavin's argument to the contrary has a few pieces.

  • First, Kavin argues that a book by Edmund Drago supports the point that there were black individuals in the group, and that therefore they are not a white supremacist group. As I pointed out on the talk page, this is a WP:SYNTH problem in that it draws a conclusion based on a source rather than reporting what's the source actually says. There is some indication that the source says the opposite (see the first sentence of the Google Books summary).
  • Second, Kavin argues that because they are a "WBTS reenactor from South Carolina who had ancestors that fought in Hampton's Legion and were members of his Red Shirts in Sumter, Richland, and Clarendon counties after the war," they "know a little about the subject." WP:IKNOW explains why that is a problem.
  • Third, Kavin would prefer to refer to the groups as "Democrat groups," even after I pointed out that the use of the word "Democrat" in that manner is pejorative.

Ultimately, we've got a statement that has two reliable sources backing it up. Kavin would like to remove it based on their own original research and their personal background, and to replace it with a term that undoubtedly POV and pejorative. I don't think that's the right way to go. agtx 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Red Shirts_%28Southern_United_States%29#Red_Shirts_.28Southern_United_States.29 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I actually have notified both editors of my filing a dispute resolution on both of their talk pages and on the talk page of the article itself. KAvin (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer note - Both editors were notified ([1] [2]) on their talk pages. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will be opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are the usual ground rules. Editors should check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and are requested to reply to questions or requests for statements within 48 hours. (If one editor doesn't participate but others do, the case goes forward. If no one participates in 48 hours, the case is closed.) Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is important in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to improve or criticize the editors. Do not edit the article while this case is in progress.

Now: Will each editor please explain, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

agtx

The lead of the article currently describes the "Red Shirts" as white supremacist groups, citing two reliable sources specifically so stating. [3] ("He was politically allied with the 'Red Shirts,' a violent, white-supremacist cabal.") and [4] ("During Reconstruction, white supremacists formed political and social groups to promote whites and oppress blacks, and to enact laws that codified inequality. The ... Red Shirts (1875) were publically known ... [and] used violence to intimidate blacks and Republican voters.").

Kavin disagrees with this description of the group. Kavin cites a book by Edmund Drago as evidence that they were not white supremacist groups. The Drago book states that there were black members of the red shirts but it does not specifically state one way or the other whether the group was a white supremacist group. According to Kavin, "The fact is that for a group to in fact be a 'white supremacist' group, then the race of ALL members must be 'white' also..that is just a FACT" However, there is no source for that statement, and it is not in the Drago book. It is either synthesis, original research, or both. The rest of Kavin's justifications for removing the statement do not involve any reliable sources. Kavin states that they are "a WBTS reenactor from South Carolina who had ancestors that fought in Hampton's Legion and were members of his Red Shirts in Sumter, Richland, and Clarendon counties after the war," so they "think [they] may just know a little about the subject." This is not a reliable source nor is it verifiable. Finally, Kavin would like to change the sentence to read "Democrat paramilitary organizations." I pointed out that the use of Democrat in this manner, as an adjective, is pejorative (and therefore carries an NPOV issue), and I noted that Democrat Party (epithet) described the issue well. Kavin disagreed but did not cite any sources to the contrary.

Ultimately, this article is inaccurate if we don't describe this group as a white supremacist group, because according to reliable sources, that's what it was. Unless there are sources that state the contrary—not imply or suggest, but state—then the description ought to stay. agtx 21:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

North Shoreman

Absent some actual reliable sources that support the originator's claim, this whole matter should be closed. The Red Shirts are part of the much larger movement to restore white supremacy that occurred throughout the rebellious south. KAvin's views are simply a neo-confederate take rejected by serious historians. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

KAvin

I believe that describing the Red Shirts as a "white supremacist" paramilitary group is incorrect because history shows that these groups were formed to get Democratic politicians elected and to take power away from Republicans in the post Reconstruction South. These groups were made up of people, both back and white, who saw what Republican rule under Reconstruction had done to the South, and wanted to oust them from positions of power. It had nothing to do with setting up "white supremacy", as the other two editors claim, but has to do with the people of the South's attempt at returning "self rule" by ousting Republican politicians and puppets who were still bent on "punishing" the South for the WBTS. This is covered heavily in the Drago text, and also the book Hampton and His Red Shirts: South Carolina's Deliverance in 1876, by Alfred Brockenbrough Williams. Also, the book Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era: Greenwood Milestones in African American History states "Eager to overawe and sway African American voters, the Democrats even encouraged the formation of Red Shirt clubs composed of black members."(pg.523). I maintain a group of Red Shirts entirely composed of black members could not be "white supremacist". I also point out that the Wikipedia entry itself states that the Red Shirts had one goal "the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans". The editor agtx took offence to my changing "white supremacist" to "Democrat" based on historical fact, claiming my use was pejorative. I hold that using the term "white supremacist" about a Southern political group is far more "pejorative" and much less accurate. I provided the text of Drago's work, which is referenced in the "Further reading" section of the entry, but was told that that was not good enough proof. Agtx provided two footnotes as "proof" that the claim of "white supremacy" is correct. However, I would point out that the 2 footnotes are from scources that have a heavy anti-Southern bias, and one was in fact an op ed opinion piece written about Washigton DC monuments in the wake of the Charleston Church Shootings of 2015. I take issue that a long standing historical work on the subject was snubbed in favour of biased pieces that just happen to support the side of these two editors. I suggested that the "white supremacist" qualifier be replaced with either "Democrat" or "paramilitary groups, made up of both blacks and whites", to possibly satisfy all. The harrasment continued, got nastier, so I turned it over for moderation.KAvin (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

It appears that the area of disagreement has to do with the term "white supremacist". Is that the crux of the disagreement? It appears that there is agreement that the Red Shirts were pro-Democratic and anti-Republican and are considered to have been a paramilitary organization. Is there agreement that they sometimes engaged in violence?

(I will comment that what is considered pejorative is the use of the word 'Democrat' as an adjective, because the proper adjective is 'Democratic', and that the name of the party is 'Democratic Party'. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, I will not allow the use of a non-standard pejorative adjective when there is a standard adjective, while I am the moderator. Whether the term "white supremacist is pejorative is not the issue.)

Is there a reason why the presence of some freed slaves in the Red Shirts precludes their having been "white supremacist"? Didn't some African-Americans acquiesce in white domination?

I will comment that two of the three above statements still contain too much commenting on contributors. Comment on content. Is "white supremacist" the key issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

KAvin

Yes, my problem with the article is the use of the term "white supremacist". I did not use the term "Democratic" to describe the Red Shirts, to differentiate the party they supported from the Democratic party of the 20th Century. If you feel that "Democratic paramilitary groups" is the proper terminology, that is fine with me. My intention in using "Democrat" was not in a pejorative manner on my part. Sorry for any confusion.The scources i have noted here, 2 of which are "First Generation" which is considered the "gold standard" for proof of historical subjects by historical groups, museums, and professors. These sources have, however been snubbed by these two editors for more modern interpretations, in my view, because the modern interpretations fit more with their view on what is proper, whether it is based in fact or not. The bottom line is that the Red Shirts were formed to return rule to the Democratic party and take it from the Republicans who had ruled the South with an iron fist throughout Reconstruction. They were not formed to set up "white supremacy", as the other editors contend. That is simply assumption on their parts. The First Generation documents from the 1870's however, clearly state their sole purpose as being the installation of the Democratic Party, and the ouster of the Republicans.KAvin (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

North Shoreman

Use of the term "white supremacist" is the crux of the disagreement, but the discussion has to be centered on what the reliable sources say. The Red Shirts were pro-Democratic and anti-Republican and paramilitary is a proper description. The Red Shirts often engaged in violence and intimidation.

The moderator asks, "Is there a reason why the presence of some freed slaves in the Red Shirts precludes their having been 'white supremacist'"? The best answer is that I haven't seen a reliable source that says so. In fact, the three scholarly book reviews of Drago's work I provided show the exact opposite and demonstrate that Drago was putting the limited black participation into the context of a white supremacist movement. KAvin has failed to rebut these reviews.

A recent biography of Hampton by Rod Andrew Jr. (a professor at Clemson) gives a nuanced view of Hampton's racial attitudes, but they were all based on "the assumption of white supremacy and/or leadership by elites (p.xiv)." There is no question that throughout the South the so-called redemption efforts achieved the goal of whites at the top and blacks at the bottom -- this is the definition of white supremacy no matter how much paternalism defenders try to claim existed.

The 1876 biography listed by KAvin as a source is questionable. Much of the history of Reconstruction through the Dunning era is itself based on Lost Cause rhetoric and an acceptance of white supremacy. KAvin provides a quote from a third source that is not on point.

A better source is "Religion, Gender, and the Lost Cause in South Carolina's 1876 Governor's Race: "Hampton or Hell!" by W. Scott Poole (College of Charleston) in The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Aug., 2002), pp. 573-598. Poole speaks of Hampton's "white supremacist paternalism" and his concept of it"as both biracial and white supremacist". Similar thoughts are found in "Two Roads Tried: And One Detour" by Lewis P. Jones of Wofford College in Spartanburg in The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 79, No. 3 (Jul., 1978), pp. 206-218. Jones states that "phrases as 'white supremacy' were muted although all Democrats were committed to it." Martin Gary, the actual leader of the Red Shirts, feuded with Hampton over leadership and actually "charged Hampton with infidelity to the party and thereby not being sufficiently devoted to white supremacy."

