Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 198

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195Archive 196Archive 197Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200→Archive 205

Olivia Blake

– 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

A new user with few other edits is repeatedly adding the following content to Olivia Blake. There are two sources, a Yorkshire Post article which does not mention Blake at all, and an email quoted by What Do They Know. Neither source is both secondary and related to Blake, so there is no due weight for the content. The user is only discussing the supposed reliability of What Do They Know, a matter unrelated to the lack of due weight established by the given sources. The user presumably has no knowledge of Wikipedia policies, but does not engage in discussion about them when I point them to links including WP:V, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:DUE and is repeatedly reverting the content whenever it is removed, despite its numerous formatting and typographical errors.

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

Talk:Olivia Blake

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Providing an opinion on whether the proposed addition is appropriate.

Summary of dispute by PJPWv2

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

Olivia Blake discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note If the editor is invovled in an editor war, we are not the correct place for sanctions. I just want to be clear- all we can do here is mediate a dispute to find a compramise- is that what you are looking for or are you wanting an admin to step in to stop rule breaking? If so you would need to go here: WP:AN/3Nightenbelle (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
    No, who mentioned sanctions? Both of us are acting in good faith. I just want the discussion to receive more attention. A third party has already commented, though I think not arriving to the discussion from DRN. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for the mistake. Your description of the incident sounded like you were frustrated by an edit war. In that case- if you are looking for more users to participate- I would also suggest wp:3o or wp:rfc. But if you would like to continue here, just as soon as the other editor confirms they are willing to participate, we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2020 (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.

Zirid dynasty

– 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

Zirid capital Kairouan 1014 to kairouan 972 based on historical sources and lack of sources that oppose this change

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zirid_dynasty#zirid_capital

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Resolving the dispute or maybe pushing the other to give his arguments since he refuses to.

Summary of dispute by M.Bitton

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

Zirid dynasty discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • volunteer note You need to notify the other editor on their talk page before we can open this. Also I'm not sure what the dispute is based on the summary here. Please clarify. Lastly, participation in this process is voluntary- we cannot push anyone to give arguments, we can only offer a forum for mediated disputes. but all parties must agree to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • volunteer note 2 I'm going to give this another 24 hours, then close due to lack of participation. Might I suggest wp:3o or wp:rfc as a possible way to get other editors involved. Although, just by reviewing the conversation thus far- you may want to review wp:RS because you do seem to have some confusion about what makes a source reliable according to WP standards. Other encyclopedias are summarizing sources the same as us- if we were to just copy their information, what would be our purpose? We, instead, compile the information from reliable, independent secondary sources- so not primary (IE court documents) but the analysis of those documents by experts (legal journals) does that make sense? Nightenbelle (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2020 (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.

Della Duck

– 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

A mini edit war. There is an argument over content of the article. I tried to make sue that nothing is changes without consensus.

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

Talk:Della_Duck

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Find out what the issue is and who is right.

Summary of dispute by 200.119.60.66

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

The dispute revolves around whether or not the "Appearances" section on Della Duck's page is unneeded and excessive, which I think it is, because Della's page is already overly detailed as is with the extensive description of her character and role in DuckTales 2017 and before it. Not to mention that Della becomes a main character in said show shortly after her return to Earth so why is there a need to list her appearances when she is in almost every episode after the second season's halfway point? No other DuckTales character get this privilege of extensive listing of their appearances in media (or fictional character articles in general) so why does Della. If one wants to know what each of her appearances are, that's what fan-made wikis exist for. And fact of the matter is Della is not some super important character to the Disney core universe at large. Outside of her relevance in the reboot, she's been a very minor figure with only a tiny amount of mentions and appearances in previous printed and animated media. An appearance listing is overkill. --200.119.60.66 (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by jp×g

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

I don't have a very strong opinion on this. While looking through RecentChanges, I saw a large section being blanked on this article (for what didn't seem like a very cogent reason) and reverted it. When I saw the same blanking again on RC later on, I reverted it a second time and made a section on the talk page: I'm sure that some of the stuff in that section could be trimmed, but removing it seems excessive. Since I don't edit pages for fictional characters that often, I'll defer to precedent, if the consensus really is that this ought to be nuked. That's still pretty much my opinion -- it doesn't make much difference to me either way. 200.119.60.66 responded on the talk page with a pretty well-thought-out comment, and after this, it looks like an additional kerfluffu happened between them and 4thfile4thrank, during which more reverts were made (but no further edits to the talk page as far as I can see).

I don't know shit from Shinola about Duck Tales, so if 200.119 made a halfway cogent explanation of why the section didn't belong there (which they've done more than once), it seems fine to me for the section to come out, or stay in, or whatever you fellows decide to do (and if some Duck Tales scholar comes along later and disagrees, they'll have a nice talk page section to figure out why the article is the way it is). jp×g 05:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Della Duck 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.

COVID-19 pandemic

Dispute resolved successfully. 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

Dr. Ryan of the WHO, in 10/5 remarks given to the WHO Executive Board said (per CNN) "Our current best estimates tell us that about 10% of the global population may have been infected by this virus," Eb.eric removed related text (“About 10% of the global population … may have been infected.[CNN]”) from the Infobox, saying on Talk: “The CNN story is a misquote or at least misinterpretation. 10% is not the best estimate,” inaccurately citing a 10/12 WHO Press conference Q&A transcript as rationale. A 10/5 AP story supports the quote given by CNN. [N.b. This dispute begins at the last unindented portion of the Talk discussion linked below.]

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

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 

Offer a suggestion and/or request a response from disputants.

Summary of dispute by Eb.eric

The statistic comes from reliable sources (the CNN story mentioned), but the source of that (Dr. Mike Ryan) later clarified that he did not mean that 10% was the best point estimate of the worldwide number of infected, and that it may be lower. Thus, we should not include the 10% figure as if it is accurate. We should wait for a reliable estimate, which the WHO intends to report. The clarifying remarks are found here: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-virtual-press-conference-transcript---12-october-2020. Eb.eric (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ozzie10aaaa

Was not comfortable w/ wording used for the article... (however at this point I might concede)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by

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

COVID-19 pandemic discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note = A third party editor, User:Humanengr, filed this case. Thank you. They may not have been familiar with the requirement that editors be notified of the filing, so I have notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There has been further discussion at Talk. Given that at this point there is only 1 active objection and the page is subject to discretionary sanctions, am I permitted to edit the Infobox to reinsert text? Thx, Humanengr (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - It appears that the page is only under discretionary sanctions, and not under any of the more specific restrictions such as 0RR or 1RR that are sometimes used to implement discretionary sanctions. I think that this means that you may edit the page if you do so cautiously. I would suggest stating on the talk page that you are about to make the change. Then if anyone objects, you can discuss. That is my reading. Be respectful of other editors, and you have been; discretionary sanctions are only needed because some editors lose respect for other editors when they are pursuing TRUTH. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I posted on talk, waited, and after seeing no response, made the change. Perhaps we should wait a bit longer to see if objections are raised there before proceeding further here?? Thank you for the guidance. Humanengr (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (covid)

I am willing to moderate this dispute. Please read the rules. You are responsible for having read the rules and for obeying them. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want to change (or leave the same) in the article, and you may provide one paragraph telling why you want that. It is my intention that this discussion end in one of two ways, either of which is satisfactory. The first is a compromise, and the second is a Request for Comments. If you have a strong desire for one type of resolution or the other, please indicate. (However, if there is disagreement as to what to do, an RFC will be used.) If you want to engage in back-and-forth discussion, do it only in the space provided. The space for editor statements is for statements to the moderator and the community. Please tell briefly what the dispute is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors (covid)

Back-and-forth discussion (covid)

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.

Russell Islands

– 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

On the basis of "the spirit" of External Link policy (WP:EL) on Wikipedia and/or copyright issues, a link which is obviously helpful to the readers was removed from the page.

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

Talk:Russell Islands

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I feel that dispute resolution experts can probably make a determination on whether keeping the link on the page is useful to the readers and whether there is a copyright issue.

Summary of dispute by Geographyinitiative

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

The link (Map including the Russell Islands) provides readers access to a detailed, professional late 20th century map of the Russell Islands that names 22 geographical features in those islands. No other resource on this Wikipedia page has this information; neither does Google Maps or Bing Maps. Readers interested in the geography+history of the Russell Islands will obviously find this map a useful resource. For these and similar reasons outlined on the talk page there, Wikipedia & the readers are helped by keeping this link on the page. Drmies believes that the link is either unnecessary and/or can't be linked due to copyright issues. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Addressing the copyright issue (modified repetition of argument from the talk page):
Library Web Material Usage Statement
"Copyright Not Held by University of Texas at Austin
This site provides access to materials, licensed or otherwise, for which the copyright is held by owners other than the University of Texas at Austin. Use of these materials and resources is restricted by applicable license agreement and copyright law." (my emphasis)
The Library is directly stating that they provide access to materials not copyrighted by the library and not in the public domain. It stands to reason that they have the right to provide access to the map, but that Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia may not have the right to allow uploading it. In that case, it seems just fine for Wikipedia to link to the Library's map collection. Diannaa's viewpoint that U Tex is hosting material on their website they are or may not be allowed to host would mean that the U Tex, which hosts a huge collection of maps and is a reputable source, is openly acknowledging breaking the law in their Library Web Material Usage Statement (see above statement; this has been their statement since at least 2018). If the Library can legally provide access, then we can link that (and should, based on the utility of the map to the readers). WP:EL explicitly forsees that this situation will arise, writing
"What can normally be linked
...
Sites that contain ... material that ... cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,..."
which means that there are some things that other people can legally post on their website that Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons maybe can't have a legal upload of, but can link in an external links section. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC) (modified)
The path of least resistance is to just give up. But I think I have a good case that this map link is worthwhile, is compliant with policy, and is in the spirit of Wikipedia. That's why I submitted this issue to dispute resolution- I want a real answer if one can be given. (I have asked the Copyright Cleanup board to comment here.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Drmies

I do not understand why anyone would pick a fight with Diannaa over something like this, and the time has come for an uninvolved admin to determine whether NOTHERE applies for this editor. User:Toddst1 and I have, I think, made up our minds about it. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hut 8.5

  • (responding to cross-post at WP:COPYCLEAN) This has already been dealt with by Diannaa, one of our best copyright admins, and unsurprisingly she's right. The map is definitely copyrighted, there's a note at the bottom which says "© Commonwealth of Australia (1998)". WP:ELNEVER says that linking to copyrighted works should only be done if the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. The website here is not run by the copyright owner, which is the government of Australia. I doubt the usage of that map is compliant with fair use, it's definitely not acceptable under Wikipedia's fair use policies. We don't seem to have any reason to think the website has licensed the work from the owner either. Given that I don't see how we can link to it. ELNEVER strongly discourages editors from linking to pages which violate copyright laws, and doing so can be considered contributory copyright infringement. Hut 8.5 18:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Diannaa

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

Russell Islands discussion

@Hut 8.5: If I can be allowed to respond: the key words in your statement here are "I doubt". The University of Texas Libraries is a reputable source, and if you look closely, I think they are clearly implying that they have the right to provide access to this map despite the fact that the map says "© Commonwealth of Australia (1998)" on it. The FAQ says: [2] "Please note that we are unable to scan in copyrighted maps." This implies that they have some rationale or ability to show that their map scan on their website is not illegally posted. They are a reputable source, not a fly-by-night, copyrighted-map-posting diploma mill. I have contacted the library personnel and am awaiting another response from their end. Please let me know if you can see the point I am trying to make even if you can't agree. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Really? That's what you think the key words in my statement are? I don't see you trying to argue that their hosting of this map is permissible under fair use laws. [3] may say "Please note that we are unable to scan in copyrighted maps", but this is definitely a copyrighted map and they appear to have scanned it in, so that looks like rubbish. Their website does say "This site provides access to materials, licensed or otherwise, for which the copyright is held by owners other than the University of Texas at Austin. Use of these materials and resources is restricted by applicable license agreement and copyright law." So they clearly are using material copyrighted by others which they have no licence for. Sure, a university library is more respectable than a lot of sites, but that doesn't mean they are perfect. Hut 8.5 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants: Thank you for the participation. For the DRN process to work, we need to follow process. We had a change to the participant list, and User:Diannaa was added after I opened the discussion. I have invited her to join. Please hold off continued debate until we have all participants in the discussion. Thank you.
  •  Note to participants: @Hut 8.5: I see you joined as a participant as well. I added you to the participant list and moved you initial comment to your summary of the dispute. If you're ok with that, fine. Otherwise, please edit your summary. Thanks.
  •  Note to participants: I'm still need all parties to post their opening statements before I can facilitate a discussion. I'll ping the remaining participants once more to see if they are willing to participate in this discussion.Coastside (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Note to participants:

I'm going go ahead and close this DRN due to apparent lack of interest from the participants. Normally, I would simply close it and move on. However, I'd like to make some observations before I do.