So, while KAvin can question the existing sources, there are more than enough from scholarly writings to support use of the phrase "white supremacy". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

PS After reading Agtx's response below, I went to the site of the encyclopedia and found that searching for the term "white supremacy" produced 33 different page hits -- all within the context of this either being the goal or result of white southern opposition to Reconstruction. Interestingly the intro to the book is by Eric Foner, probably the most influential historian writing about Reconstruction. Foner in the introduction to his own work "Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877" states that "home rule" was othing but "a euphemism for white supremacy" (pp. xix-xx). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
PS I noticed that KAvin edited his above response after others had responded. He should be directed to WP:REDACT in order to make it clear what he did.
The comments he added included, "The scources i have noted here, 2 of which are "First Generation" which is considered the "gold standard" for proof of historical subjects by historical groups, museums, and professors." The fact is that rather than primary sources, wikipedia relies on secondary sources -- see WP:ANALYSIS for our policy. This states, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." It also warns (see WP:PRIMARY), "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 6 October 2016 about 11:04 a.m.
So, Wikipedia's policy is to ignore primary scource material in favour of the opinions of others on a subject they themselves did not witness first hand?? I am sorry if this offends anyone, but that seems very backwards to me. I have aquiesced that the qualifier "Democratic" paramilitary group would be a more appropriate and historically correct description of this group. However, the two editors that have taken exception to my editing out the qualifier "white supremacist" and replacing it with "Democratic" seems to harbour a very anti Southern (focusing particularly on the WBTS and Reconstruction era's)viewpoint, by snubbing first person accounts which speak to the enviroment in which these organizations were formed, in favour of a modern, more politically correct definition of these groups, heavily steeped in pejorative bias. I also point out that in North Shoreman's above post concerning my footnotes, he claims that my third footnote "is not on point.", yet later uses the reference to support his position when he found entries that supported his view. I am sorry, but I find this behaviour far from being "unbiased".KAvin (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion on what is "backwards" notwithstanding, the policy is what it is and your editing should conform to it.
Your use of "very anti Southern" to characterize other editors shows your own bias. There is more to the South that white civil war reenactors who put great importance on their ancestors honor in fighting a war to preserve slavery and white supremacy. Perhaps you failed to note that many of the sources I've referenced come from South Carolinians. Your lame attacks on current scholarship as "politically correct" also notwithstanding, the Lost Cause interpretation of history is on its last legs, even in the South.
I didn't claim your third source was "not on point" -- I claimed that the quote you cherry picked from it was not on point since it didn't address the issue of white supremacy at all. I used other entries from the work to demonstrate that, just as you did with the Drago source, your take on what sources say can't be taken at face value. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tom, you are very insulting and extremely aggressive with people that don't seem to see "eye to eye" with your bias, so I will leave it to the moderator to decide if "white supremacist" should be replaced with "Democratic". I really have nothing more to say to you on this subject. Take care.KAvin (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

agtx

"White supremacist" is the crux of the disagreement. The Red Shirts were certainly violent and run by Democrats against Republicans, and I don't think paramilitary group is inaccurate. If we wanted to add to the first sentence that they were related to the Democratic Party, I'd have no problem with that, although I might then reword the rest of the paragraph so it didn't get too repetitive. More than sometimes, the Red Shirts often engaged in violence, specifically violence directed at blacks.

I do not think that the presence of freed slaves in the Red Shirts precludes their having been white supremacist. Actually, although this is synthesis and not a good cite for a Wikipedia article, the Encyclopedia of the Reconstruction Era piece that Kavin cites supports that view. They encouraged Red Shirt groups composed of black members. The black members wouldn't have been in the white groups, of course, because the Red Shirts were white supremacists and opposed mixing races. The article also says that there was effectively no difference between the actions of the Red Shirts and those of the first iteration of the Ku Klux Klan, which I hope we can all agree was definitely a white supremacist group. All in all, every source I've seen supports this characterization. agtx 05:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement 2.5 by moderator

I forgot to state one of the usual ground rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. We have already seen that that does not work. Address your comments to the moderator and the community, not to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

The only issue appears to be whether the word "white supremacist" should be used in the lede sentence as it currently is. The alternative that has been proposed is to designate the Red Shirts as "pro-Democratic", "anti-Republican", or both. Are the editors who think that the Red Shirts were white supremacist willing to accept the omission of that word from the lede, but to state in the body of the article that some historians (with reliable sources) have characterized them as white supremacist? Moving that from the lede into an attributed statement in the body seems like the most obvious compromise. Is that agreeable? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Do not reply to the statements of other editors, and do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator as the representative of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

North Shoreman

The language "some historians have characterized them as white supremacist" should not appear in this article. No historian that I am aware of denies that white supremacy applies -- using "some" minimizes what appears to be a broadly based consensus among historians. While historians of the last 60 years or so may put more emphasis on it, many (if not most) of the Dunning School and their predecessors also acknowledge the role of white supremacy -- the only difference is that the latter considered it a good thing because of their belief that blacks were not capable of participating in government on an equal basis with whites.

I can't imagine how white supremacy can be eliminated from the lede. From WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." There are already nine references to white supremacy in the body of the article, but these should be expanded, especially with reference to the 1876 election.

If you want some sort of compromise, it would certainly be acceptable to explain in the body of the article that the were black Red Shirts w/o including the OR that is being pushed by KAvin. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

KAvin

I think the "Pro-Democratic" qualifier is an acceptable replacement for "white supremacist", as it defines the stated goal of which these Red Shirt groups were formed. This is covered historically since their inception, even in the entry itself, so I believe that would be the best compromise. Also, I have no other issues with the entry. Thank you.

Btw, I am in SC and we are getting hit by Hurricane Matthew right now, so I may lose power, but will try my best to respond promptly to the discussion, but beg a bit of patience in case I have to go "off grid", lol. Take care all.KAvin (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

agtx

I understand and respect the moderator's attempts to work towards a compromise here, but this one isn't going to work. What you've proposed 1) takes an accurate description out of the lede that lends important context to the article and 2) gives WP:UNDUE weight to a view that there are absolutely no reliable sources to support. By reducing it to "some historians" and burying the term in the article, we effectively accept the contrary view, which, again, there are no sources to support. Every source we've looked at indicates that the Red Shirts were primarily interested in making sure that whites continued to dominate Southern political life. Two specifically use the word white supremacy, not in a "some historians believe" sense, but in an unqualified sense. We've seen no sources that say "well, wait, hold on a minute, actually these groups did not believe that white people were better than black people."

If the term "white supremacy" is a problem, perhaps we can describe them as "similar to the Ku Klux Klan" or "holding views similar to the Ku Klux Klan." There's a source to support that (the encyclopedia Kavin cited) and I think that conveys much the same information. Further, they're already contrasted with the Klan later in the introduction. agtx 15:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator

It appears that some editors say that the term "white supremacist" must be in the lede sentence, and that at least one editor takes issue. One editor has suggested a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan. I see two ways forward. First, some compromise wording can be found, which might be a comparison to the Ku Klux Klan, or the use of the term "pro-Democratic" in the lede, with a reference to white supremacism in the body of the article. (I will note that it is only in the second half of the twentieth century and in the twenty-first century that the term "white supremacy" has been considered negative. The phrase was used proudly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.) The second possibility is a Request for Comments. Will all of the editors, first, list all possible proposed compromises, and, second, indicate whether they will agree to an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

KAvin

I would be fine with replacing "white supremacist" in the lede sentence with "pro-Democratic" or "anti-Republican", or "Democratic groups made up of black and white members..." I believe that these descriptions cover the defining goal of the Red Shirts, and their opposition to Republican rule in favour of "self rule"(by Democrats) for the Southern states. To me, it clarifies that the Red Shirts were not simply formed to supress black citizens, but to prevent white or black Republicans from maintaining the control they wielded during Reconstruction. I am also in favour of having a Request for Comments if that is the way we should go. BTW, looks like we missed the worst of the hurricane where I am at, so I should be able to participate unhindered. Take care.KAvin (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

North Shoreman

Anybody can file an Rfc anytime they want. I'm not sure what purpose it would serve -- I can't remember an Rfc where a consensus developed favoring an unsourced opinion over clearly sourced material. I'm not sure how you word an Rfc over an expression in the lede when the words are used throughout the article and the alternative theory, presented as the ONLY ACCEPTABLE THEORY by KAvin, isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Isn't the logical implication of KAvin's position that white supremacy be totally eliminated from the article?

A better solution might be to go to Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard and offer the various sources offered by KAvin as reliable for the claim that white supremacy was not a goal in 1876 South Carolina or the other places and times listed in the article. The moderator has been around long enough to know that KAvin's position has no support whatsoever in wikipedia guidelines and policies -- in addition to those that I've previously directed KAvin to, his whole position turns WP:UNDUE totally on its head. I think some further effort here to allow the one-issue newby to realize the error of his ways might be in order if guided there by the moderator. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

PS The third paragraph of the lede already compares the Red Shirts to the KKK so I'm not sure how much of a compromise making a further reference to it is. In fact, the article really doesn't explain (either in the lede or the body of the article) the many valid comparisons. Like the KKK, the Red Shirts engaged in terrorism but neither the lede or the body of the article use the word. As George Rable writes in his book "But There Was No Peace", "In many ways the whole subject of political terrorism has been and remains important for understanding the course of Reconstruction, and it continues to receive attention in more general works on the period as well as in American history textbooks." We should probably clarify in the current lede's third paragraph that terrorism is part of the KKK comparison. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

agtx

I would be ok with either "white supremacist" or "similar to the Ku Klux Klan." The solution by which we don't refer to anything of the sort in the lede and then put it in the article is unacceptable and against policy per WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. I haven't yet heard any other possibilities that would be acceptable. If we really need to have an RFC on this, I suppose we can. agtx 14:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator

There doesn't seem to be a compromise in the works, but I will again ask whether there is another compromise proposal. I don't see "similar to the Ku Klux Klan" as solving anything, since it is less straightforward than "white supremacist". I see that we can leave it at "white supremacist" or change it to "pro-Democratic and anti-Republican", and I don't see a middle ground. Does anyone have a middle ground? Otherwise, since the lede currently says "white supremacist", an RFC can be used as to whether to retain that or change it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors

agtx

With folks as firmly entrenched as they seem to be, I don't see a middle ground. agtx 15:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

KAvin

I still believe that "pro-Democratic" or "anti-Republican" would be a much more apt and correct qualifier than tagging the Red Shirts as simply being "white supremacist". As Robert has referenced, their methods of using violence to obtain their goal of Democratic self rule, by the ouster of Republican politicians and puppets, is already stated in the article many times. I believe that by labeling them as simply "white supremacist", the article does not adequately express the nuances of the political landsacpe of the post-Reconstruction South. I believe by leaving the "white supremacist" qualifier in the opening sentence, the article misleads a reader to the assumption that the Red Shirt movement was "just another Ku Klux Klan", which historically and factually, is not the case.KAvin (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

North Shoreman

Of course "Democratic" and "Republican" are mentioned in both the 2nd sentence of the first paragraph as well as in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lede. Any reader has plenty of info to realize which political parties were involved. If more "nuance" is required it should probably be pointed out that it was the Democratic Party, and not just their military arm, that was white supremacist. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator

I see that the use of the term "white supremacist" in the lede is supported by two reliable sources. Is the objection to the use of this term based on thinking that the use of the term gives undue emphasis to those sources, to the idea that the term misrepresents the sources, that the term is pejorative (although it was used proudly in the late nineteenth century), or for some other reason? The reason for the objection may help to formulate a compromise, or may be useful in formulating a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