I think it's obvious to anyone reading through the history of this dispute that an appeal to authority was made to User:Diannaa, a respected copyright admin, who made her opinion clear. Given her experience and the fact that the two other participants are also admins who refer to her as a definitive authority, this was clearly not going to get resolved any other way.

Having said that, were this open for discussion, I would have suggested that we use this as a teaching moment, not just for the editor raising the dispute but for other editors who might learn something about the application of copyright policy in Wikipedia. I carefully read through the entire discussion and the relevant policies, and I think the other editors didn't do a great job in answering some important questions that were raised (the fact that these questions weren't raised particularly succinctly isn't the point). Specifically, I believe the question of why the Fair Use exception was not relevant in the application of policy in this case was not adequately addressed. The relevant policies are referenced in the discussion and I don't need to repeat them here, but if you consult them, as I did, you will see an explicit exception for Fair Use. The question arises not because Wikipedia can make a Fair Use claim, but that a university library can make a Fair Use claim. If in fact the library itself can use the content on its web site under the Fair Use exception, then it would be reasonable to believe that linking to the content as an External Link from a Wikipedia page would be acceptable under Wikipedia's policies.

I'm not arguing the determination here. As I said, it's clear a decision was made. I'm pointing out that the editors who were making this determination might have done more to recognize what I believe was a legitimate lack of understanding about the why the Fair Use standard was not applicable in this case, and by not doing that, we missed an opportunity to educate and to learn. When does the Fair Use exception in WP:ELNEVER apply? Is it only for some institutions and not others? Are we expected to make these determinations ourselves or can we rely on a library's determination on whether is it is covered under Fair Use? Is it only for use of materials in the library on not online? If we can't apply the Fair Use exception for External Links in this case, then when can we apply it? We don't need to answer those questions here, especially as this DRN case is likely to be closed. I'm just pointing out that these are legitimate questions that were not addressed. It's not reasonable to write off someone pursuing these questions as merely choosing to "pick a fight" with an admin.

No editors (including admins) are obligated to participate in DRN cases. I can't admonish participants for choosing not to participate and not doing a better job answering questions, legitimate or otherwise. However, ultimately it was only User:Diannaa who opted not to join the discussion. The other editors already offered their views, so it seems there was some willingness to discuss in this venue.

I'll leave this open a bit further in case anyone else wants to offer an opinion, and if not then I'll go ahead and close the case. Coastside (talk) 07:22, 13 November 2020 (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.

8chan

– 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 have sent a letter to the US Department of Justice, Mother Jones News, and the Wikipedia Foundation. By providing a link to a site which distributes Child Pornography Wikipedia is breaking US Law and creating a liability for people such as myself who have used Wikipedia in good faith and INADVERTANTLY (and because of Wikipedia) landed on a link distributing Child Pornography. My phone IP address has been locked or frozen by Wikipedia for trying to rectify a link to conformity with US Law and the process of Wikipedia is therefore intractable.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:8chan#

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Remove a Wikipeida link that redirects to child phonography and prevent that from reoccurring.

Summary of dispute by

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

8chan discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Noting that this duplicates a discussion at WP:ANI#Could use a second pair of eyes at 8chan and Talk:8chan#Inclusion of the link to 8chan. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2020 (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.

President-elect of the United States

– 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 President-elect of the United States is determined by the legal process indicated in the Constitution. On December 14th, the Electoral College will vote for the President-elect and it will be made legally official. The certificates recording the electoral vote results must be received by December 23rd. The results of each state's electoral votes are then sent to the newly elected Congress, which is set to meet in joint session on January 6th to announce the results. This means we may not find out until January 6th.

Joe Biden is the ASSUMED President-elect by the Associated Press and other Media platforms. This is not legally official.

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

The article is locked for edits so I was not able to change anything.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Be truthful and factual based on the legal process of the U.S. Constitution. This information is very misleading and unlawful.

President-elect of the United States 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.

Robert Garcia (California politician)

– 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

A sub-section titled "Political activities" was added in the "Early life" section. User MalcolmKincaid continues to delete the entire section and has failed to propose edits. He believes it should not be included anywhere in the article. The sub-section was written from a neutral POV and was properly cited to reputable news outlets. Dispute resolution is necessary to avoid an edit war.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Garcia_(California_politician)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarification is necessary to determine what information in the sub-section is permitted in order to prevent an edit war.

Summary of dispute by Zoof91; MalcolmKincaid

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

I have proposed a sub-section that discusses Robert Garcia's political activities during the period between his involvement in student government and his election to City Council. MalcolmKincaid believes the edits are biased and/or irrelevant. Zoof91 (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Robert Garcia (California politician) discussion

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

First statement by moderator (Garcia)

The first step is to determine what sort of moderation I will be doing. In any event, please read the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Comment on edits, not editors. It appears that the issue has to do with whether to include a paragraph or paragraphs about his earlier political activities. Will each editor please state, one more time, concisely, exactly what they want the article to say about the disputed section?

One of the editors seems to want me to make a decision. That isn't what is done at DRN. There are two options that I know we can pursue. The more difficult one, which might take two weeks, is to work out a compromise, if there is a compromise. The less difficult one is a Request for Comments. This only takes a few days to work out the wording of the RFC, but then the RFC runs for 30 days before it is closed. Do the editors want to try to work out a compromise, or to let the community decide? Enter your statements in the section for first statements. Do not reply to each there, or go back-and-forth. If you want to reply to each other, you may do so in the section for back-and-forth discussion (but it may be ignored).

Please state briefly what you want in the article, and which method of resolution you want to try. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Garcia)

I think the RFC will be necessary since the dispute turns on whether to include any information, rather than what specific information.

I propose that the article state the following:

Garcia was the California Youth Coordinator for the George W. Bush 2000 presidential campaign[1][2][3] He also founded the Long Beach Young Republicans in 2005. Describing himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, Garcia guided and organized the Young Republicans, which developed a charter that was recognized as an official club by the Los Angeles County Republicans. [4] Garcia also worked as an aide to Frank Colonna when he was on City Council and ran Colonna's unsuccessful bid in the 2006 Long Beach, California mayoral election. [5]

Zoof91 (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for hearing both of us out. I appreciate you taking the time.

I said that while these edits may be factual, they are irrelevant to the page. I pointed out that we can look at politicians and notable figures in the greater Los Angeles area such as Eric Garcetti and you will see no mention of miniscule notes that have been rarely mentioned in print and are not notable on their Wikipedia pages. I also said that the edit that they have continued to attempt to include is minute and rarely if ever mentioned when talking about Garcia in local and national media, and that it seems as though this information was intentionally searched for and included. However, I have since refrained from continuing to make that point as to not attack the editor or question their intentions. I'd also add that if you look at the talk history of the page in question, you will see that there have been past instances of irrelevant information included for specific purposes. Please let me know if you have any other questions. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stewart, Joshua (April 25, 2014). "Ambassador vs. CEO: Long Beach mayoral candidates have different approaches". Orange County Register. Orange County, California. Retrieved May 2, 2014.
  2. ^ Bradley, Eric (March 26, 2014). "2014 Long Beach mayoral race: Robert Garcia focused on growth". Press-Telegram. Long Beach, California. Retrieved May 2, 2014.
  3. ^ Modesti, Kevin (August 9, 2019). "Long Beach Mayor's rising political star raises questions and, for some, hope". Press-Telegram. Long Beach, California. Retrieved October 14, 2019.
  4. ^ O'Carroll, Marianna (September 21, 2005). "New Young Republican chapter arrives". CSULB Online 49er. Long Beach, California. Retrieved November 6, 2020.
  5. ^ Wride, Nancy (July 17, 2013). "Vice Mayor Announces Run for Long Beach Mayor". Patch. Long Beach, California. Retrieved November 9, 2020.

Second statement by moderator (Garcia)

Unless anyone has anything else to say, we will have an RFC on the inclusion or non-inclusion of the paragraph offered by Zoof91. If there are any other issues, they may be stated concisely at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

I have nothing further to add at this point.Zoof91 (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Garcia)

. I would dispute that the information is minute or irrelevant but rather is part of the political evolution of a politician. That makes the information relevant. It would be different if the page was about a doctor or actor. As the page stands now, there’s mention of his political activities in college and then skips to the election to City Council. The page contains a gap of what happened between that time, that’s what this section attempts to provide information on.

Additionally, although page does mention he was previously a Republican, there is a different between a person who is a member of or voted for a political party and a person who is actively involved in a party. Millions of people fall into the former category, fewer people fall into the latter.

The proposed section speaks for itself in terms of how the media has covered this information in the past. Not only have multiple news outlets mentioned the information but it has occurred at different times in the past. Zoof91 (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would also like to add that since we've begun this debate another edit was made to the Robert Garcia page citing a recall attempt. Besides this edit not being relevant, the edit frames the situation in a way which suggests that folks participating in the recall effort were intimidated by Garcia. However, the edit makes no mention of the fact that the person who started the recall is now under investigation by the LBC Prosecutor and California State Investigator for potentially illegal activities relating to the recall. (https://lbpost.com/news/franklin-sims-recall-mayor-robert-garcia-investigation) I think that this edit is in line with what I tried to mention before. There seems to be folks editing the page for reasons outside of contributing to Garcia's bio. I honestly think that that edit should also be removed and that the page should be temporarily protected. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so it’s clear, I have no involvement in the latest edit regarding the recall. I don’t take any position on it. The edits I have proposed should not be lumped in others and should be evaluated on its own merits. Zoof91 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe that like the most recent edit, your edit also is including minute details and should not be included. I mentioned the last edit as it provides context and informs my argument. MalcolmKincaid (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC) {{closed}

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.

South Park (season 24)

– 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:koavf has created the article South Park (season 24) in blatant disregard to a talk page discussion in the episode article The Pandemic Special. At root of the issue is the debate as to whether or not the episode in question was or was not the beginning of Season 24 of the series. As per the episode's talk page, there are at least 6 reliable sources, not the least of which is the actual press release on the subject from Comedy Central, that all state that the episode was a one-time special and not the beginning of the season. Koavf has stated on his season 24 talk page that he did read this discussion, and even with the subject being controversial at the least, he still created his article. He is using a video link and one other source to justify his stance, while I have shown him the 6 other reliable sources that disagree with his contention. His article is false and should be corrected as soon as possible. When I attempted to edit his article with these cites and sources which counter his statement, he reverted them on grounds of WP:POINT and WP:OR, neither of which are correct. There was no original research added, only factual citations which counter his statements of the article. In fact, when the article The Pandemic Special was originally created, it had to be page protected for some time as there was an ongoing edit war from other users on this subject. This subject is contentious at least, and a new article that contradicts another article already existing should not be published without at least discussing it first, especially considering that there has already been a talk page discussion on the subject matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanAnMan (talk • contribs)

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

Talk:South Park (season 24), Talk:The Pandemic Special, WP:AN#User:koavf dispute regarding Season 24 of South Park and The Pandemic Special

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

resolve the issue as to whether the season 24 article should exist, and whether or not the episode in question is in fact the start of a new season

Summary of dispute by SanAnMan

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

Summary of dispute by Koavf

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

So there are two issues here which I'll try to disentangle. One is the content dispute which hinges around "Is this the premiere episode of season 24"? That is a pretty straightforward issue: I have multiple reliable sources saying yes and you can see South Park (season 24) for them. The second issue is SanAnMan's behavior. Nominating the article for deletion as a "hoax" is completely inappropriate and was immediately reverted. He also seems to misunderstand WP:CONSENSUS as a consensus of sources rather than a consensus of editors. If you look at Talk:The Pandemic Special#Season premiere or standalone special?, several editors chime in about whether or not they think this constitutes a season premiere. There is no consensus among the editors that it isn't. SanAnMan also shows poor judgement and a willful misreading of sources: e.g. with this press release, there is just an absence of evidence: it doesn't say this isn't part of season 24, it just doesn't mention season 24 at all. He also contradicts himself about what constitutes a reliable source because he cites Comedy Central in this instance and then also says that this same source is unreliable. Which one is it? Then today, he made this disruptive edit and proceeded to edit war about it in contravention of WP:POINT, WP:EDITWAR, and WP:BRD. Now, instead of posting to talk, he's running to AN. His judgement and understanding of norms here is flawed at best and several of the actions I linked are bad faith attempts. He is unwilling to collaborate and willfully flaunting the norms that we have here. (This is in addition to removing sourced information from The Pandemic Special and List of South Park episodes as well as contravening other norms like MOS:RETAIN and WP:CITEVAR: why he thinks he is exempt from those, I have no idea). Again, you show poor judgement and a willful misunderstanding: first off, there are no less than four sources in that article (Comedy Central, Metacritic, NME, and UPI) that call this these season premiere of season 24, secondly, your sources don't all counter mine: the Comedy Central press release doesn't say this isn't the season 24 premiere (that would be countering). Please re-read my post above to show that you comprehend things like WP:OR, MOS:RETAIN, WP:POINT, etc. because you have consistently shown that you do not understand these. E.g. why do you think that you are exempt from MOS:RETAIN? As an aside, several other sources, such as the iTunes store, list this as the season 24 premiere. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

South Park (season 24) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Incorrect closure by participant. But the dispute is being closed here because the AFD is the way to resolve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2020 (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.

Market America

– 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 company from my discovery is not an MLM as indicated on the lead session of the page. The lead states:

Market America is a multi-level marketing company I've gone through the company’s website on this link - https://www.marketamerica.com/site/company

It states: "Market America Worldwide is a product brokerage and internet marketing company that specializes in One-to-One Marketing and Social Shopping".

The above is also supported by sources like INC Magazine on this link - https://www.inc.com/profile/market-america and "Direct Selling News" resource on this link: - https://www.directsellingnews.com/dsn-announces-the-2019-global-100/

I tried replacing the wrong lead info with this: "Market America is a product brokerage and Internet marketing company that specializes in One-to-One-Marketing"

I cited the company’s website and other sources given above. - "User:Praxidicae" reverted every attempt I made to correct this twice. I reached out to him on his talk page, he still insist on having the wrong info on the page. I decided not to engage in edit war with him. - I therefore seek help through this medium. - I also discovered that this issue has been a very old one from the history of the page. - Each time the wrong info is corrected, some other editors will revert it.

- There's a big difference between "MLM" and "Direct Selling". "Multilevel marketing" (MLM) is a strategy that some direct sales companies use to encourage existing distributors to recruit new distributors. On the other hand "Direct selling" is selling products directly to consumers in a non-retail environment.

- Please help resolve this issue

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Taking a look at the company's website https://www.marketamerica.com/site/company, it states, they are a Direct Selling company not an MLM. Talk to editors like Praxidicae and others to allow the right info to be at the lead section of the page. The company is never an MLM. They are Direct selling firm. MLM and Direct Selling are two different stuff.

Summary of dispute by Praxidicae

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is ridiculous and I do not intend to comment further. The filer has already been informed that this content dispute has been settled multiple times on the talk page and consensus was already reached months ago. And as I've already explained, using press releases and the company's own site isn't suitable, cults don't call themselves cults and neither do MLMs, we report on what RS say and they call it an MLM. Using DRN to help whitewash an article is just disruptive. Praxidicae (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Market America discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
User:Robert McClenon, You're correct. But here's the actual difference:

"Direct sales" describes the business model where independent contractors (or representatives or distributors) sell a company's products and/or services directly to consumers. ... The difference is that in the "MLM business model", the independent contractors also make money from recruiting others to work for the company"

Market America sells directly to the consumers in their form of network marketing. They don't make money from recruiting others just as MLM does. Please let's understand this.

Labeling the company MLM is indeed damaging. It's been a very long issue on their page. Let's remove the MLM stigma from the page and add "Direct selling or one-to-one selling". ThanksEstarosmārṭ (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon, I spent enough time to review each of the sources cited on that page. I made this clear on the Talk page. Just bringing it here as well. I discovered that Refs 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 clearly calls the company "Direct selling". 1 or 2 used "retail marketer" or "one-to-one selling".

Then refs 3 and 4 call it an "MLM".

So, it's even clear from from the page that we have 7 sources listed that call it "Direct Selling" as against the 2 sources that call it an "MLM". Isn't this enough to use "Direct selling"?

Moreover the company's website says it's a Direct selling/one-to-one selling as seen here https://www.marketamerica.com/site/company . That's primary source anyway

Same with these thre sources https://www.inc.com/profile/market-america , https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/market-america , https://www.directsellingnews.com/dsn-announces-the-2019-global-100/

I am only clearing myself with the above on why I brought it up here. The issue has lingered for years as I found on the page history lately. Several editors have tried to correct this. I don't engage in edit warring. I hate that. I strongly believe we owe it a duty to keep English Wikipedia in a good light by making sure accurate or near accurate info are on pages belonging to companies and individuals.

This is my final submission on this. I'll gladly welcome whatever decision is taken on this at the end. Thanks Estarosmārṭ (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


User:Robert McClenon, Thanks for this. I thought he'll be notified automatically. I just notified the other editor on his talk page.Thanks.Estarosmārṭ (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Estarosmārṭ has been blocked as COI/paid editing via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariah200. Naturally, I found this out after describing the Truth in Advertising database of 450 false marketing claims Market America has made this year, the lawsuits alleging they are a MLM, TINA calling them a MLM, BakerHostetler calling them a MLM, and so on. tedder (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Kudos to Tedder for improving the text and sources. Note that the article is regularly visited by IPs and other accounts seeking to define the company as something other than multilevel marketing. Watchlisting is encouraged. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon, sorry I didn’t mean to indicate there was an IP problem at the article at the moment. My observation is based on the 3 or 4 years I’ve had it on my watchlist. I do sympathize with people who have invested money in this scheme, or who have friends, family or spouses who are under pressure to recruit others in the hopes of making back their investment. A Wikipedia article stating the fact that it’s actually a thinly veiled pyramid operation will naturally make their efforts more difficult.- LuckyLouie (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer non-moderator

Both editors have stated that they do not intend to comment any further. I will give them two choices. I can prepare a neutrally worded RFC, with some interaction with the editors (which means that they will have to comment further), or I can simply close this case. If I simply close this case, either of them can post an RFC, or they can leave the article alone, or they can discuss with each other. So: We can leave it alone as saying MLM, or we have an RFC. I know that both editor know that edit-warring is not permitted. If I don't get a response, I will close the case. I will advise that an RFC, with or without my help, is the best answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:LuckyLouie - If unregistered editors make unsourced or contentious changes to the page, it can be semiprotected. It appears to me that the editing by unregistered editors was several weeks ago, and that semiprotection is not necessary at this time. What is probably necessary is an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2020 (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.

Dimethyl Ether

– 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

1.Original Contribution: Dimethyl ether can also be used as a blendstock in propane autogas. Reference: US Patent 5,632,786, May 27, 1997. Process for Fuel for Spark Ignition Engines, Basu, A., et.al. was removed by the editor. See User Talk: Smokefoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smokefoot#%2F%2A_Fuel_%2A%2F_Response%3A_Added_sentence_with_U.S.patent_reference_about_DME_use_as_blendstock_in_propane_autogas_to_Dimethyl_Ether_but_it_was_removed. 2. Revised Contribution based on editor's original feedback to use secondary sources: New Reference: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2012.05.012. This revision was rejected again by the editor. 3. For full disclosure: I (XTLExpert001) am one of the authors of this peer-reviewed Elsevier Invited Review. I am also an internationally-recognized expert on DME as a Fuel and would like to be able to contribute more in the future. 4. The editor's rejection appears to be inconsistent with Wikipedia's Core Content Policies.


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

Extensive recent discussions on editor's User talk:Smokefoot.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Yes, by recommending that the editor allows my contribution with the revised reference.

Dimethyl Ether 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.

Sucharit Bhakdi

– 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

A page was created about the scientist Sucharit Bhakdi. Editors who disagree with his views on the Covid-19 situation have changed the page in a ways to discredit him without engaging in discussion. Attempts to discuss the issue or improve the page are attacked. It makes Wikipedia look bad and the article itself has lost much of its initially valuable content.

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

[[7]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

If agreement cannot be reached, I think controversial issues should be omitted from the article and concise, verifiable and only relevant information should be included. I think this sort of behaviour brings Wikipedia into disrepute and it would be interesting to see what any neutral and experienced editors think.

Summary of dispute by SlaterSteven

Note the issue is Covid disinformation, as described by numerous RS and experts.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Sucharit Bhakdi 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:Wow! signal

– 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

Hello. I added a couple of lines about facts (not opinions) in the WOW! Signal article. The facts were found in an arXiv preprint, which hasn't been peer-reviewed, but from what I understand, not everything that is in Wikipedia must be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The preprint has media coverage and I added 2 reliable secondary sources, one from Discover Magazine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discover_(magazine)

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

[8]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I believe not everthing that it's in wikipedia must be published in journals and peer-reviewed. I just want to contribute to the WOW Signal wikipage with a couple of lines stating facts (not opinions) that were covered in a paper from arXiv and 2 reliable secondary sources. I believe this is enough for those 2 lines to stay in the wikipedia WOW signal page. Thank you in advance.

Summary of dispute by David J Johnson

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

Talk:Wow! signal discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Hello, concerning the specific conditions of my request, by the time I started this resolution request there was only one editor involved. ExoEditor (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I have only just noticed this thread and have not been informed that this page had been opened. There have been several other editors who have disagreed with the proposed changes and have given their reasons for opposing the unreferenced changes. They have also warned that other editors comments should not be deleted from the Talk page. In my opinion, discussion and observing Wikipedia conventions is far better than bringing the discussion here. David J Johnson (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello, this issue needs to be addressed by the administrators. For that reason, I suggest you to include your comments in your section "Summary of dispute by David J Johnson". ExoEditor (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2020 (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.

Mòjiāng virus

– 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

As the world is searching for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, some evidence (sources in the article) points to a connection to an earlier 2012 outbreak in Mòjiāng, China. briefly, in 2012 six miners got sick from an unknown pathogen. this caused interest in several virology groups, one of which identified the mentioned Mòjiāng virus or MojV, in the same mine. the paper's authors acknowledge that no medical connection exists between MojV and the sick miners (in fact it is not known to infect humans). this is related to SARS-CoV-2 as RatG13 the closest genetic relative to it was identified by a different group (Shi zhengli's) in the same mine (well documented). The page was created in May 2020 by [Henipa], and worded in a way that implied that MojV is the pathogen related to the outbreak. I've added background information clarifying the connection between the subjects. but it was removed. I've added a short clarification, that the connection between the topic(MojV) and SARS-CoV-2 possible origins, relates to being sampled from the same mine. but it was removed and replaced with a laconic mention of covid conspiracy theories.