KAvin

As the article is written now, by describing the Red Shirts as "white supremacist", it leads the reader of the article to believe that the only goal of the Red Shirts was to supress non-whites, which is simply and historically not the case. The Red Shirts were a legal political party that worked to elect Democratic candidates. No where is it stated, in reputable primary or secondary sources, that they were simply a "white supremacist" group, other than here in this article. My objection to the "white supremacy" phrase being used in the lede sentence has always been my issue with this, as it oversimplifies a political group who was trying to rebuild its communities and return to self rule after federal occupation under Reconstruction. This was their stated goal. As I have stated before, changing the phrase "white supremacist" to "Democratic" would clear things up in the opening sentence. If the remainder of the article references "white supremacy", that would be correct in my opinion. KAvin (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

North Shoreman

If sourcing is a problem, I've listed four more scholarly ones at my second statement above and can easily come up with more. There are so many more problems with the article than this single phrase that perhaps the better course is to start rewriting and restructuring the article with more attention to the background leading to the formation of Red Shirts and the sourcing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

agtx

From my perspective, two reliable sources support the use of the phrase and zero reliable sources counsel against it. agtx 17:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator

We appear to be at an impasse. I will be closing this thread within 24 hours. If anyone wants help in formulating a neutral RFC, you may make a request to that effect here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors

KAvin

So, if no one else chimes in, the incorrect qualifer of "white supremacist" stays, in lieu of the more correct qualifier of "Democratc"?? Is that how this "works", Robert? If so, I would like to form an independant RFC to see what others outside of us three think about the change I have proposed.KAvin (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)KAvinKAvin (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Robert Niter

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User: Lemongirl942 and User: Black Kite seemed to have collaborated together in deleting the article for Robert Niter. Lemongirl942 violated Wikipedia's standards by initially removing content from the article to impair notability (competition history, published book content, stats). The editor then placed "5" tags on the article and exercised "overtagging" which was clearly a violation of Wikipedia. The editor made accusations of paid services without any evidence. The user: Lemongirl942 then expressed that they are almost certain that the article was paid service on User: Black Kite talk page. User Black Kite also updated the 2nd nomination Afd as "delete" when it was "keep" although it clearly reads "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page." 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Niter_(2nd_nomination)

Both editors were clearly in violation of Wikipedia's standards and I am requesting a higher echelon of resolution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried utilizing Wikipedia's guidelines in all cases to educate editors on processes. However, the editors seemed to act solely off opinions, hidden agendas or unsupportive claims that led up to deletion for the page: Robert Niter

How do you think we can help?

Request restoration of the article in question for Robert Niter. Educate wiki editors of proper guidelines in remaining unbiased, non opinionated and adhere to Wikipedia's policies in the performance of any action on Wikipedia. Request page block for editors Black Kite and Lemongirl942 for article Robert Niter.

Summary of dispute by Rniterjr; Black Kite; Lemongirl942

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert Niter&action=edit&redlink=1 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of_Republicans_opposing_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Notability_for_Trump_Surrogates

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Editors keep section blanking contributions by other editors without consensus or discussion

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried discussing this on the talk page, individuals seem to not want to participate and just continue section blanking

How do you think we can help?

As its on a politcal topic I believe having third parties review and discuss can help.

Summary of dispute by Therequiembellishere

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

I'm just going to re-post what I put on the talk, if that's alright.

These are low-to-mid-level campaign staff who don't meet a shred of the notability criteria for their own pages beyond this one event, and inclusion is not a two-way street. They have to be notable in their own right. They aren't. When high-level staff (Kushner, Manafort, Lewandowski, Conaway's "unless...") and/or surrogates (Giulliani, Huckabee, Priebus, Pence, Hastert) disavow him, we'll have to negotiate where they go. But not if they should be here, because these figures obviously would be. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AndyAnderson

The page, from its inception, has had a notability requirement that individuals have their own Wikipedia entry (which is also in use by similar pages such as the list of Trump endorsers). Zlassiter ignored this requirement and so his entries were reversed and an explanation provided. He immediately reversed these reversals rather than bringing it to the Talk page for discussion. The only section that was removed was the one that had no listings after the non-notable individuals were removed (they actually disappear with the reversal of the first edit in the series). Theoallen1 finally brought a request to change the policy to the Talk page only 13 hours ago. A discussion is ongoing there, contrary to Zlassiter’s statement “individuals seem to not want to participate”, but has not reached a conclusion. Nevertheless, Zlassiter doesn’t seem willing to wait, they continue to try to add these same entries to the page and has now started this premature dispute resolution request. — Andy Anderson 06:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Theoallen1

I fully agree with this requirement, but I was specifically referring to a Trump surrogate. If a person who is paid by Donald Trump for President renounces him or is on an advisory counsel to Trump (such as the 13 person economic team or the Hispanic Advisory Counsel). I concur in this expansion.

Talk:List of_Republicans_opposing_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Notability_for_Trump_Surrogates discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but for less than 24 hours. The other editors have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but am suggesting further discussion on the article talk page. Also, the parties are advised that discretionary sanctions apply to disruptive editing, so be civil and discuss differences collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Dartford Crossing#Content_dispute

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The article has numerous issues as I have detailed, but the person claiming to be the primary author disagrees, and is adamant that the article has had a proper, thorough review. They claim that as these issues were not raised, they must not exist. In at least one case, I have found that to be untrue - it seems more likely to me that the primary author has simply ground opposers down until they acquiesced, throwing them a bone of compromise by agreeing to trivial changes that nobody would realistically object to, and I suspect that is what he is trying to do now.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talking to them, including through making reference to the nature of Wikipedia, other Wikipedia articles, and basic common sense.

How do you think we can help?

Provide an unbiased opinion on the issues of substance, in an environemnt that accepts that primary authors have no more claim over the content of articles than people who are new to them, and that accepts that just because an issue has seemingly not been noticed by others, does not mean it does not exist and cannot be discussed with the aim of extracting explicit support for a position.

Summary of dispute by Ritchie333

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

The filer, Clarion Collar has been blocked indefinitely by a checkuser. In terms of content, I think Martin said the organisation was a matter of views, but there's not really any consensus to change the status quo from anyone else, so we can probably close this. If somebody wants to pick out any genuinely salient points from CC about content, I'm perfectly amenable to listen. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I've put some suggestions on the talk page. I took one suggestion for cutting redundant text on board and copyedited a little more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Dartford Crossing#Content_dispute discussion

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

Volunteer Note: Hello, before I can review your case, please provide summary statements to your file. WebCite (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC) If you're talking to me, I was under the impression my summary was part of the original submission - "Dispute Overview" is my summary, no? Clarion Collar (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Volunteer note - There has been considerable discussion on the article talk page by three editors, including the two listed. The filing party has not listed a third editor, and has not notified the other editors on their talk pages. (Notification on the article talk page, while useful, does not satisfy the requirement.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ivo Andri%C4%87

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The users Zoupan,23 editor continuously remove sourced input from the article on Ivo Andric. He thinks that the input aims at defaming the biography, while I am simply providing a direct phrasing of multiple reliable sources, including manuscripts from the very same person of the article.

Ivo Andric has expressed nationalistic views and openly advocated the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians, in his work Draft on Albania, 1939, while he was an ambassador. There is not mentioning about it currently in the article. I edit the fact together with multiple reliable sources backing up the input. 31.18.254.94 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Informed the editors, but got no useful response. They did not discuss the matter, neither provided sources to back up their stance, but simply accused me of trying to defame the biography.

How do you think we can help?

You can have a look and try to verify the sources.

Summary of dispute by Zoupan

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

The IP pops up from nowhere and ref-bombs the introduction with defamatory content "Andrić was known for his ultra nationalistic views, in particular as a public supporter of the forceful ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians", sourced from Albanian or pro-Albanian refs, bare links. I have not find any reliable source claiming that Andrić was an "ultra-nationalist". Andrić did indeed, in a 1939 text, propose the partition of northern Albania in order to further secure Yugoslavia from the Axis, and then mentioned the possible deportation of Kosovo Muslim Albanians to Turkey (a strategic move done throughout the Balkans with Ottoman orchestrating). Due or undue, the article is GA, and the user was asked to start a discussion at the talk page, but continued to edit-war.--Zoupan 22:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 23 editor

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

Ivo Andri%C4%87 discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2016 India-Pakistan military confrontation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

2016 India-Pakistan military confrontation is a highly contentious topic with claims and counterclaims by India and Pakistan. Their respective national media have been toeing their government line and there is a huge amount of propaganda and misinformation on both sides. To avoid the problems of these souces, I polished a section titled the "Surgical strike" claim [5], which was right at the top of the article, using reliable WP:THIRDPARTY sources. Vice regent moved the section down and reorganised it [6] so that pretty much none of the original content remains in it. Telling him that he does not have the consensus for this reorganisation did not help. It appears that he does not see the value of using WP:THIRDPARTY sources (point, counterpoint).

Note added: The issue has not been discussed enough on the talk page, going by normal standards. Since Vice regent hasn't addressed any of the points made here and keeps defending his edits, there is no choice but to come to dispute resolution.

Further note: Vice regent finally states (for the firs time) that he believes in WP:THIRDPARTY sources. If he accepts to reinstate the "Surgical strikes" claim section sourced to THIRDPARTY sources, we can close this case. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

After several days, Vice regent made no response to the above question. So I am going to reinstate the deleted content. Let us hold the case for a couple of days to see what happens. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The non-filing-party has just reverted my reinstatement. So it is clear that there is a dispute. Can we have the discussion please? It is a bit tiresome to keep edit-warring. As I have said below the purpose of the case is to decide whether the original section should remain or it is unnecessary. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion, one revert, and a ping to RegentsPark, the admin enforcing editing restrictions on the page.

How do you think we can help?

Decide whether the original section should remain in place or whether it is unnecessary.


Summary of dispute by Vice regent

I'm kinda surprised to see our discussion here. I actually do not feel that the "dispute" has been sufficiently discussed on the talk page. I know that Kautilya was unhappy about my edits, but he failed to specify what exactly he didn't like. He said I removed sourced content. So I asked him to specify the exact content I had removed. I didn't get a response. I asked him again. This time he responded, but again failed to specify exactly which sentences I had removed. So I went ahead and posted a detailed comparison of the two versions, asking once again to specify what is the sourced content that I allegedly removed.

Once Kautilya specifies what he believes is the sourced content I removed, we have three options: 1) I apologize for my mistake and restore that content. 2) I successfully convince Kautilya that that content was removed appropriately. 3) We have a genuine dispute for which we need a resolution.

But at this point, I feel that posting here is pre-mature. (Oh, and the "overview" given above is pretty biased. I agree that third party sources are good and have used them in the article.)VR talk 05:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't respond to that comment since I didn't see it. I'm not even sure this is the right section for us to be debating.
Kautilya3 wants to reinstate the "surgical strikes claim" section. But this has nothing to do with THIRDPARTY sources. All the content in that section is already mentioned elsewhere in the article. On 8 October, I showed this in great detail on the article's talk page, but the above user didn't even bother to respond. Can we at least agree this is an organizational issue or paraphrasing issue and has nothing to do with THIRDPARTY sources? If Kautilya disagrees with my statement, its up to him to show exactly what content I'm removing from the article. Again, as I've shown, I'm merely re-organizing the content, not removing it.VR talk 19:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


2016 India-Pakistan military confrontation discussion

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

First statement by volunteer moderator

I will be accepting this case for moderated discussion. Here are a few ground rules. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. The purpose of this discussion is as an alternative to edit-warring. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to talk about the other editors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion or respond to the other editor here. That has already been tried, and has not been productive. Address your comments to the moderator and the community. I expect every editor to check on this discussion at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions within 48 hours. I do not claim any special knowledge about the conflict, and I expect the participants to provide me with any required verifiable background knowledge. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, a reminder: The editors are reminded that disruptive editing is subject to discretionary sanctions. This should not be a problem if you are civil and you comment on content rather than contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

Kautilya3

I understand that we are not to discuss the process or conduct, just the merits/demerits of the issue, viz., whether the "Surgical strikes" claim section should remain in place. But one bit of the process is important, viz., that the section was present, essentially from the beginning, e.g., in this version on 30 september. Vice regent removed it on 5 October. The justification given on the talk page is: I'm making edits, so that that the "Timeline" section can be kept for what India and Pakistan both claim happened. The "surgical strikes" section, can be reserved for various arguments India and Pakistan give to support their side of the story. But what "India and Pakistan both claim happened" is what was described in the deleted section, and it was sourced to WP:THIRDPARTY sources: BBC, NYT etc. This section is the key information. It cannot be deleted.

The Timeline section, an idea of Vice regent's, describes various media reports culled from unofficial sources. By no means can they be called what "India and Pakistan both claim happened". This section is peppered throughout with phrases like "Indian officials said", "An Indian security source said", "according to army sources" etc. These are all unofficial sources. Much of it could be true, and much of it could be false. We simply have no idea. It is wrong to call any of this an "Indian" claim. To give an example, some source said that the Indian forces crossed the border in helicopters. The next day an Indian minister said that wasn't the case. So the reliability of these reports is highly suspect.

As far as I am concerned, the "Surgical strikes" claim section is information. The Timeline section is misinformation, or at best unconfirmed reports. The two should not be mixed together. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Vice regent

I believe the dispute is over these two versions: Kautilya's preferred version, My preferred Version.

My main reason for preferring my version are:

  • Kautilya's version has a lot of duplicated material. I did a sentence by sentence analysis here. This shows that everything in the "Surgical strikes claim" section is present in other sections in the article. My version removes nothing from Kautilya's version (unless it was state two or more times).
  • My version is more organized: it first states what various sources state what happened, then goes into reactions (including the debate on the surgical strikes). Kautilya's version first states what happened as well as the reactions (in the Surgical Strikes claim section), then again repeats what happened (in the Timeline section) and then repeats the reactions (in the Media reports and Reactions section).
  • There are repetitions in Kautilya's version that I believe constitute WP:UNDUE. For example, the first paragraph says "The Indian action was meant to pre-empt their [terrorists'] infiltration. India presented its operation as preemptive self-defence against terrorism." Why is that sentence repeated two times in a row? It constitutes WP:UNDUE because it's trying to advocate a particular POV. I agree that all views should be given coverage, but we should not repeat something various times to hammer a point.

I have delibertely not responded to what Kautilya said above because I was asked not to. VR talk 20:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

Okay. Both statements are long. Let's get this shorter. It appears that the primary issue is the wording of the lede paragraph. Are there any other areas? Will each editor please provide me with their proposed wording of the lede paragraph, below? No diffs, just the actual proposed wording, preferably in some sort of a box. If there are any other issues, please state what they are. For now, don't tell me why you think your version is better, just what you want it to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

Kautilya3

No, there are no issues with the lead paragraph at the moment. The issues are with the section "Surgical strikes" claim. The version you find on the article at the moment is almost my preferred version. With minor clean-up I reproduce it below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Surgical strike" claim

On 29 September, eleven days after the Uri attack, the Indian army said it had conducted "surgical strikes" against suspected militants in Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lt Gen Ranbir Singh said that it had received "very credible and specific information" about "terrorist teams" who were preparing to "carry out infiltration and conduct terrorist strikes inside Jammu and Kashmir and in various metros in other states". The Indian action was meant to pre-empt their infiltration.[1][2] India presented its operation as preemptive self-defence against terrorism, striking against terrorist infrastructure along with "those who are trying to support them", which according to the columnist possibly included Pakistani soldiers or the elements of Pakistani state.[3] On 30 September, Indian minister for information and broadcasting Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore clarified that there were no aerial strikes and that the operation was conducted "on the ground".[4]

Ranbir Singh said that his Pakistani counterpart had been informed.[5] The Pakistani military said the DGMO communications only discussed the cross-border firing, which was part of the existing rules of engagement.[6]

Pakistan denied that such surgical strikes occurred. The Inter-Services Public Relations said that there had only been "cross border firing".[3] However, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif condemned the "unprovoked and naked aggression of Indian forces", which he said resulted in the death of two Pakistani soldiers.[7][8]

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said that the UN Observer Group in Pakistani Kashmir did not directly observed any "firing across the Line of Control" relating to the incident.[9]

Analyst Sandeep Singh, writing in The Diplomat, said that the operation is better characterised as a cross-border raid because "surgical strikes" involve striking deep into the enemy territory typically using air power.[10]

References

  1. ^ "Kashmir attack: India 'launches strikes against militants'". BBC News. 29 September 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016.
  2. ^ Ellen Barry; Salman Masood (29 September 2016), "India Claims 'Surgical Strikes' in Pakistani-Controlled Kashmir", The New York Times, retrieved 1 October 2016
  3. ^ a b Ankit Panda (29 September 2016), "Indian Forces Cross Line of Control to Carry Out 'Surgical Strikes': First Takeaways", The Diplomat, retrieved 1 October 2016
  4. ^ "Rathore rules out use of copters, aerial strikes". The Hindu. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  5. ^ Miglani, Sanjeev; Hashim, Asad (29 September 2016). "India says hits Pakistan-based militants, escalating tensions". Reuters. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
  6. ^ "India says raid across LOC hit Pakistan-based militants; Pakistan denies raid occured". CNBC. 29 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  7. ^ Annie Gowen; Shaiq Hussain (29 September 2016), "India claims 'surgical strikes' against militants in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir", The Washington Post, retrieved 1 October 2016
  8. ^ Harsh V. Pant (5 October 2016), "South Asia's New Strategic Reality", The Diplomat, retrieved 5 October 2016
  9. ^ UN chief Ban Ki-moon offers to mediate between India, Pakistan, Hindustan Times, 1 October 2016.
  10. ^ Sandeep Singh (5 October 2016), "India's Surgical Strikes: Walking Into Pakistan's Trap?", The Diplomat, retrieved 15 October 2016
Vice regent

The issue is not with the lede paragraph, but the rest of the article. As I mentioned in my first statement, my issue is with how the article is organized as a whole. In the version I prefer, this is how the Timeline and Surgical strikes section go (with Timeline coming first).

Timeline

28-29 September

India claimed to have made "surgical strikes" against militant bases in Pakistani-held territory on September 29, claiming to have killed 9 Pakistani soldiers and up to 50 militants.[1] Pakistan said no such strikes occurred, only that Indian soldiers fired upon Pakistani soldiers, who then fired back.[2] Pakistan claimed two of its soldiers were killed, and that it had killed 8-14 Indian soldiers and captured one.[2] India said one soldier had been injured, though none had been killed, and acknowledged that one soldier was captured by Pakistan, though not during its "surgical strikes."[3]

Indian version

Indian officials said the strike targeted areas close to the Line of Control, where it believes militants congregate for their final briefings before sneaking across the LoC. An Indian security source said the operation began with Indian forces firing artillery across the frontier to provide cover for three to four teams of 70-80 commandos from 4 and 9 Para (Special Forces) to cross the LoC over at several separate points shortly after midnight IST on 29 September (18:30 hours UTC, 28 Sep). Teams from 4 Para SF crossed the LoC in the Nowgam sector of Kupwara district, with teams from 9 Para SF simultaneously crossing the LoC in Poonch district.[4][3] By 2 a.m. IST, according to army sources, the special forces teams had travelled 1–3 km on foot, and had begun destroying the terrorist bases with hand-held grenade and 84 mm rocket launchers. The teams then swiftly returned to the Indian side of the Line of Control, suffering only one casualty, a soldier wounded after tripping a land mine.[4]

Indian army said the strike was a pre-emptive attack on militants bases, claiming that it had received intelligence that the militants were planning "terrorist strikes" against India.[5][6] India said that, in destroying "terrorist infrastructure" it also attacked "those who are trying to support them", indicating it attacked Pakistani soldiers too.[7] India later briefed opposition parties and foreign envoys, but did not disclose operational details.[3]

Some Indian media claimed that the Indian army infiltrated 2–3 km into Pakistani territory,[8] but the Indian army did not say whether its troops crossed the border or had simply fired across it.[5] India said that none of its soldiers were killed, though one was injured. India said that one of its soldiers, from 37 Rashtriya Rifles, was captured by Pakistan after he "inadvertently crossed over to the Pakistan side", though not during its "surgical strikes."[9]

Initially, Indian media claimed that the army used helicopters during the skirmish. On September 30, an Indian minister denied that there were any helicopters used, stating the operation was conducted "on the ground".[10][11]

Pakistani version

Pakistan denied that any surgical strikes occurred. Pakistan's Foreign Office rejected the claim as "baseless" and said India was "deliberately" escalating conflict.[12] The Pakistan Army said that there had only been "cross border firing".[7] Pakistan warned that it would respond militarily should any surgical strike actually occur.[8] The two soldiers killed were identified as Naik Imtiaz and Havildar Jumma Khan.[12]

Pakistani sources reported that up to fourteen Indian soldiers were killed in retaliatory firing and one was captured, Chandu Bablulal Chohan.[2] Pakistan said India was concealing its casualty figures from the cross-border firing.[13]