While I'm not an expert in the field, it seems to me that MojV is of secondary interest, as it does not infect humans. and It's my suspicion, that it was created at this time to intentionally obfuscate the more important facts about the outbreak. and I believe it's important that it's relationship to other facts surrounding that outbreak be made clear.

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

Talk:Mòjiāng_virus I believe we have come to a consensus with Henipa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shturmavik71 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'm looking for community input on the matter. I've started editing that page, as I was looking for information about those events. and after reading a few external sources, it seemed to me that the Wiki deliberately confuses the reader with regards to MojV.

Summary of dispute by Henipa

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

I created Mòjiāng virus (MojV) because it is a neglected henipavirus of major import, of which humans are a known susceptible host. Pathogenic henipaviruses are highly transmissible and uniformly lead to respiratory failure and acute meningoencephalitis with case fatality rates averaging 40-90% depending on the outbreak. They are uniquely devastating to developing rural communities where they are most common. There is very little known about MojV specifically compared to the prototypic Hendra and Nipah viruses which is why I feel it is necessary to have clear and scientifically accurate information available on wikipedia. During the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been several unrelated conspiracy theories alleging laboratory escape of a sarbecovirus that ultimately became SARS-CoV-2. One of these conspiracy theories alleges that MojV was used by China as a "cover-up" for the conspiracy. In November 2020, User:Shturmavik71 vandalized Mòjiāng virus along with pages on the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) and linked multiple conspiracy theory sources. User:Shturmavik71 has vandalized these pages in such a way that purports this conspiracy theory as the dominant narrative. This has led to misinformation about both sarbecoviruses and MojV. I continue to revert these edits and use the official publications cited by ICTV in phylogenetic characterization.

Because User:Shturmavik71 does not dispute the official virology and phylogenetic classification of MojV as purported ICTV (except in human pathogenesis), just the details of the human outbreak, I suggested that they could make a separate article about the outbreak of pneumonia of unknown cause. They disagreed on the basis that they believed me to be acting as a co-conspirator, and that an article on MojV itself is inherently misleading because an unrelated sarbecovirus was also isolated from the same site. Based on all available information regarding the pneumonia outbreak of unknown etiology and the viral isolates from the environment, it is known that the miners likely did not die from sarbecovirus infection. However, MojV was not isolated when the miners were being treated and they were not tested before they died. Thus it was impossible to know if they were MojV infected. For this reason, it is proactively important to have accurate information about MojV so that the next time this happens we can understand the disease, effectively diagnose and treat those who may be infected. Henipa (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Thucydides411

My involvement here was mainly based on my concern that Shturmavik71 was including links to non-MEDRS websites that suggested that SARS-CoV-2 originated in the mine in Mojiang, and possibly had some connection with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (which has been the subject of persistent conspiracy theories since SARS-CoV-2 emerged). Whatever information is included at Mòjiāng virus, it should be based on scientific publications, and the article should not be used to advance conspiracy theories about SARS-CoV-2. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Mòjiāng virus discussion

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

First statement by moderator (Mòjiāng)

I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the rules, and follow the rules. You are expected to know what the rules are. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article, or what they want kept the same? The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. If you want to respond to each other, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Statements in the space for statements should be addressed to me, and to the community, not to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Mòjiāng)

Back-and-forth discussion

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.

Introduction to editing page

– 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

  • Various pages potentially linking to a general-purpose introduction page for new editors

Users involved

Dispute overview

There has been a long-running disagreement between Moxy and myself over the best general-purpose introduction page for new editors. Moxy, who was the main contributor to WP:Contributing to Wikipedia, prefers that page; I, one of several editors who has worked on the Help:Introduction (H:I) series, prefer it. We have clashed on several occasions, and it has become increasingly clear that Moxy does not have community consensus behind them. The link was changed from WP:Contributing to H:I first at {{Welcome}} in April (following an admin-closed VPR discussion, albeit one in which the focus was mostly on other changes), then at the top of the Main page in June following a small discussion, and (most compelling) adopted in the left sidebar following a well-attended WP:CENT/VPR/admin-closed discussion. Over the past month, H:I has averaged over 3,000 pageviews per day, compared to only ~300 for WP:Contributing. As all this has transpired, Moxy has become increasingly hostile (example: "village idiot", referring to me in an unrelated context where we crossed paths); I'm taking this here rather than ANI since I care mostly about the content outcome and to try to keep the temperature slightly lower, but it's context to note.

All this leads to the current dispute at {{Talk header}}, where there's been a discussion on various wording tweaks. I proposed that switching to H:I be among them and included it in the sandboxed changes as we moved toward implementation. Moxy objected and no one else took a side regarding the intro page, but I felt comfortable including it in the suite of changes because of the extensive precedent above. Moxy partially reverted back to WP:Contributing, with summary dont see anyone that agrees to this bad link, and followed up with a reply at talk that looks pretty transparently like an attempt to muddy the waters.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope we don't have to have another large debate here about the respective merits of the different introduction pages. That discussion has already taken place: whichever link is best is best, and that doesn't meaningfully change whether it's the left sidebar or {{Talk header}} or somewhere else, so we shouldn't need to rehash a discussion that has already been held multiple times. But I'm tired of fighting Moxy dragging their feet at every turn. I hope others here can lay down clearly that the extensive precedent is sufficient justification for standardizing around Help:Introduction over WP:Contributing to Wikipedia wherever that dispute arises.

Summary of dispute by Moxy

Simply needs to gain consensus for the addition in this case (not to all 500 other additions) as there is clear objection. (Perhaps let the ongoing talk continue as they have done a few times.) Sdkb seems to believe that a talk for one page allows them to add the 70+ page "Editing" tutorial on every page replacing many other how to pages that cover much more then just editing. As I have stated many times before a "How to Edit" module tutorial is not always best. Even after being shown how bad the intro is doing they still wish to add it all over. As someone who cares about accessibility I do have a problem with a link to our main help pages edited by many experienced editors replaced by a non-standard GIANT tutorial that the vast majority are not reading thru (Wikipedia adventure all over again :-( ). This would be the third time we have tried a multiple page tutorial and for the 3rd time its failed...so I will be objecting in some cases to its replacement... just a few here and there and not the mass change of links overall. As per Wikipedia:Consensus "The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process." Lets not get caught in a lie again.--Moxy 🍁 19:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to editing page 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.

Ahmose-Nefertari

– 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

Different interpretations of sources regarding the meaning of the black skin color in the depictions of ancient Egyptian queen Ahmose-Nefertari. "Classical" sources (as well a some considered non-mainstream by today standards) see this as a clear sign that she was of black African ethnicity; more modern sources, however, argued that the black color of the queen's skin has a religious meaning (she was deified shortly after death and regarded as a goddess of underworld and resurrection). Particular sources of discord lie in the interpretation of an ambiguous sentence by Egyptologist Alan Gardiner (quoted in the discussion) which can apparently be used to support both hypotheses, and the use of sources which generally claims that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks, in order to indirectly support the "ethnically black" hypothesis (which I'm not sure but may well be Synthesis).

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

Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari#November_2020_edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Providing external judgment and ensure there are no guideline violations. Hopefully helping to avoid an incoming edit war and achieve a deserved consensus.

Summary of dispute by Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena

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

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this topic openly. I came to Wikipedia and the page at hand with the intention of reading about the topic expressed in the words and the spirit of impartiality. Coming upon the 'Deification and iconography' section of the page, what I found was a seemingly deliberately convoluted paragraph describing the artistic depictions of the subject of the page and discrediting authors expressing a particular view. The paragraph flickered throughout between two clearly contrasted views (as defined by Khruner (talk · contribs) above, e.g. "In most artistic depictions of Ahmose-Nefertari, she is pictured with black skin, while in some instances her skin is blue.") and also statements neither in support of either views (convoluting the paragraph further, e.g. "In a wooden votive statue of Ahmose-Nefertari, currently in the Louvre museum, her skin was painted red"). I endeavored to add readability and consistency to the section by grouping views and isolating statements into separate paragraphs and giving them context. I must emphasize, that I did not seek to change the views expressed, and I am greatly in favor of expressing all views, especially without attempts at discrediting authors of any particular view.

Upon my first edit of the page, my changes were reverted immediately, and then persistently by two editors seemingly without proper assessment and consideration of their extent. Indeed, Khruner (talk · contribs) in his apology said he was, "Sorry for accusing you of removing the blue issue", a very welcome apology demonstrating great integrity. What followed began as what I can only describe as a tirade by Wdford (talk · contribs) in which accusatory and intentionally intimidating behaviors were displayed. Wdford (talk · contribs) used the pronoun 'we' to express himself, characterized me as a 'newly-registered editor', labeled my references following academic standard as 'controversial', accused me of 'edit-warring' and referred to me as an 'edit-warrior', and without solicitation directed the conversation towards the topic of 'race' and his personal convictions from conjecture (please refer to Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari#November_2020_edits for instances where the behaviors were displayed).

I will provide a summary of my discussion with Khruner (talk · contribs) and Wdford (talk · contribs) below according to a breakdown of Khruner (talk · contribs)'s 'Dispute overview',

(1) Concerning "different interpretations of sources regarding the meaning of the black skin color in the depictions of ancient Egyptian queen Ahmose-Nefertari"

I must reiterate that I am not opposed to different interpretations of sources. I encouraged editors to include all sources, and discouraged attempts at discrediting authors of any particular view (with wording such as 'controversial' or describing authors as being 'outside of Egyptology').

(2) Concerning "a particular source of discord lying in the interpretation of an ambiguous sentence by Egyptologist Alan Gardiner"

To avoid interpretation by editors and while I had it paraphrased, I would simply suggest (as was done by Wdford (talk · contribs) in the case of Gardiner, and which I did not oppose and in fact completely agree with), adding the direct citation by the author Gestoso Singer to the section : "In tombs and stelae, her skin has been painted black as well. Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241; Gardiner 1961) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry". I subject my own claim that my referenced paraphrasing was done with the utmost honesty to anyone's scrutiny : "Gardiner's statement has been interpreted as him suggesting that her black skin is a sign of her Nubian ancestry".

(3) Concerning "the use of sources which generally claims that ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks"

I would like to expose a few considerations concerning the addition of this statement.

First, I introduced and supported this statement to provide useful literary and visual context to the view that Ahmose-Nefertari's skin may have been depicted to faithfully represent actual human skin. Approaching the section of the article and reading the views of the different authors, with no previous conceptions of Egyptian artworks, the first interrogation that I can conceive would come to my mind (and perhaps other readers) would be : was this (supposed depiction of human skin color for realism) done elsewhere in Egyptian artworks? I don't believe a very extensive exposition of context is necessary, I do believe it can be a very practical device for future readers.

Second, with regards to context, very important distinctions must be made. While context may support a view, it does not necessarily intend to support a view. It provides the circumstances that may have helped to form the basis of the view (regardless of intention). Seeking to make a view understandable is not the same as seeking to support it. Furthermore (and this is key to a peculiar insistence by editors to introduce the concept of 'race' to this discussion), the statement does not support, or give context to an "ethnically black" hypothesis. Ethnicity is the "state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition". Human skin color is a phenotype.