30 September–4 October

India and Pakistan increased their exchanges of small arms and mortar fire across the Line of Control.[14]

On 1 October, Pakistan said its soldiers had come under fire in Bhimber and they responded to the attack. Indian media stated that Pakistan had started the firing.[15] On 4 October, the Indian Border Security Force said it witnessed Pakistani-operated unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) flying close to the border, presumably to survey Indian positions.[16]

16 October

On October 16, News18 reported that an Indian soldier was killed by Pakistani fire in the Rajouri District of Indian controlled Jammu and Kashmir.[17]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference FE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Haider, Abrar (29 September 2016). "Pakistan captures one Indian soldier, eight killed at LoC overnight". Dawn. Retrieved 29 September 2016.
  3. ^ a b c Miglani, Sanjeev; Hashim, Asad (29 September 2016). "India says hits Pakistan-based militants, escalating tensions". Reuters. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
  4. ^ a b "Inside the strike: Choppers on standby, 70-80 soldiers". The Indian Express. 1 October 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
  5. ^ a b "Kashmir attack: India 'launches strikes against militants'". BBC News. 29 September 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016.
  6. ^ Ellen Barry; Salman Masood . (29 September 2016), "India Claims 'Surgical Strikes' in Pakistani-Controlled Kashmir", The New York Times, retrieved 1 October 2016
  7. ^ a b Ankit Panda (29 September 2016), "Indian Forces Cross Line of Control to Carry Out 'Surgical Strikes': First Takeaways", The Diplomat, retrieved 1 October 2016
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference SSA2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ "Indian Army Says Soldier In Pak Custody Was Not Captured During Surgical Strikes". NDTV.com. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 30 September 2016.
  10. ^ "Rathore rules out use of copters, aerial strikes". The Hindu. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  11. ^ "Backtracking: India says no helicopters used in 'surgical strikes'". Express Tribune. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  12. ^ a b CNN, Juliet Perry. "Pakistan captures Indian soldier in Kashmir". cnn.com. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference ET3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  14. ^ "The aftermath of India's surgical strikes along LoC: A quick timeline". The Indian Express. 3 October 2016. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  15. ^ "India-Pakistan Conflict Live Update: Gunfire Exchange Continues Across LoC, Nuclear-Armed Nations Accuse Each Other Of Provocation".
  16. ^ "Unmanned aerial vehicles seen close to India-Pak border: BSF". Times of India. 4 October 2016. Retrieved 4 October 2016.
  17. ^ http://www.news18.com/news/india/soldier-killed-as-pakistan-violates-ceasefire-in-rajouri-district-of-jk-1302262.html
"Surgical strike" claim

The Indian army said that its Pakistani counterpart had been informed of the surgical strike.[1] The Pakistani military denied the claims saying the DGMO communications only discussed the cross-border firing, which was part of the existing rules of engagement.[1]

Pakistan rejected any claims of casualties or other damage inflicted as a direct result of the surgical strikes. General Ranbir Singh, the Indian Army DGMO, only stated during his press conference on 29 September that the number of casualties inflicted had been "significant."[2] Most accounts in the Indian media varied as to the number of militants killed, with most publications giving estimates of 35 to 50 killed,[3][4] and India Live Today giving an estimate of 50-70 militants killed.[5] On October 9, the Indian army said that it had intercepted radio messages of the Pakistan army and claimed that "around 20" Lashkar-e-Taiba militants had been killed, including at least 10 during the surgical strikes and nine[clarification needed] killed at Balnoi (opposite of Poonch).[6]

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon said that the UN Observer Group in Pakistani Kashmir did not directly observe any "firing across the Line of Control" relating to the incident.[7][8] The Indian envoy at UN Syed Akbaruddin dismissed this statement, saying "facts on the ground do not change whether somebody acknowledges or not."[8]

Media reports

Initially, Indian media reported that helicopters were used to conduct "surgical strikes".[9][10][11] On September 30, Indian Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting, Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, said that the Indian military did not use any helicopters. The Express Tribune said the retraction "cast doubts on the Indian narrative".[12][13]

On October 1, the Pakistani army gave international media outlets including BBC, CNN, VOA, Reuters, AP, AFP and Newsweek a tour of the sites which India claimed to have hit on 29 September.[14] The Pakistan army claimed that had there been a "surgical strike", there would have been more damage. The journalists confirmed that the "area seemed intact", but added that they only saw what the Pakistani army showed them.[15]

On 5 October, The Indian Express stated it had managed to conduct covert interviews with eyewitnesses living across the Line of Control (LoC). The Express claimed that eyewitnesses corroborated the Indian account by describing fire engagements with militants and the destruction of some makeshift buildings that housed militants; but that there was little damage to infrastructure. However, the Express said that according to eyewitness accounts, and classified documents, the number of militants killed was lower than the 38-50 number reported by Indian officials; there were reports that "five, perhaps six" bodies had been trucked out the morning after the raids from Dudhnial (4 km from the LoC), while three or four militants were killed near Khairati Bagh. The Express said that the militants, many of whom belonged to Lashkar-e-Taiba, were caught by surprise. Other accounts reported "fire and explosions" from the east bank of the Neelum River in Athmuqam.[16] Zee News reported the same.[16][17]

On 5 October, India's CNN-News18 claimed that it conducted a "sting operation" where their news correspondent posing as an Inspector General of Police made a phone call to a Superintendent of Police (SP) Ghulam Akbar in Mirpur. In an audio conversation aired on the news channel, a voice claiming to be Akbar reveals details about the military action of 29 September including the places of strikes and the number of Pakistani casualties, quoted as 12 people including 5 military personnel. The voice says that the bodies were said to have been carried away in coffins and buried in the villages, and that an unknown amount of militants ("jihadis") had also died.[18][19][20] On 6 October, Pakistan's Foreign Office said that the voice in the audio conversation did not belong to Ghulam Akbar, and that Akbar had denied the alleged phone conversation. The ministry called the story a fabrication, and hoped that CNN International would take action against its Indian affiliate.[21]

Shawn Snow in The Diplomat questioned the capability of Indian forces to conduct a sophisticated and coordinated attack of such nature. He noted that a cross-border raid was "exceedingly difficult" as Pakistan had highly equipped air defence systems installed along the Indian border, including surface to air missiles.[22]

On 21 September 2016, the Indian publication The Quint published an unconfirmed report that elite soldiers of the Indian Army had crossed the LoC and conducted a raid earlier that day.[23] However, the claim was dismissed as a "disinformation campaign" circulating as part of war rhetoric on social media, and the Indian army rejected the report.[24] The Quint supports its claim by pointing out that PIA had cancelled flights scheduled to land in Gilgit, Skardu and Chitral on 21 September,[25][26] and claims that Pakistan had also declared a no-fly zone over Pakistan-administered Kashmir.[27]

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference says_hits was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference DGMO was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference FE was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference para_commandos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference buries was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Lashkar-e-Taiba suffered maximum damage in surgical strikes". The Indian Express. 9 October 2016.
  7. ^ UN chief Ban Ki-moon offers to mediate between India, Pakistan, Hindustan Times, 1 October 2016.
  8. ^ a b India snubs UN for saying didn’t ‘observe’ LoC firing, The Indian Express, 2 October 2016.
  9. ^ "Surgical strikes in PoK: How Indian para commandos killed 50 terrorists, hit 7 camps".
  10. ^ "150 commandos, 90 minutes, 35 militants killed: How Indian Army struck terror camps across LoC".
  11. ^ "4 hours, choppers and 38 kills: How India avenged the Uri attack".
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference backtracking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  13. ^ "So-called surgical strike: Indian farce throws up a few challenges". The Express Tribune.
  14. ^ Farooqui, Tashkeel Ahmed (3 October 2016). "Delhi CM questions authenticity of India's 'surgical strikes' in Pakistan". Express Tribune. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
  15. ^ "Kashmir conflict: Tension on the India Pakistan border".
  16. ^ a b "Surgical strikes: Bodies taken away on trucks, loud explosions, eyewitnesses give graphic details". The Indian Express. 5 October 2016.
  17. ^ "Surgical strikes: Eyewitnesses say Indian Army destroyed terror camps, LeT associated cleric called for revenge", Zee News, 5 October 2016
  18. ^ Surgical strikes: Five Pakistani soldiers among 12 killed, Mirpur SP tells CNN-News18, Firstpost India, 5 October 2016.
  19. ^ "Pakistan admits to surgical strikes by India, names areas of operation", Deccan Chronicle, 5 October 2016
  20. ^ Surgical Strikes: Full Text of Conversation Which Exposes Pakistan's Lies, CNN News18, 5 October 2016.
  21. ^ "PAKISTAN CONDEMNS AIRING OF FAKE PROGRAM BY INDIAN MEDIA". Radio Pakistan.
  22. ^ Snow, Shawn (30 September 2016). "Is India Capable of a Surgical Strike in Pakistan Controlled Kashmir?". The Diplomat. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
  23. ^ * Chandan Nandy, Exclusive: Uri Avenged As Spl Forces Cross LoC, Kill 20 Terrorists, The Quint, 21 September 2016.
  24. ^ "In War Season, Beware Of Disinformation Campaigns". Huffington Post. 22 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
  25. ^ PIA cancels flights to Northern areas due to air space restrictions, The Express Tribune, 21 September 2016.
  26. ^ After Uri, ‘Rumours’ of Attack By India Bring Stocks Down in Pak, The Quint, 22 September 2016.
  27. ^ "Exclusive: Uri Avenged, Army Conducts Surgical Strikes Across LoC". thequint.com.

Third statement by moderator

I realize that what the editors provided is what I had asked, which is their preferred versions of the body of the article. Unfortunately, working out anything as long as the whole body of the article is beyond the usual limits of this noticeboard. I think that this dispute would work better in [WP:RFM|formal mediation]], which may take months. Does either editor have a proposal for an easy-to-describe way to resolve this quickly? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

Vice regent

Kautilya and I have had many disputes before (and are currently having some disputes now). Each time we discuss on the talk page. Often the disputes are resolved through talk page discussion. I actually don't see why this dispute can't be resolved through talk page discussion. And no, we did not have a talk page discussion before coming to WP:DRN. We barely started discussing things when I was abruptly redirected to this DRN.VR talk 16:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Kleuske#Edit_to_.5BBangladeshi_Names.5D

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The editor has started resorting to marginalization, name-calling and otherwise derogatory value-judgements of a real scenario, with statements such as "nationalistic nonsense". I am Bengali. This article is important to me. I have facts and a verifiable passport for the name disambiguation aspect and my grandfather's brother's history of our family - I just don't have access to the written copy - there is only one and it is not electronic. But there has been much else lost in the way of verifiable paper records in 1971 due to the book burnings and record burnings and the general slaughter during that war. Bangladesh did not join the internet until much more recently, so electronic records or "other sources" from a 3rd world nation are few and far between.