Third, at first Wdford (talk · contribs) objected to this statement on the basis that it is false. Upon my providing reliable sources to support the statement, Wdford (talk · contribs) objected again, however this time on the basis that it represents synthesis (please refer to Talk:Ahmose-Nefertari#November_2020_edits). I must emphasize that in one of his edits, Wdford (talk · contribs) inserted a similar introductory (even more broadly) generalizing statement to give context to the view that skin color in ancient Egyptian art is symbolic ("ancient Egyptian art was more symbolic and stylized"), a change which I did not object to (unlike Wdford (talk · contribs), who has objected to all of my edits indiscriminately and seeks to suppress information). Of note is that Khruner (talk · contribs) did not object to Wdford (talk · contribs)'s (even more broad) introductory statement of context, but did object to mine in our initial discussions. In the case of this edit, there seems to be a double standard.

Finally, and beyond the reliable sources which I have provided, I would conclude with adding that context is inherently practical. For example, that Ahmose-Nefertari is mentioned or depicted "especially in the village of Deir el-Medina", and that text and images associated with categorizing and depicting individuals with distinct human skin colors also appear in the village of Deir el-Medina could be mere coincidence. It may also help highlight a potential reason why some authors have considered the possibility that her skin color was depicted faithfully. Please note that I do not remark upon this highly speculative link in my statement of context, or as part of the sources which I have included. If I did, it could rightly in my opinion (and as opposed to only providing context), be deemed an attempt at synthesis or original research.

Thank you for your consideration.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Wdford

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

The account for Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena has existed for only five days, although clearly he is familiar with Wikipedia editing. He made contentious edits to this article against the consensus, and refused to accept that he was bound by consensus.

He added a line about skin color, which is not supported by his cited sources. Eventually he conceded that the sources do not actually support his POV, but that illustrations on those pages "provide useful literary and visual context to the view", and he feels this is sufficient to include his view as a firm statement in Wikipedia's voice, regardless of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.

Nzakimuena leans on the work of Martin Bernal, the author of the debunked work Black Athena, which espouses the fringe Black Egyptian hypothesis. He refuses to allow the article to acknowledge that this fringe work has been rejected by mainstream scholarship, (see eg Black_Athena#Criticism), and he has edit-warred to keep in a statement that Bernal was related to the respected expert Gardiner based on something he calls "filial consistency", even though Gardiner's views diametrically oppose those of Bernal.

There is no "ambiguous sentence by Egyptologist Alan Gardiner" – Gardiner clearly and unambiguously rejects the suggestion that Ahmose-Nefertari had black blood. Bernal nonetheless claimed that Gardiner accepted that Ahmose-Nefertari had Nubian ancestry. I have pointed out that the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology, Volume 3, Issue 1 - Volume 4, Issue 1, 1990, at page 100, actually states: "Although Bernal cites Gardiner (1961 : 213-214) to support the quoted statement, the interested reader will discover that, on those pages Gardiner says nothing whatsoever about members of the royal family of the 18th Dynasty being Nubian". In other words, they are calling Bernal a liar - which Nzakimuena refuses to acknowledge. Respected source Singer noted that Bernal had made this claim, and then promptly refuted his claim, yet Nzakimuena continues to edit-war to keep in a sentence stating that Singer agrees that Gardiner agrees that Ahmose-Nefertari had Nubian ancestry. Singer actually stated that "In tombs and stelae, her skin has been painted black as well. Some scholars (Bernal 1987: 241-242; and wrongly according to Bernal 1987: 384, n. 40, also Gardiner 1961: 213-214) have suggested that this is a sign of her Nubian ancestry, but we believe that it was because black skin meant new life to the Egyptians." Here is Singer's actual paper – [9], which Nzakimuena refuses to acknowledge.

Finally, any statement I made which disagreed with Nzakimuena was promptly labelled an ad hominem attack, in a manner which suggests he has been planning for an edit-war from the beginning of this five-day project. Wdford (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahmose-Nefertari discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Wdford statement and RfC suggestion
Now that everyone's here, I'll say it again, this seems more like RfC material to me. Do you agree? Seemplez 11:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I am already participating in discussions, on the talk page, at some length. The problem is that one SPA editor doesn't consider the rules to be binding on himself, which undermines the process. Perhaps if more editors participated it would help? Wdford (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wdford: Would you support my closing of this and you, Khruner or Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena opening an RfC? Seemplez 16:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wdford: Also, please keep in mind that this is about the content, not the contributor. Seemplez 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you yes I am willing to participate in discussions (in spite of the unfortunate accusations).
Something interesting came to my attention. I found it very odd at first because I quoted directly from sources... Gestoso Singer changed the quoted section of her work over the last 5 days of this talk (I know this to be true, because I still have a copy of her work saved on my personal computer which I retrieved before the change was made, and so would Khruner (talk · contribs) : "About Gestoso Singer, indeed she reports that Gardiner, along with Bernal, recognized Ahmose Nefertari as of Nubian descent"). Her work available online is still dated January 17, 2011, despite the change. The work by Gestoso Singer which I cited reflects the work as dated on the page (exactly as I quoted it during the course of our conversation [10]).
In the page in its current form, I believe her source should be removed from the paragraph supporting the faithful representation of skin color, because with regard to her former view, the source is not reliable (it seems to have changed over 5 days as a result of our conversation in favor of another view). The author also no longer supports her former statement. In the page in its current form, I suggest that keeping or adding the reference in support of other views should be at the discretion (and integrity, regarding the reliability of the source) of other editors.
To address comments above, the line about skin color is supported (by a reference following academic standards and peer-reviewed evidence, i.e., which will not change over the course of days). Bernal's work was cited before my edits. Bernal is factually related to Gardiner. I suggest keeping Gardiner's work referring to "black blood" as quoted and allow readers to judge for themselves if their works are diametrically opposed.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: If your cited source has changed, you should remove the offending paragraph/remove it and rewrite with different sources in your sandbox. Seemplez 16:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Seemplez: Yes thank you, I rewrote the offending paragraph for review in my sandbox. I will note that the aforementioned article by Gestoso Singer is no longer available for download as a link on her ResearchGate online profile (as of today) for some unaccountable reason. In her new (days old) article [11], Gestoso Singer notes, "(1) I am grateful to redacted for the suggestion." I am no expert and I wondered if this type of situation is addressed by WP:COI. Once again I suggest that keeping or adding the reference should be at the discretion (and integrity) of other editors. I only corrected the offending paragraph for review as other sources did not transfer properly (perhaps because they no longer exist).Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: You seem to have submitted it to Articles for Creation, this is the wrong process. I think you should ask for a peer review at WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt/Peer_reviews. Seemplez 18:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena: Could you please post the link in which redacted is mentioned? Seemplez 18:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Never mind, I found it. Remember to put external links on talk pages in the format [link text], substituting link for the link and text for the link replacement text. Seemplez 18:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Seemplez: I added a link to a saved version of the file to my previous message for future reference (since elsewhere it changes over time). As for your recommendation (thank you for your valuable feedback), I am assuming you mean that I should have a version of the paragraph available for viewing on my sandbox, and then write on WikiProject_Ancient_Egypt/Peer_reviews to request a review. While I am extremely grateful for your suggestion, I must say that based on personal experience, I question the Ancient Egypt peer review process. By their own accounts, the other editors were not inexperienced. Editing (in good faith) and talking about the edits has proven a very effective way of implementing change and exposing bias (to say the least). As Khruner claimed to be a willing participant in this discussion (below), I would like to gather his feedback, and if all agree make the very minor changes I mentioned to the state of the page in question. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I mostly agree with the linked version with some reservations. Both Diop and Bernal's works have been considered pseudohistorical to various degrees; while they were present here since before this diatribe, perhaps it would not be bad to mention that (as it was already present for Bernal, now not anymore). And the kinship between Gardiner and Bernal is still pointless to me, and could give the wrong impression that they also share their opinion about this issue as well as kinship. Khruner (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Khruner: Thank you, I have raised before that discrimination of persons and of their views dealing physical appearance, not on the basis of truth but on the basis of physical appearance, has been problematic historically across many fields and areas of the world. I am wondering if you agree or disagree with this statement. I believe that if Diop and Bernal's work are to be labelled controversial (as it was already present for Bernal) or pseudohistorical (to any degree), it would be very relevant to introduce said labelling with such a brief statement as I have expressed above, for context (and which I am willing to support with reliable sources and evidence for your consideration, of course).
Concerning Gardiner and Bernal, according to your wording, that they might "share their opinion about this issue as well as kinship" is the "wrong impression". Earlier in the dispute overview you indicated that the "ambiguous sentence by Egyptologist Alan Gardiner [...] can apparently be used to support both hypotheses". By your use of the term "hypothesis" here I believe there is confusion over a part of the conversation we had about Gardiner previously. I claimed that "ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks" for context (Wdford at first vehemently disagreed with this statement, before attacking it on the basis of synthesis). You did not mention this statement again here, so I take it that it is no longer part of your reservations. Of Ahmose-Nefertari, Gardiner said she was "depicted for some unaccountable reason with a black countenance; if she was a daughter of Kamose she will have had no black blood in her veins". As I have mentioned previously, I do not doubt that Gardiner's sentence is ambiguous regarding whether Ahmose-Nefertari's skin color is depicted with realism. His consideration however, of whether her depiction warranted commenting about "black blood in her veins" is not ambiguous (it is fact, he did comment on it), and not inconsistent with the idea that "ancient Egyptians often depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks". Therefore, that Gardiner and Bernal might "share their opinion about this issue as well as kinship" is not the "wrong impression", it is "an impression", and might even be a "right impression" (at least with regard to the opinion that "ancient Egyptians depicted human skin color faithfully in their artworks"). As a result, kinship between Gardiner and Bernal is a neutral statement. It could support either conclusion that the authors agree on matters of ancient Egyptian depiction.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Once again, a wordy thesis filled with SYNTHESIS. Gardiner said nothing about murals representing skin colour faithfully – this so-called "shared opinion" is pure conjecture. The suggestion about Gardiner supposedly supporting both hypotheses is mendacious – in his own work he made it clear that "realistic skin colour" was NOT a possible reason for this choice of pigment.
Diop and Bernal's work are to be labelled controversial because mainstream scholarship has agreed that this is the case, with copious evidence. Wikipedia works on reliable sources, not fringe books and conjecture. If Bernal is to be retained here at all, then we should also include the comment from the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology which states that Bernal is totally misquoting Gardiner on the supposed "shared opinion".
Mentioning the kinship between Gardiner and Bernal is not a neutral statement - it is irrelevant to the topic, and it tries to sneak in some extra legitimacy to the discredited Bernal.
It is still unacceptable WP:OR to use the sentence "There is evidence which supports the view" when referring only to the editor's personal conclusions when viewing murals. This "view" is not the position of mainstream scholarship, and I question why this sentence should even be relevant in an article about a specific queen – whose portrayed skin colour is considered by mainstream scholarship to be symbolic of deification. What exactly is this editor trying to achieve? If Mark's comment is to be included at all, which is dubious considering he never mentions Ahmose-Nefertari anywhere, the sentence should read something like "One writer, who is not actually an Egyptologist or an art expert, once used the word "realism" within an overall context of symbolism, in a work which never mentions Ahmose-Nefertari." Wdford (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Wdford: I did not synthesize information and I am continuing to advocate maintaining facts. You are not addressing my comment directly. Gardiner did comment about "black blood in her veins" on the matter of her depiction. As for synthesis, yes to claim "shared opinion" would be conjecture. To claim definitive "unshared opinion", as now appears in Gestoso Singer's article (recently edited and no longer accessible on her ResearchGate profile, following your suggestion, as the article itself indicates) would also constitute conjecture. The suggestion is not mendacious, it is merely a possibility. I fail to see how Gardiner "made it clear that realistic skin colour was NOT a possible reason for this choice of pigment". Khruner agreed, as do I, that his sentence is ambiguous concerning the skin color of Ahmose-Nefertari.
I am also wondering about any definitive comments or follow up by Khruner and/or Seemplez, concerning persons in general who at once denigrate the scholarship of others, claim to rely on reliable sources, and seek to adapt the content of sources to support their own views before insisting on citing them. Is this behavior acceptable by Wikipedia standards?
Once again I agree with including all points of view, even ephemeral ones at other editors' discretion and integrity (including comments from the Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology). I also agree with avoiding to convolute all views together, risking (or with the deliberate intent, I suspect) to obscure any particular view. I originally intended to achieve this as part of my edits.
I think irrelevant to the topic, and having the potential to influence a view about the topic are contradicting ideas. Also, that it tries to sneak in some extra legitimacy remains a matter of opinion. One could claim the opposite.
There have been several separate shifts of priorities in the attempts to discredit the introductory sentence of context. On the basis that it is false. On the basis that it is synthesis and does not mention Ahmose-Nefertari. And now also on the basis that it is not the position of mainstream scholarship. Does mainstream scholarship consider articles edited in a manner of days, as abiding by academic standards? (I could go on, especially about integrity) There is no need to refer to me as "this editor".
The images and murals in the links including those associated with and from published works are labelled (known to represent Egyptians and Nubians) and their depictions of human skin colors are clear. This is quite relevant to the topic given the views expressed by various authors. (And to suggest that large groups of Nubians being chased by Ramses II are depicted reddish-brown and black to represent rebirth in the sources provided is dishonest. As are attempts at disparaging it, and calling it synthesis or original research)
Your proposed sentence ("not actually an Egyptologist or an art expert") appears to me obviously aimed at denigrating scholarship. An equivalent sentence would be : "redacted (an editor of this page), influenced Gestoso Singer, an author cited on this page which redacted considers mainstream, to modify her research article in a manner of days, towards supporting the view (also his view) that Gardiner (an author cited on this page) does not agree with his grandson Bernal, on the subject of Ahmose-Nefertari's skin color."
Once again, I came to Wikipedia and the page at hand with the intention of reading about the topic expressed in the words and the spirit of impartiality. I would prefer if impartiality was maintained. At least to me, at once denigrating the scholarship of others, claiming to rely on reliable sources, and seeking to adapt the content of sources to support one's own views before insisting on citing them is not a display of impartiality.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I'm willing to participate. Khruner (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Seemplez: I agree with RfC. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@Seemplez:, if I am not allowed to edit any content out of the page currently (as you recommended on my personal talk page), I was wondering if I could at least insert the previous version of the mainstream Egyptology author's article from 5 days ago, before it became different. This way both versions can appear on the page, and readers won't be confused when they come across the content.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena, Wdford, and Khruner: Closing as after sleeping on it I've decided it would be better as an RfC, and that Wdford may have influenced a cited source to his advantage, which is an admin matter. Seemplez 07:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your feedback Robert McClenon.Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2020 (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.