I want to have the editor stop minimizing the historical impact of the many lives lost in 1971 - nationalistic nonsense is lost on me because for Bengali's there are only 3 things that are important - language, family and music - so this political attack is beyond me.

AND I want recourse to how to add important information about Bengalis to the correct page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladeshi_name

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for information. I have been verbally beaten down for even stating my case and just given "sayso" rhetoric. And I have not deserved the "nationalistic nonsense" slur. I survived the war.

How do you think we can help?

Get me an apology for marginalizing the suffering of real individuals as nationalistic nonsense.

Get me a way to have the information added with whatever vetting process is required.

Summary of dispute by Kleuske

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

The editor in question is intent on deleting my addition before any users from my country can review or add to it or correct it. My country has massive illiteracy and is still 3rd world and is struggling to become part of the digital age. There is a long oral tradition due to the severity of climate and regular flooding. This is only just now improving. The editor is not from Bangladesh and is simply deleting my adds. I submit freely to review/correction/commentary by my peers. I do not agree with policing my country's history. He does not speak the language and is even telling my the name disambiguation I added was incorrect. 68.49.4.6 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Qauzi S Islam

I think this section is intended to represent my view. The dispute revolves around this edit. I have asked for reliable sources several times, which the OP failed to provide. As a response I got walls of text, in which I'm referred to as "the ruling class of Wikipedia" which is "oppressing" the Bangladeshi. I referred to that as "nationalist nonsense". I suggested a place to source the statements in question and got "Why are you the police of what is real information...?" Kleuske (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Kleuske#Edit_to_.5BBangladeshi_Names.5D discussion

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

The editor is not providing any recourse in the scenario presented: limited access to records, long oral tradition, severe weather related data loss. He is simply sticking to "I can't find a record of it, so it must be untrue". Book burnings and flooding are massive data loss. How do holocaust victims and victims of other natural disasters get their information into an encyclopedia? There has to be a process other than "I can't find a publication" - even an encyclopedia has to have a way to vet information other than written form. Do we need to create a separate encyclopedia for the history of Bangladesh so that Wikipedia will accept it? 68.49.4.6 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S Islam

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iranian rial

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview


I kindly request your help with editing an article that contains inaccurate/misleading information. My problem is the inclusion of Saudi Arabia in a list of countries of "unofficial users" of the Iranian rial. This is both incorrect and misleading. I have tried to edit it out a couple of times, only to have it undone by a user:Pahlevun. In the article he cited as reference, the title and the first sentence explicitly mention:"Money exchange houses in Makkah and Madinah are refusing to accept Iranian rials from Iranian Umrah pilgrims because the value of the currency has fallen drastically." Please note that money changers in Makkah and Madinah are particularly active around the Hajj period, where they convert the various currencies of Muslim-majority countries (including the Iranian rial) to the Saudi riyal, the only legal tender in Saudi Arabia.

It is worth mentioning that the user:Pahlevun does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty) (en-0).

I have deep respect for the Iranian people and people of Iranian descent. However, I can't help but think that user:Pahlevun, an Iranian, is deliberately adding Saudi Arabia (a regional rival and foe of the Iranian regime) to the list of users of the Iranian rial as part of a wider propaganda effort.

I have tried communicating with user:Pahlevun, even though his talk page, but to no avail.

My hope is that Wikipedia be a reliable source of accurate information, free from propaganda and deliberate distortions for geopolitical ends. This is part of the reason I decided to contribute, however little, to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have posted a comment to the talk page of user:Pahlevun, notifying and explaining the edit to the article and providing him the references and facts. He dismissed it completely and removed my edit. He did not even attempt to address my reasoning and was very uncooperative.

How do you think we can help?

I think we need neutral editors to form and join a group discussion that would include Pahlevun, ה-זפר , and myself. In this discussion, each party would offer their input and explain their views. In the end of the discussion, the group would collectively decide how to move forward, with the goal of Wikipedia being a reliable source of accurate information.

Summary of dispute by Pahlevun

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

Summary of dispute by ה-זפר

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

Iranian rial discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:German Brazilians#Figures_of_German_Brazilian

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

User:Thomas.W added two non-Brazilian sources that claimed that the 2000 Brazilian censuses found that 12 million Brazilians claimed German ancestry. He removed the previous source that provided a different figure, 5 million.

The point is: the 2000 Brazilian census DID NOT ask about German ancestry. This theory started in Wikipedia, by IP numbers. I have been reverting them for years, but their theory about the census was spread to other websites and is not back to the article disguised as "reliable source". I asked User:Thomas.W to show where in the Brazilian census they asked about German ancestry, but he said he would not look for it.

Me and another Brazilian user, User:Grenzer22, warned that the Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry and then those sources are wrong. However, User:Thomas.W and User:Iryna Harpy, who happens to be an administrator, are ignoring our advices and are doing everything to keep the wrong figure in the article.

I have included three other reliable (Brazilian) sources that found figures between 3.6 and 7.2 million Brazilians of German descent, including one from Simon Schwartzman, who was the president of IBGE, responsable for the Brazilian census (he found the 3.6% figure). However, User:Iryna Harpy removed all my sources, based on illogical and silly arguments.

Another user, User:Roger 8 Roger, also asked both Iryna Harpy and Thomas.W to show us where in the Brazilian census we can find the German figure, but they said they would not do it. They are also using a touristic propaganda published in London as a "source" for the 12 million figure.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to discuss the problem, but Iryna Harpy is using "rules" of Wikipedia to escape from any rational discussion. If the Brazilian census did not ask about German ancestry, then the sources are wrong. Period.

How do you think we can help?

We need to remove that wrong figure and have a rational discussion. The Brazilian census of 2000 did not ask about German ancestry. If Iryna Harpy and Thomas.W think it did, they have to shows where. If they cannot show us, we must remove the figure. We cannot admit wrong information to be spread.

Summary of dispute by Roger 8 Roger

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

I think the dispute is about the reliability of the 'reliable' sources. I think xuxo has confused matters by giving insisting that, from his personal experience (not good enough) the RS material is wrong, and I think others have incorrectly assumed that this is the dispute (whether xuxo's personal statements can trump RS). If the reliable source material being used (and there is a lot of it) can be shown to be wrong then it is not reliable source material and so would not be protected by WP rules. For example, it is amusing I think that Iryna Harpy is surprised that i do not necessarily accept a print out that has the Brazilian govt's stamp on it. Does that mean that anything put on WP from the Iraqi govt should be taken as gospel? I suggest a solution to this dispute is to find the 12m Germans info from the 2000 census and if it cannot be found then either remove the claim from WP or leave it in place with a clear statement that the 12m figure is not based on verifiable source material.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon. I am concerned the two sides here are not discussing the same issue. One side is saying that the citations claiming 12m Germans are RSs and so must stand unless trumped by better RSs (which they claim have not been provided). They claim this is all in line with the WP way of doing things and they know because they are 'experienced'. The other side, who are 'inexperienced' in the ways of WP, are saying that is irrelevant because the RS's first used have made a mistake and the 12m figure does not exist. Even RS's make mistakes. Therefore the RSs (12m figure) do not need to be trumped because there is nothing to trump. Sometimes a rigid and blinkered approach to dispute resolution can lead to absurdities. This is not a matter of getting better evidence, it's a matter of whether the RSs used have, in this case, made a mistake. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Grenzer22

The sources stating the 12 million figure claim the 2000 Brazilian census would have made questions on German ancestry, which is not true.Grenzer22 (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Iryna Harpy

The discussion can be found on the article's talk page, so I'm not going through this again. We seem to have a couple of editors who have difficulties in understanding what multiple RS means. Given that I haven't encountered any material accusing the Brazilian government of lying about their estimates of ethnic group numbers, and that there aren't challenges to their figures by outraged statisticians, or other governments accusing the Brazilian government of being a part of yet another incarnation of the 'axis of evil', I'm not prepared to discard the well referenced use of 12 million based on JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. As an inexperienced editor, I think Roger 8 Roger has gotten a little overenthusiastic about the heavy burden of editing. There are ample subjects over which consensus needs to be found, and sources carefully parsed... and this is not one of them. I've never had any bad interactions with Xuxo, so I truly don't understand why the stick isn't being dropped. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You're welcome to moderate if you wish. Personally, I don't see that there is any dispute to resolve here as WP:RS and WP:V have been met. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Thomas.W

Xuxo has been repeatedly told that we go by what reliable sources say, nothing else, and that his claims about personally knowing that the Brazilian census of 2000 didn't ask questions about ancestry, which is all he has to refute what the reliable sources say, isn't a valid reason for removing properly sourced content (which he has done on more articles than just German Brazilians, showing that he's out on a crusade here...). But he refuses to listen. As for the rest of his claims here, such as " but they said they would not do it", it's a load of baloney, and very far from the truth. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 22:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

  • What we're seeing on this page is an endless repetition of the same claims made on the talk page of the relevant articles, i.e. that no questions about ancestry were asked in the Brazilian census of 2000, claims that none of those who make them has backed up with any form of sources, in spite of multiple requests to do so. Which since it's all they have means that this isn't a content dispute but a conflict between editors who stick to Wikipedia's rules about reliable sources and verifiability, and editors who seem to believe that their claims about personally knowing things outweigh any and all rules here. In spite of being told so multiple times they also still don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is on them, i.e. it's up to them to prove that their claims are true (through reliable sources), not up to other editors to prove that their claims are not true, as they, judging by posts on the talk page, seem to believe. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:German Brazilians#Figures_of_German_Brazilian discussion