Durga

– 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 Hinduism there are primarily three main sections, Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism. So, in the Durga article there are views relating to all these sections. Main problem is According Vaishnavism tradition, Goddess Durga is considered as one of the three major forms of Lakshmi as prakriti in which she represents tamas (dark), who helps Lord Vishnu as Purusha in destruction and a celibate. The Shaivism and Shaktism traditions consider Durga as the Consort of Shiva. The main concern is how to satisfy all the sections. Should we include both "Shiva" (according to Shaivism & Shaktism) and "a Celibate form of Lakshmi" (according to Vaishnavism) to infobox consort section, if yes then how, (celibate Durga is not married and don't have a consort) or should we leave it blank for neutrality, Thank You.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I want you guys to go through the references, decide and give your opinions and resolve the problem.

Summary of dispute by Rosguill

I intervened earlier in this dispute to break up an edit war. I don't pretend to have much of any knowledge about the subject matter, but I actually think that there's a very clear answer to what to do here from an editing perspective. Infoboxes are only for summarizing the most important information that a reader could look at to get a brief summary of the article. A mythological being's status as a consort is not must have information for the infobox that would require us to implement some sort of compromise that presents multiple perspectives, and thus the infobox parameter should be excluded in the event that major perspectives cannot be easily summarized. signed, Rosguill talk 08:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Lk568354

Summary of dispute by Basavaraj Patel

1. The source quoted for reference to Lakshmi in the page quotes a purana which calls Durga being a form of Lakshmi, Radha. While the same literature which centres around Krishna calls Shiva as a form of Krishna. This was iterpreted by our friends who are not accustomed to indian way of life as a dispute. 2. Going forward, the decision here should be impartially applied to page on Lakshmi and other Hindu dieties pages. 3. Various editors who have editied articles on Vaishnaivism quoted MRRaja as wrong. I have quoted articles by extremist-vaishnav groups who say Durga is Parvati. I can provide sources to prove that majority of hindus do not exclusively belong to a sect, they worship all dieties especially Shiva and Vishnu, and see Durga as mother Parvati. Literary wordings taken out of context is absolutely contradictory to how hinduism is practised reconciling various literature texts belonging to different sects. Basavaraj Patel (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 245CMR

I am not favouring any party but I am 65% with the inclusion. As I said, the relationship between deities differs from texts to text. As there are hundreds of texts, only widely accepted versions are included in the infobox. There are so many well known deities, who are associated with different deities by some community. Some of them are:

  • Kartikeya, god of war, has multiple martial statuses. In North, he is considered celibate. If not, he is associated with Devasena only. But in South, he has two wives — Devasena and Valli.[1] There are many views but in the Infobox, only one view is included and rest is explained in the article itself.
  • Ganesha, god of beginnings, has similar situation[2], but in the Infobox, his wives in contemporary Hinduism is mentioned.
  • Lakshmi and Sarasvati are two prominent goddesses. There are spouses of Vishnu and Brahma respectively. Sometimes these mothers are associated with other deities. Lakshmi has been associated with Yama, Indra, etc in early texts.[3][4] But now everyone knows who her consort is. Sarasvati is associated with Vishnu, Ganesha or even as a celibate goddess. But in contemporary Hinduism, she is viewed as Brahma's spouse.[5]

According to me, consort can be added with a note or explanation in the lead as Durga is mostly considered Shiva's wife.
Reference

  1. ^ Dalal, Roshen (2010). The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths. Penguin Books India. ISBN 978-0-14-341517-6.
  2. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=oF-Hqih3pBAC&redir_esc=y
  3. ^ Dalal, Roshen (2014-04-18). Hinduism: An Alphabetical Guide. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-81-8475-277-9.
  4. ^ Kinsley, David (1998). Hindu Goddesses: Visions of the Divine Feminine in the Hindu Religious Tradition. Motilal Banarsidass Publ. ISBN 978-81-208-0394-7.
  5. ^ https://books.google.co.in/books?id=N7LOZfwCDpEC&pg=PA257&dq=sarasvati+survived+these+attacks&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-mvypvP3sAhWQfn0KHY8HCvAQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=sarasvati%20survived%20these%20attacks&f=false

Durga discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note* Unless you are having an argument with yourself- you need to list the other editors involved so that they may participate. Also- the DRN does not "make decisions" We mediate discussions and help users make their own decisions. If you are looking at outside eyes to view the conflict and contribute opinions- you may want to try a WP:RFC before opening a DRN. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle: I've added the Users, @Lk568354:, @Basavaraj Patel:, @245CMR: - MRRaja001 (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@MRRaja001: Is there a reason why only one of them was notified?

@Nightenbelle:, I am ready to participate but I would take time to put my views. Pls don't close the discussion..💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 05:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC) @Nightenbelle:, Yes, i'm willing to participate. - MRRaja001 (talk) 07:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@MRRaja001:, @Nightenbelle:, where should I start writing my veiws — here or the talk page of Durga..💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 12:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@245CMR: Add your comment to the "Summary of dispute by 245CMR" section. - MRRaja001 (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle:@Rosguill: Please conclude this discussion - MRRaja001 (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle:@Rosguill: @MRRaja001:@Basavaraj Patel: I think the problem is already resolved with the note on the infobox of Durga. Pls check. This the best way to resolve this problem..💠245CMR💠.•👥📜 04:31, 22 November 2020 (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.

Jill Kelley

– 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 found this article lacking balance per WP:UNDUE. One editor repeatedly edits the article to add negative statements already covered and explained in the article. We have gone back and forth, I have remained neutral and have cited properly all of my edits. This editor has removed or changed content, claiming that facts were not sourced properly when he deleted the citations then circled back later to delete the associated content claiming "it's lacking reliable sources." The editor appears to want to include more negative content and delete anything remotely positive about the subject, even if well sourced. Those actions appear to violate WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE rules if I am understanding them correctly.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As we have gone back and forth on the associated talk page of this subject, I believe it would be most fair to have a few completely unrelated editors and/or admins take a look at the content, the sources, and the edit reversions and weight in to put the edit war to rest. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Fat_Irish_Guy

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

I’ll try to keep this short. I’ve done my best to edit this article based on Wikipedia standards. I tried to carefully document the rationale for my changes. That’s resulted in constant interference to make the article a promotional puff piece. I’ve also received a significant number of baseless personal attacks by various usernames that are also dedicated to editing this article to be a promotional puff piece. Please view my Talk page for the most recent example. If you read the talk page of the article, you’ll see this has been a consistent problem since 2013. It’s my belief that it’s the article subject and one or more paid editors working on this. Here’s some evidence:

In the article talk page under the heading “Corrected current occupation +2 small changes elsewhere,” 10Sany1? is giving directions to Webmaster862, telling that person what changes to make. Example: “I also think it makes sense to limit the "downplay" of the prestigious nature of the Yale invite, as the refeerence provided clearly indicates the prestige here. As per WP:UNDUE the article should be balanced -- not a negative slant -- and these citations represent that. Please check it out. 10Sany1? (talk) 19:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)”

Those are orders to puff it up.

In addition, 10Sany1? and Katine67 are the same person. Look at Katine67 interests. They were identical to 10Sany1? interests until they noticed and went in and changed 10Sany1? interests to history buff. Go into 10Sany1? profile history and it’s obvious it was a direct copy. Katine67 identify’s herself elsewhere as a paid freelancer too.

What’s funny about this is they had worn me down. I became an editor because I wanted to edit articles on old buildings, British car companies and investment banks. I didn’t become an editor to be beaten up in a constant barrage of personal insults and to argue based on someone that appears to be polishing up their resume. I was just going to let it drop and move on to something more productive and less abusive.Then I saw the notice of dispute resolution and got fresh personal attacks on my Username Talk Page, so here we are.

I acted in good faith, attempted to be collaborative (to no avail) and tried to keep it courteous. I have no qualms about putting this in the dispute resolution teams hands.

Fat Irish Guy (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Jill Kelley discussion

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

The article is clearly a puff piece. It's one of the most blatant ones I've seen. Beach drifter (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Kelley)

Please read the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to each other in the space for statements by editors. If you want to reply to each other, do that in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Statements by editors are addressed to the community and to me, as representative of the community. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want either changed or left the same in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

First statement by editors (Kelley)

Back-and-forth discussion

  •  Volunteer note: If you want "a few completely unrelated editors and/or admins take a look at the content, the sources, and the edit reversions and weigh in to put the edit war to rest", you want an RfC. Seemplez 12:33, 26 November 2020 (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.

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

– 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:ImTheIP insists that a random black and white photo allegedly identifying anonymous Palestinian refugee belong in this article. According to my understanding of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Choosing_images, it does not. We edit warred about it a little bit: first I removed the image, he removed it back, I added images of my choosing, he removed them and claimed that I was making a WP:POINT. It appears to me that he believes that he owns the article. As of this writing, the inappropriate photo is still in the article and I fear that no matter what I say or do, it will remain there unless an outside party gets involved.