  • Hello, I am your DRN volunteer here to review your case. If you have questions, feel free to ask. WebCite (talk · contribs)
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate prior discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other parties. It appears that a volunteer is ready to accept the case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have read over the statements. Can I please have links to the reliable sources as mentioned? WebCite (talk · contribs)
  • @WebCite: Don't take this too personally, but how on earth are you going to able to help? I have had my account for ten years and have made about 40,000 edits, and Iryna Harpy has had her account for five years and has made 30,000 edits, and both Iryna and I know the ins and outs of the rules here, while you have had your account for 11 days, have made all of 400 edits, and can't possibly know the rules here with that little experience, so what makes you think that you'll be able to give us advice? Wanting to help isn't enough, people on this board must be able to help too... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand your concern. New accounts doesn't mean the user is a "noob." I have been on Wikipedia for a LONG TIME until the IP was blocked thanks to a shared network. I have had some experience on the DRN and enjoy helping others.. WebCite (talk · contribs)
This board isn't for your enjoyment, it's for solving often very complicated editing problems. Unless we get someone with documented experience I will drop out of the discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
WebCite, while I appreciate that you may have some editing experience as an IP, you have no proven track record for either Tom or I to elicit any sense of competence. I was immediately disturbed by your request to bring the RS to this board when the discussion on the article's talk page is brief and easily followed. All of the arguments and sources are there, and should have been checked by you already. It's one thing when you're dealing with talk pages with reams of convoluted discussion over a protracted period of time, but there's nothing complex to tease out of the discussion. Again, this is not intended as a personal slight, but I really don't have the energy to assist you with learning the ropes, and I'll also be dropping out if a volunteer with a proven track record doesn't take this on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible new moderator

This is an awkward situation. I see that some editors want to discuss the figure at length and some don't. I also see that some editors thought that the previous volunteer had inadequate experience. I won't waste time by asking what the sources are. I will start by asking a few very basic questions. First, is the main issue whether the figure of 12 million, in the article, should be used? If so, why, in one sentence; if not, why not, in one sentence? Second, does each editor want to have moderated discussion? Whether we have moderated discussion at this point will depend on whether at least two editors with different opinions on the article want to have moderated discussion. Third, will each editor agree to have the matter of the number of German Brazilians decided by a Request for Comments? Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to each other's comments, only to my questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Statements by editors

Given that the filing OP hasn't commented since requesting a DRN, and that there has been nothing brought to the table to refute official figures given by the Brazilian government, nor any sources disputing their stats, I don't see any dispute here. The 12 million figure is reliably sourced and verifiable. I am compelled to stand by the figure according to WP:NOR, and not to be swayed by JUSTDONTLIKEIT arguments. Sans the filing OP, there is nothing to discuss. I'm sorry, but this has gone very, very stale. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

James O'Keefe

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This entire article is shockingly biased and totally negative towards the subject. It has been hacked by someone who obviously does not like the subject nor his actions. It needs to be written in a neutral & balanced tone.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

On the Talk page, I stated the obvious that the article is blatantly one-sided & negative and needs serious editing for balance. I was met with resistance by User:Volunteer Marek. I warned the individual that if the edits weren't made I would edit the article down to one paragraph. I have since become aware of this option for dispute mediation and would rather solve the issue here than make a giant edit. But honestly, be non-partisan and look at the article: It's a hatchet job from top to bottom

How do you think we can help?

Read the entire article and then weigh in on here as to whether or not you think it honors the standards of Wikipedia. I am sure you will agree it needs serious editing. If Volunteer Marek interferes with the revised article, then the article needs locked and tagged as being Disputed, and said Volunteer needs to be blocked.

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

James O'Keefe discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Disagreement regarding AfD debate protocol. Please see location of dispute for complete dispute description.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Reviewed WP:AFDFORMAT. Submitted to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests for guidance and in the hopes of avoiding escalation.

How do you think we can help?

Guidance regarding protocol and intervention if necessary.

Summary of dispute by Tiptoethrutheminefield

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

Wikipedia talk:Articles_for_deletion/Raj_Barr-Kumar_(2nd_nomination) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Ibn al-Haytham#Removing_of_sourced_material

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

user:Kansas Bear removes sourced material from Alhazen article, because he says only the historians of Islamic studies are qualified to comment on ethnicity of Alhazen, and not other historians.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried to discuss the issue on article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

There are two options:

  • Any historian can comment on ethnicity of Alhazen (supported by me)
  • Only the comments of Islamic studies historians is relevant for Alhazen ethnicity (supported by user:Kansas Bear)

If a third party tells us which of the above are complied with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Kansas Bear

Well, I am amazed how quickly a "new user" that has been here 6 days figured out how to post to "dispute resolution" and how to post 3rr warnings.

Scienceis is using non-specialized/non-historical sources to push Alhazen was "Persian".[7] I went into detail how his sources were not reliable for Islamic science/Islamic history, which he categorically ignored. Oddly, Scienceis did not even try to give an explanation as to why these sources should be used.

FYI, doing a google search is no guarantee those source(s) like this website Vision Learning, are reliable for Wikipedia. History should not be written by a Professor of Environmental Toxicology or Assistant Professor Geological Sciences and Science Education!

Alhazen's ethnicity[8], which has been argued on the talk page by myself, which Scienceis ignored when posting a 3rr on my talk page[9], has been pushed by IPs and other "new users" with them arriving with nothing but sources that have nothing to do with Alhazen's biography. None of the sources Scienceis has brought have anything to do Islamic history, thus have nothing to do with Alhazen's life or ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


Talk:Ibn al-Haytham#Removing_of_sourced_material discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has been minimal. Discussion should continue on the article talk page for 24 hours to see if it resolves the matter. Also, the filing party is required to notify the other editor on their talk page of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I informed the other editor in his talk page. --Scienceis (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I have no particular knowledge about the subject of the article; I expect the editors to be able to explain any historical or factual details. I understand that there is an issue about the subject's ethnicity. I understand that he was one of the major scientific figures in the Golden Age of Islamic Science. Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, not to complain about the editors. Uncivil statements or comments about editors may be hatted. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. I expect every editor to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions every 48 hours. Do not reply back-and-forth to each other. That has already been tried, and just goes back and forth. Address your comments to the moderator and to the community. Now: Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

This is over accessibility and changing list syntax from ":*" to "**" This does not change how the article is viewed visually in anyway. It does change how screen readers voice the article. A lot of evidence was given to show how this effects screen reader users, none to show how it is detrimental to anybody. In short, is accessibility important or not?

MOS page in question is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists where it states the best practice on how to code up a list. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help is a discussion that shows why it is a problem.

Tahc and I were involved. I'm trying to follow MOS. Tahc believes MOS doesn't apply and older browsers will have problems with the "**" syntax. Tahc has shown no proof of this and Mediawiki software doesn't support older browsers anyway. Tahc also asked a discussion take place about MOS on the technical pump or the accessibility talk page. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help was started several days later.

I asked for a third opinion. 3rd party arrived, didn't understand the issue and hasn't been back.

The Banner arrived asking for proof that this is a problem. MOS isn't proof. Showing HTML code isn't proof. Showing WCAG on how lists should be coded up isn't proof. Showing how screen readers would behave isn't proof. The Banner only wants outside research that this is a problem. As this is essentially a Wikipedia only problem, there would be no outside research. I started Talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List. People have stated the same things I have. Banner and Tahc have not participated.

Tahc started today editing page and doing a search/replace... changing "**" back to ":*"

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Third party dispute mechanism. Third party arrived, but didn't get involved.

Asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help.

How do you think we can help?

After showing MOS, showing how the HTML code is bad, showing how screen reader's voice the page, showing how WCAG says lists should be coded, having another visually disabled person (Graham87) and person who worked as an accessibility software engineer (RexxS) (both via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#List gap help) give their opinions, it is still not good enough. I'm at a loss and feel no amount of evidence will ever be enough.

Summary of dispute by Tahc

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
  • There are two issues. The first issue (colon+asterisk vs. asterisk+asterisk) was discussed at Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century#Avoid such edits can be considered an accessibility issue. No evidence from Bgwhite ever came-- but after input from input from others (RexxS, Scolaire) I agreed to compromise and accept asterisk+asterisk.
  • The second issue (should leaders of different state be formated as one long list or not) was discussed at Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century#different states are different by Scolaire and by myself but not Bgwhite. (Bgwhite's comments above seems to indicate he did not even see that discussion.) Unlike the first, this issue is a content issue rather than an accessibility issue. While The Banner says below that Bgwhite may be forum-shopping-- and he may be correct-- to me Bgwhite seems to not even be listening to the people who are trying to talk with him.
  • I also object to the constant edits by Bgwhite without consensus. This is esclated to edits by Bgwhite without even pretending to discuss. tahc chat 16:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The Banner

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

I actually withdrew from the discussion after accusations that "I did not read what was written" by Bgwhite slamming the door shut by him.

I have also asked for outside evidence that the method preferred by Bgwhite was actually better than the method used Tahc. That evidence never came.

I understand the sensibility of the MOS but I have difficulties on the manner that it is applied. When you disagree, it goes down to an edit-war and close to MOS-pushing very quickly. And that is exactly what happened here. And to my opinion, this DRN-request is not much more than forum-shopping to get things his way now he fails to convince Tahc and me. The Banner talk 08:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
See Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:List of state leaders in the 10th century Bgwhite (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User talk:Kleuske

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The editor feels it is his right to insult me repeatedly. The issue at hand was whether I should be allowed to record the history of a nation that has limited written records due to war and being a 3rd world nation. His response may or may not be a correct interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. But in question is his derisive and dismissive attitude and his resorting to swearing because he is the editing god. He is denying any of my factual references to the war of independence of Bangladesh (which is actually documented) although the level of book burning and loss of life is not. Jews get massacred in the holocaust and we are all respectful. Bengalis get massacred and whether someone takes not of how we spell names or how our families are structured, the actual loss of life is worthy of the same level of respect. It is not nationalistic nonsense as he describes. Granted apparently, Wikipedia is not the place for encyclopedic content unless it has been published somewhere else first. But it does not give him the right to beat me over the head with it. He could have just as easily said "You need to publish it somewhere else. Sorry." Why does Wikipedia tolerate this kind of ridicule and derision and bullying?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've requested an apology and he keeps making it worse. He is insisting that me asking for an apology for referring to the information as "nationalistic nonsense" is not required. He has not apologized but has instead resorted to telling me to "kiss his shiny metal ass".

How do you think we can help?

Remove his editorial privileges and install someone more civil or get him to apologize. Whether he is the final authority or not does not give him the right to speak to others that way.

Summary of dispute by Kleuske

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

User talk:Kleuske discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Kianoush Rostami

– New discussion.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The issue is about the ethnicity of athlete Kianoush Rostami, who represented Iran in the Olympics. I keep adding his Kurdish ethnicity into his profile, but then some Iranian users keep deleting it, citing Iranian propaganda, supposedly coming out for your Kurdish identity is something Iran's enemy's invented to break up the country. Not only is this bullshit but denying someone's identity is very problematic and also pretty racist. The Kurdish people have had to deal with this for many years, which is why there is still an ongoing conflict in this region. Every people has the right to express their own culture and ethnicity. As I pointed out on the Talk page, Kianoush Rostami himself has been very outspoken about his ethnicity on social media. Would anyone accept it if any mention of Jeremy Lin's ethnicity was removed from his page?

The moderators intervened and stopped the edit wars, but that just enforced the racist viewpoint of the Iranian users. Now nobody can add anything about his ethnicity. I tried to engage the other users in a discussion, but they have refused to answer. And why would they, if their preferred status quo is enforced by the moderators?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I would be completely fine with having "Iranian" as his nationality along with "Kurdish" as his ethnicity, along with some additional information about how Rostami expresses his identity. However, the Iranian user keeps removing ANY mention of his Kurdishness. I did not remove anything. But all my additions are being removed.


How do you think we can help?

Enforce my solution. Have both mentions of his nationality and ethnicity there. Denying someone's culture and ethnicity should not be cool on Wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Parrax

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

Summary of dispute by Ronaz

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

Talk:Kianoush Rostami discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been inadequate discussion on the article talk page. One edit by each of two editors does not count as discussion. Discuss this at the article talk page. This request will be closed shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Asperger syndrome#General_comments.2C_IG_and_AS

– New discussion.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

I am advocating for the inclusion of an important sub-topic in the article. I have provided some review and book references on the subject and demonstrated that it is well known to be a part of the larger topic and should not be omitted. The only open point in the discussion is the statistics for IG+ASD and a suitable reference. I am in process of getting that information now. The editor jydog, despite my having presented WP:MEDRS qualified references describing the proposed sub-topic, has prematurely and somewhat capriciously closed the discussion. Overall his participation was not constructive and drew me and distracted from the discussion. Doc james and Dbrodbeck were helpful and I feel they will contribute.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Since he has closed the discussion, there is little I can do.

How do you think we can help?

Re-open the discussion. As mentioned in the overview (above), I am in process of collecting WP:MEDRS references on the open point in the discussion, and then will want to solicit comments and suggestions and develop consensus for the additional content and resources.

Summary of dispute by Doc James

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

Summary of dispute by Dbrodbeck

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

Talk:Asperger syndrome#General_comments.2C_IG_and_AS discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing unregistered editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Also, although the filing unregistered editor correctly lists User:Jytdog as a participant in the dispute in their statement, they have not listed Jytdog as one of the parties. This case is neither being accepted nor declined at this time, but Jytdog must be added to the list of parties, and the parties must be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Sure, gladly, but how do I do that? I do not see any email links on their pages.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Bank War

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The question of the using the word "slavery" in the lede of the article, in reference to the Andrew Jackson administration (1829-1837).

User:Display name 99 began with the deletion of the sentence “The National Republican leadership aligned themselves with the Bank because it offered what appeared to be a perfect platform to defeat Jackson – and less so because they were champions of the BUS.” See Talk section “Motives for Recharter” I defended the content, and 99 abandoned the topic.

Next, 99 objected to the sentence “The Jacksonians considered the Second Bank of the U.S. to be an illegitimate corporation whose charter violated state sovereignty and therefore it posed an implicit threat to the agriculture-based economy dependent upon the U.S. southern states' widely practiced institution of slavery.” and 99 deleted it. See section “Slavery in the Lead” I reverted it and 99 deleted it again and warned me not to revert it. 99 objected to the sentence because “Slavery had nothing to do with the Bank War” and supplied quotes from the well-known historian Robert Remini to support it.

I provided citations and quotes from the Historian Richard H. Brown, and other citations from the article and google books to support the sentence as a counterpoint to his argument. A third opinion was obtained. In response, 99 wrote “I would be OK with replacing ‘The Jacksonians’ with something like ‘Many Southerners’. In other words the issue of “slavery” was abandoned, and another objection introduced.

Next, 99 complained that the article presented Andrew Jackson as a strict constructionist on the matter of theSecond Bank of the United States – another departure from the original complaint about “slavery” in the lede. The exchange on Talk page seems to be open-ended, without any precision as to 99’s objections.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Lengthy, open-ended exchange, that tends to morph from topic to topic.

How do you think we can help?

Pick a winner, based on the quality of the article Bank War and talk page arguments. 36hourblock wrote and provided citations for 99% of the article, so he is the one defending it.

Summary of dispute by Display name 99

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

36hourblock has provided a fairly accurate summary, although I do disagree with some things that he has said concerning my position. Suggesting that we replace "Jacksonians" with "Many Southerners" was not in any way abandoning the slavery issue. It simply shows that, while some Southerners may have been concerned with protecting slavery, doing so was not an overarching concern, as I believe the article currently does in an inaccurate way. Also, I do think that my objections were clear.

To defend my argument, I have repeatedly cited and pulled two direct quotes from a biography of Andrew Jackson written by Robert Remini, in addition to citing various examples of historical trends, events, and other facts that I believe go against 36hourblock's case. Display name 99 (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Bank War discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page. The other editor has been notified. This dispute is ready for a volunteer to open discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer note - The moderator will not "pick a winner". That isn't how DRN works. If the editors both want a winner picked, they should formulate a Request for Comments, and the community will pick a winner, and a volunteer here may be willing to help word the RFC. If the editors want to talk, and want help in staying on track in order to compromise, a volunteer can mediate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

The ground rules are as specified in User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules.

The issues appear to involve the wording of the lede paragraph, in particular with respect to slavery and Southerners. Will each party please state, in one paragraph, what they think are the key issues, and why? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

André (artist)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Is it right if user Chisme calls me a « bitch » ? I am quite patient, open and welcoming of his point of view in spite of his inappropriate behavior. I just want to render the article André (artist) neutral as it should be with an impartial tone.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have talked with him - Talk:André_(artist)

How do you think we can help?

Maybe an experienced user can help.

Summary of dispute by Chisme

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

André (artist) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Elihu Yale

– New discussion.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Elihu Yale (who contributed to Yale University) was born in the colonies. But by all common understanding of the period he was an "Englishman": "America" had not yet been established (not until 1776) nor had "Britain" (not until 1805) - so he can't have been "American" nor could he be "British". His family was from England and moved back to England when has was about 2 years old. He grew up in England, he worked extensively in India and he retired in England and Wales.

Wikipedia lists someone from the opposite perspective - born in the UK but clearly from an American family as "American": Wentworth Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wentworth_Miller

So it doesn't make sense and is inconsistent to list Elihu Yale as "American" (or "British") - he never grew up in America, he never lived there by his own choice (he never returned to America), he never worked there and he didn't die there... and as far as we know he didn't speak as an American.

Various users (IDs: Cydebot, 72.162.48.250, 73.184.108.44 and 2601:188:1:aea0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63) keep changing the designation away from "English" to between "American" or "British" - neither are correct.


Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In April 2016 I posted an open discussion in the Talk section. It had no response.

How do you think we can help?

Let's be consistent, reasonable and accurate and set it to "English".

Thank you. -Kim

Summary of dispute by 72.162.48.250

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

Summary of dispute by 73.184.108.44

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

Summary of dispute by 2601:188:1:aea0:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63

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

Talk:Elihu Yale discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

In Iran–PJAK conflict#Foreign involvement, I have added verifiable content from and attributed to reliable sources. User:Greyshark09 started a pseudo-editwar, making constant groundless claimes that my edit violates various guidlines and policies without further explaination.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Step one, I have tried to discuss with User:Greyshark09, however he seems reluctant to discuss and evades answering me. Step two, I requested for a Wikipedia:Third opinion, it was not answered.

How do you think we can help?

I think this is a Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing case, and hard to be dealt. Maybe an experienced user can help.

Summary of dispute by Greyshark09

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

Talk:Iran–PJAK conflict discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Universidad Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Some editors are engaged in blacklisting an institution, fully national recognized. Furthermore, they resist to let the website of the University to be listed, no matter what reliable sources has been provided

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Contacting ech editors trough they talk page, asking to reconsider the sources provided

How do you think we can help?

Take a fresh look into this, since many students got harm by the bad publicity its seems to be publish as reliable, and do not follow the so called enciclopedic format

Summary of dispute by Vanjagenije

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

Summary of dispute by Shivayves

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

Summary of dispute by General Ization

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

Talk:Universidad Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Website_.2F.2F_Reliable_sources discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - While there has been discussion on the article talk page, it has not been sufficient to be a prerequisite to discussion here. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this filing. One of the editors who is listed has been blocked indefinitely, and one of the editors who is listed is not a valid user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert: I corrected the editor name General_Ization Sorry for the mistake Taesulkim (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please notice, none has a different approach, or reliable sources rather the ones I provided. Please consider adding either www.unem.edu.pl as shown in the UNESCO WHED listing or the national website www.universidad-empresarial.ac.cr Taesulkim (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Volunteer note - One editor has stated that they have no opinion concerning the content. Another editor has not responded. Discussion here is voluntary. If there is no response, this thread will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear @Robert_McClenon What should I do.. As you mentioned, an editor is not concern about content, the other does not reply, but he undo my edits time after time. I try to avoid a war edit at all cost, but he does not provide any help, or any sustainable argument, why should I don't include the website within the article.Taesulkim (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Montréal–Mirabel International_Airport#Language_laws_and_the_airport

– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

An editor is adding information that is unsourced, may or may not be true while the other doesn't want to have unsourced, original research in the article. Discussion has come to a stand still and the next steps to take are unclear.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Edit warring

How do you think we can help?

Provide feedback on next steps to take.

Summary of dispute by JoshDonaldson20

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

Talk:Montréal–Mirabel International_Airport#Language_laws_and_the_airport discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page, but it has not been extensive. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor of this filing. The editors might consider requesting a third opinion as the next step in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

Robert Kershaw's book "Tank Men: The Human Story of Tanks at War" Hodder 2009 is currently being challenged as to whether it is a Wikipedia Reliable Source or not, in reference to the article "Panzer ace" in popular culture Currently, there are efforts to remove it from the article. Could you please advise if it is a reliable source under wikipedia RS guidelines?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for the other editors to explain how the book doesn't meet Wk:RS. So far some explanations have been given, but the reasons are nothing to do with Wikipedia RS guidelines. An admin also advised that the book *does* meet Wikipedia RS guidelines.

How do you think we can help?

Please have a look at the reference and advise if it meets RS guidelines, and if it can be used in the articles. Thanks very much

Summary of dispute by K.e.coffman

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

Summary of dispute by Assayer

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Comment: I would suggest that the reliable sources noticeboard would be a more appropriate venue for this discussion. If it has already been discussed there, can we get a link to the discussion? DonIago (talk) 17:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will move it there, sorry I wasn't aware of the reliable sources noticeboard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

They've been inactive since their last post here. Recommend we close this as Stale and recommend that it go before RSN before coming back here. DonIago (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_143&oldid=1138443230"