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

Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This can be resolved in three possible ways (in no particular order): 1. I must be made to understand that this photo is appropriate. 2. ImTheIP must be made to understand that this photo is inappropriate. 3. Both Option #1 and ImTheIP must be made to understand that the images I added are also appropriate.

Summary of dispute by ImTheIP

Thanks for filing this complaint GHcool. This dispute is over illustrative images on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions article.

I felt that the article lacked images, so I added a few on October 26; portraits of Mahmoud Abbas, Normal Finkelstein, and Desmond Tutu, a photo of two Palestinian refugees, and a map of the West Bank barrier.

The same day, GHcool removed the photo of the Palestinian refugees: "removed random irrelevant photo" I returned the photo on October 29: "the section is about palestinian refugees, hence a photo of palestinian refugees is relevant" GHcool removed it again on November 2: "removed random irrelevant photo" I reverted that edit and three other edits GHcool had done the same day on November 3: "Rv, please discuss these changes on the talk page" There's also a bunch of discussion on the talk page under the two sections Background and Impertinent_revert.

On November 4, I wrote why I thought the photo of the Palestinian refugee was relevant and GHcool responded by writing Fair enough, I'll add photos in other sections illustrating the topic in the same spirit. They proceeded by adding a photo of David Ben-Gurion declaring Israel's independence, the logotypes of the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties and Hamas, and a photo of a protest sign showing Israel's flag next to Nazi Germany's flag. I reverted on November 5: "WP:POINT edit". GHcool restored on November 7 and I reverted, again referring to WP:POINT. I wrote on the talk page: "Please stop edit warring and instead edit collaboratively. If you fail to do so I will file a complaint with the administrators" GHcool apparently filed one first.

There have been other disputes too which you can read about on the talk page. I feel like I have done my best to engage GHcool in debate but GHcool has frequently left me hanging. They say they are very busy and don't have time to respond to everything on the BDS talk page Fair enough, but editing contentious articles without having time to discuss might be problematic. I have no problem working collaboratively with GHcool, but they have to understand that we have to discuss things through. ImTheIP (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note* Please make sure all editors involved are notified and when ImTheIP (talk · contribs) Confirms they are willing to participate we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: Is the image being referred to File:Oldman girl nakba.jpg? Seemplez 09:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: GHcool, can you explain why you feel the image is inappropriate?Achar Sva (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
    • The image is several generations removed from what is being asserted by the text of the article. I guess the Wikipedia term would be that it is synthesis. As I understand it, the logic of placing the picture here is as follows:
      • Premise 1: Articles should depict what is written in the body.
      • Premise 2: The body of the BDS article speaks of the Palestinian right of return.
      • Premise 3: The Palestinian right of return is an alleged legal right of Palestinian refugees of the 1948 War of Independence.
      • Premise 4: Any photograph of any Palestinian refugee taken from any time would suffice to illustrate the point in Premise 2.
      • Conclusion: The BDS article ought include any photograph of any Palestinian refugee taken from any time.
    • Premise 4 is the unstated co-premise, and it is the weak link that makes the conclusion untenable to me. The counter-argument would be to include ghastly pictures of antisemitism in 20th century history to illustrate the concept of antisemitism in the BDS article.
    • So, I'm fine with one of three remedies: (1) allow any photograph that follows this logic to be placed in the article, (2) don't allow this photograph because the logic behind including it is flawed, or (3) illustrate the Palestinian right of return as it pertains to BDS specifically (for example, a photograph of a BDS advocate holding a sign demanding the right of return similar to this image.) --GHcool (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question: ImTheIP, can you explain why you feel this image is appropriate? (don't asnwer GHcool, give your own point of view).Achar Sva (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me first state that GHcool has not explained their objection to the photo on the article's talk page other than writing that we shouldn't start a "picture arms race". I replied with "You have twice removed the photo with the edit message 'removed random irrelevant photo' but you haven't explained why you think the photo is irrelevant." Their answer was "Fair enough. I'll add photos in other sections illustrating the topic in the same spirit." In other words, the arguments GHcool now presents are new to me.

I believe illustrations help articles comes alive; screenful after screenful with nothing but text bores readers. So I added a bunch of photos to the page as described in [12]. For the section about Palestinian refugees, I first searched for photos using Google but I gave up as the photos I found didn't have permissible licensing. I turned to Wikipedia articles about the subject and found photos in the articles Palestinian refugees and 1948 Palestinian exodus. I mostly randomly selected one of the images in 1948 Palestinian exodus#Gallery. My only criteria was that it should feature both a man and a woman.

I feel that an image of Palestinian refugees is appropriate because the section is about the Palestinian refugees' right to repatriate. A better image would have been a photo of living Palestinian refugees, but permissibly licensed photos are hard to come by. Unless the Wikimedia Foundation pays someone with a hefty life insurance to take photos in Palestinian refugee camps, it's not an option. So I feel that the photo is appropriate because it appropriately illustrates the text. ImTheIP (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2020 (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.

2020 Delhi Riots

– 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

There is a line about "a man, allegedly from the anti-CAA Side." I have provided verifiable and reliable references that clearly identify the man. Yet, for some reasons, the moderators are adamant about not naming him in the page. I do not understand the reason to refer to him as "a man" when is identity is on the public domain and he was caught on camera and has been identified beyond all doubts.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2020_Delhi_riots -:Ambigious sentence to absolve a criminal

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Verify the references i have provided and also check if the moderator-SlaterSteven, is adhering the NPOV policy of the page by refusing to add the name of the criminal, because according to him he is not a popular public figure.

Summary of dispute by SlaterSteven

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

One. We are not moderators. Two, the man has been charged, but there has been no conviction. Three, He is just one (as far as I can tell wholly) insignificant rioter.

As such it may fail wp:undue it does fail wp:blp.Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Note I was not informed of this, and the IP is an IP hopper, so it was only by checking that IP's edit history (they are a wp:spa, its why I was checking) I stumbled upon this DR request, I have also informed the other involved Editor.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 331dot

I too was not informed until SlaterSteven told me. The article at issue is particularly controversial among editors familiar with the event many of whom are trying to whitewash it towards one side or to a lesser degree the other. The only dispute here is by editors seeking to ignore WP:BLP when it suits them and follow it when it doesn't. Anyone who becomes familiar with the dispute will get a good education as to religious intolerance and bigotry in India. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

2020 Delhi Riots discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  •  Volunteer note: @Slatersteven and 331dot: I feel that a discussion cannot be opened with the IP hopping, and I doubt the IP will come back to check this discussion anyway. If all registered parties agree, I'll leave this as new, and open it if the IP comes back within 48 hours with an account. Seemplez 14:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Sounds okay to me. 331dot (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@331dot: I've left a message on their talk page. Seemplez 14:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Frankly with IP hoping (and an admission of block evasion, for which one IP was blocked) I am not sure this should be kept open.Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (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.

Sons of Josiah king of Judah

– 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

If your editors are not familiar with the Bible and its history of the people in it, they should not write about them. I came across your article, because I was searching for a quick spelling of one of Josiah son's name and I found that one of them, Zedekiah, is listed, according to one of your editors, as being Josiah's uncle; that is incorrect. "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you and you be found a liar." - Proverbs 30:6.

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

No such discussions found.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Whoever writes about God, His Word, and the people in it, needs to be correct! Your editors cannot just write without studying it. They, as well as whoever allows this to become public knowledge with errors, will have to be accountable not to men, but to God. "But I tell you that men will give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken." - Matthew 12:36

Summary of dispute by No one else

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

Sons of Josiah king of Judah 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.

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation

– 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

Discussion as to:

  • Whether or not the "Criticism" section should be titled "Scholarly analysis"
  • What should be included in the "Criticism" section

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

Talk:Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation#Criticism


How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing consensus on the isssues named in my summary and bringing further attention to this matter.

Summary of dispute by Davide King

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

That The Black Book of Communism "was published by a university press, was a work of scholarship, and received praise, not just criticism" misses that the praise came mainly from publications and non-experts, whereas reviews among scholars, especially those in the field, were much more mixed or critical. It is not a mainstream work within the field; it is a revisionist work in pushing the view, especially in the introduction which is the main issue and source of controversy, and was not peer-reviewed, that Communism was equal, and worst by the numbers, to Nazism. This is Holocaust trivalisation amounting to the double genocide theory; it is not a mainstream work or a work representing scholarly consensus.

Since the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation made an effort to compile updated ranges of estimates and concluded that the overall range 'spans from 42,870,000 to 161,990,000' killed, with 100 million the most commonly cited figure", it is not surprising criticism of the estimates, including that of Rummel since the 161,990,000 seems to come from him, who gave the highest estimates, and The Black Book of Communism, which popularised "100 million [as] the most commonly cited figure", is very relevant and due, especially when they use those estimates to push the view of "Communist ideology as the cause of the killings", which "is unsupported in academic writing", so "perhaps [we should] explain that they chose an exaggerated number in order to prove their point that Communism was worse than Nazism."

That the section currently includes only Ghodsee does not imply there is not an actual academic or scholarly analysis. There is "Bridges Across the Atlantic? Intertwined Anti-Communist Mobilisations in Europe and the United States after the Cold War" and The Criminalisation of Communism in the European Political Space after the Cold War. The latter was actually listed alongside Ghodsee, so it was not only her. This work is about the narrative pushed by organisations such as this one, with the narrative called "Victims of Communism" stemming straight from this organisation, which has promoted this narrative. While Ghodsee' views about Communist states may be criticised, her views about the organisation have not been. We should avoid criticism sections. Finally, "I don't know if this is criticism, it's just an objective description of what the organization does. Calling it criticism is giving equal validity to a[n] organization that promotes fringe views." Davide King (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Crossroads

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

"Criticism" should not be renamed "scholarly analysis", as that is POV. So far the only thing there is criticism from an anthropologist (not a historian) who, incidentally, complains that scholars and others don't talk enough about Communism's "achievements". (p. 118) One of the death counts of Communism more commonly used by the Foundation (among other counts) is that of 100 million derived from The Black Book of Communism. That article shows that it was published by a university press, was a work of scholarship, and received praise, not just criticism. Yet, a couple of editors claim without evidence that it is fringe. For the article to call the anthropologist's view "scholarly analysis" and not the work of the historians who attribute tens of millions of deaths to Communism is POV.

The criticism section should only use sources that discuss the Foundation; anything else is WP:Synthesis and WP:Coatracking. Isabella Emma keeps edit warring the synthesis back in anyway, and even though the criticism of the 100 million figure is already in the article. If we find other academic sources that discuss the Foundation positively, then "Criticism" can be changed to "Reception". But right now, it's only criticism.

I'm not very familiar with this noticeboard, but moderation does sound useful. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Isabella Emma

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

I think we should keep mention of the book because it adds context to the criticism/analyst part for the figure that is cited since she isn't the only one that criticized it. It shows the figure that is used is not really supported, in academic literature as Dave King pointed it out with the multiple sources that are on the page.Isabella Emma (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by AmateurEditor

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

The material in the section currently is adequately described as criticism, so naming it "Criticism" seems reasonable to me. I would not consider Aeon (digital magazine) to be a scholarly publisher. However, I don't have strong feelings about the section name one way or the other. My participation on the talk page has only been to explain why two of the sentences in the section are inappropriate because they are writing about The Black Book of Communism and do not mention the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation at all, making inclusion of the sentences ("The 100 million victim number is taken from The Black Book of Communism. Historians and scholars have criticized the figure, saying numbers were inflated to reach the 100 million mark.[33][34][35]") not a criticism or analysis of the foundation, a WP:COAT concern, and redundant with the last sentence in the section ("The 100 million estimate favored by the foundation is dubious, Ghodsee says, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois.[32]"). AmateurEditor (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces

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

Summary of dispute by Horse Eye's Back

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

I’m in the middle on this issue, I do think we should include the criticism of the Black Book of Communism’s death toll but only as it pertains to its use by the the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The page isn't the place for general of criticism of the Black Book of Communism, some people are trying to include critiques of the Black Book of Communism which don’t even mention the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in passing. As for the name I think the general idea is either to have a criticism/controversy section or to incorporate that same material into the rest of the page, I don’t remember ever coming across a page with a “scholarly thoughts” category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Isabella Emma was the whole reason we are here, if they were a sock the entire time this DRN is pointless and also fruit of the poison tree. I will not be participating here anymore or regarding this DRN as valid, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - The question of naming a section is probably better decided by RFC. If there are specific issues about what to include in a section, they can be decided by RFC, although moderated discussion is a good way to identify candidates for inclusion in a section. When responding to the invitation to this discussion, please indicate whether you want moderated discussion. Moderated discussion can be conducted if at least two editors think that it will be useful.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2020 (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.

Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal

– 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 claim that the article is biased. It refers to U.S. infringements as "withdrawal" while referring to Iranian ones as "violations". At first, the user HistoryofIran claimed that the sources use this terminology, however, I provided several sources which refer to U.S. infringements as "violations". Following this, the user had no further reasoning for their argument. it is a legal fact that one cannot withdraw from an agreement with no withdrawal clause -- hence the U.S. cannot withdraw this agreement, it can only violate it, this is a legal fact and pointed out by several news sources I linked earlier. Second, U.S. infringements are labeled "withdrawal" while Iranian infringements are labeled "violations". The other editors claim that "violation" is POV. There are sources (some of which I pointed out in an earlier post) which use both terminologies for both the U.S. and Iran -- it is clearly biased to extend the POV argument to the U.S., but not Iran. I offered a compromise which is that both U.S. and Iranian violations be labeled as "withdrawal" or "partial withdrawal", which resolves the POV argument, but it appears that this compromise was not accepted.

As I say on the talk page -- this is not a political argument, but a legal and linguistic one. Additionally, if the terminology "violation" is considered "POV" then it is reasonable that it not be applied to either the U.S. or Iran, particularly when there are sources using "withdrawal" for both sides. To arbitrarily choose "withdrawal" for the U.S. position and "violation" for the Iranian position stinks of political bias.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#U.S._Violation_vs._Withdrawal

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This is not a political argument -- it is an attempt to reduce the bias and POV in the article as wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. I offered a compromise which is that both U.S. and Iranian violations be labeled as "withdrawal" or "partial withdrawal", which resolves the POV argument, but it appears that this compromise was not accepted.

This should be arbitrated by more senior editors and the POV/bias of the article reduced.

Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran

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

Summary of dispute by Springnuts

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

Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#US_withdrawal 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:Dario Hunter

Dispute resolved successfully. 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.


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.

Gam-COVID-Vac

– 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

On 18th of November I made this edit on the page about this Covid vaccine. The edit was sourced to BBC and did not breach the rules requiring peer reviewed sources for bio-medical information. My edit was reverted, and in ensuing converstion (Russian sources and the BBC) in the talk page I have attempted to improve my edit, adding a research paper as my source and rephrasing my text several times to be more neutral. However, I was met with a stiff resisitance from @RexxS: and partially @Zefr:. They insist that no news sources should be used AT ALL unless absolutely necessary.

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

At Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac I have further attempted to make changes to my edit, making it more neutral. However this resulted in a backlash eventually accusing me af making a personal attack: "If you use the word "maliciously" about another editor, you are committing a personal attack." From the Talk page it is clear that they think that no news source is good enough, No matter if its BBC or TASS. (Or even Statista)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I hope for some kind of intervention, in which an accurate, well sourced to western and russian news (which are not blacklisted) statement will not be removed with claims of propaganda. There is no rule against using news articles for non-biomedical research on pages about medicine.

Summary of dispute by RexxS

On 18 November 2020, F.Alexsandr twice added the following text to the lead of Gam-COVID-Vac, an article under general community sanctions (see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019):

BBC has reported that due to Sputnik V being distributed in a freeze-drized state, it doesn't need to be stored at very low temperatures and it will be much easier to distribute, especially to faraway and tropical countries and regions.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Roxby, Philippa. "Russian Covid vaccine shows encouraging results". BBC.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Voronin, Nikolai (17 November 2020). "Race of three vaccines against coronavirus. We compared them, and this is what happened (In Russian)". BBC News Russian service.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

The guideline on sourcing medical content is at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and states:

  • all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.
  • Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles

At Talk:Gam-COVID-Vac #Russian sources and the BBC, both Zefr and I have explained to F.Alexsandr that it's not acceptable to use news media reports to source our medical content. I've also pointed out that the comparisons their text makes with other vaccines were not part of the original press release, and that it is patently misleading when the Moderna vaccine has similar storage and distribution abilities. The most recent MEDRS-compliant source we have is the Lancet article from 2 October and that only deals with the phase 1/2 trials. There is a press release from the Gamaleya Research Institute that has been used by the BBC, but that remains a primary source, and cannot be used to support biomedical claims in our articles. The warning at the top of the talk page and the edit notice for the article both state: Editors to this page prohibited from adding biomedical content without WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in this article.

Despite having the relevant guidelines clearly pointed out to them, F.Alexsandr has reinserted essentially the same content to the lead a third time on 22 November. This addition subtly changed a piece of text in the Lancet article from "The lyophilised form was developed for vaccine delivery to hard-to-reach regions of Russia, and the frozen form was developed for large-scale use." to "Both versions can be stored at relatively high temperatures, with liquid form at -18 C, and freeze-dried at temperatures of 2–8 °C, making it much easier to distribute, especially to hard-to-reach regions of Russia." That change editorialised the information by introducing comparatives: "relatively high temperatures" and "much easier to distribute" that are absent from the MEDRS source. This is a clear indication of a POV-push that attempts to laud the Russian vaccine compared with others.

When I pointed out these issues to F.Alexsandr in the talk page thread, they replied "Now you are maliciously misinterpreting the article". I deeply resent that sort of ad hominem attack and I will be taking steps to see that F.Alexsandr faces the consequences of that sort of behaviour on a page under general sanctions. Had the comment been aimed at another editor other than myself, I would have immediately blocked F.Alexsandr on the basis of "discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." See the warning at the top of the talk page.

This is not a content dispute, but a behavioural dispute over F.Alexsandr's tendentious editing of the article and its talk page. --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Zefr

This was my edit summary, indicating that the original source - Russian TASS (republished by the BBC) - was unreliable news not suitable for use as a source about vaccine distribution. Per WP:BRD, I began a talk page discussion here. Following WP:RECENTISM, there is little reason to use dubious news when such a closely-watched topic will be reported by reliable sources in the coming weeks. Zefr (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Gam-COVID-Vac 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:Wow! signal

– 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

At least 3 editors (Deeday-UK, David J Johnson, and Crossroads) refuse to allow me to add a couple of lines that have been widely covered by most major news portals about astronomy, space, & physics in secondary reliable sources:

https://astronomy.com/news/2020/11/sun-like-star-identified-as-the-potential-source-of-the-wow-signal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+astronomy%2ForOJ+%28Astronomy.com+News+-+Presented+by+Astronomy+Magazine%29
https://phys.org/news/2020-11-amateur-astronomer-alberto-caballero-source.html
https://interestingengineering.com/amateur-astronomer-finds-possible-source-of-wow-signal-after-43-years
https://www.abc.es/ciencia/abci-situan-origen-enigmatica-senal-radio-estrella-como-202011280130_noticia.html
https://hackaday.com/2020/11/25/the-wow-signal-and-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence/
https://futurism.com/the-byte/strongest-candidate-alien-message-came-from-sun-like-star
https://www.20minutos.es/noticia/4487493/0/hallan-una-estrella-identica-al-sol-que-podria-ser-la-emisora-de-la-extraterrestre-senal-wow/
https://www.telecinco.es/eltiempohoy/el-cielo/sol-senal-extraterrestre_18_3048945305.html
https://www.europapress.es/ciencia/astronomia/noticia-hay-gemelo-sol-region-vino-senal-wow-20201125104921.html
https://www.exoplanety.cz/2020/11/23/amatersky-astronom-nasel-hvezdu-od-ktere-mohl-prijit-wow-signal/
https://tekniikanmaailma.fi/vuonna-1977-kuultu-wow-signaali-on-vahvimpia-todisteitamme-maan-ulkopuolisesta-elamasta-ja-nyt-amatooriastronomi-uskoo-tietavansa-mista-se-tuli/?shared=1119373-4af56f0b-1
https://www.astrobitacora.com/descubren-una-posible-fuente-de-la-senal-wow/
https://www.eldiario.es/canariasahora/nekuni/astros/hallado-gemelo-sol-region-espacial-vino-senal-extraterreste-wow_1_6458603.html
https://www.satakunnankansa.fi/tiede/art-2000007644277.html

Two of them already said: "Include it when you find a reliable source" and "or at least talked about as widely as Paris's one was".

They also say (apparently contradicting themselves) that it must be peer-reviewed by a journal in order to appear in Wikipedia. I respect this opinion, but my humble opinion is that not everything that is in Wikipedia must be peer-reviewed by a journal.

Moreover, just the sentence previous to the one I wanted to include: "No nearby sun-like stars were within the antenna coordinates, although in any direction the antenna pattern would encompass about six distant stars" , actually has a source which is not peer-reviewed by a journal: http://www.setileague.org/articles/calibwow.htm

Therefore, there is clear contradiction between allowing non-peer reviewed sources such as the one mentioned above, and not allowing the ones I provided.

---Reply to Summary of dispute by David Johnson:
1. My initial request for dispute resolution was denied only because I didn't include all the editors involved.
2. I was blocked once not twice for adding the same content (not reverting) with new sources. An administrator had to lift my ban, which had been postponed by another user without any apparent reason.
3. His COI accusations are unfounded.
4. His accusation of me 'deleting (with bad intention) other editors comments on the article Talk page' is also not true. I initially deleted the thread I started because I thought consensus was reached; later I learned how to archive it.
5. IMO it does not matter that the original article was written by an amateur astronomer. The secondary sources are abundant and reliable.
6. IMO the fact that (some of the) other commenting editors have been against my changes is not an argument.
---Reply to Summary of dispute by Crossroads:
1. With respect to "the other source ExoEditor points to for comparison at least is by a subject-matter expert", it was presented at a symposium by the SETI League (an amateur organization btw) and it's not a secondary source. I honestly see that as your personal opinion, which I respect, but that's why secondary reliable sources are for. The source is not peer-reviewed, that's where the contradiction is. Also, I don't see it as a big deal including a couple of lines that have been widely covered by the media. In addition, that was just one example, there are many more pieces of text in the WOW! Signal page which origin is not peer-reviewed nor written by a subject-matter expert. Other sentences have wrong citations. For example "The closest easily visible star is Tau Sagittarii" has this source http://www.bigear.org/Wow30th/wow30th.htm , but that source never mentions that the closest easily visible star is Tau Sagittarii. Other sentences don't even have citation and state 'citation is needed'. I honestly see all of this as a contradiction.
2. Off-topic, but Crossroads is also in the dispute of Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.
---Reply to Summary of dispute by GurrenLagannTSS:
1. His acussation of edit warring history is unfounded and off-topic.
2. The arXiv source was not included, but the secondary reliable sources covering it in detail. Not every line that is in Wikipedia comes from a peer-reviewed origin. I didn't include neither arXiv nor Daily Mail in my contribution to the WOW! Signal article.
3. Hackaday, Coast to Coast, Interesting Engineering and Phys.org are not included here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#arXiv and therefore my understanding is that they are not self-published and can be used.
4. The Astronomy.com is not relayed from Phys.org. The Phys.org article is a different source.
5. ABC is one of the main newspapers in Spain, I honestly don't see why such important source would be excluded despite it's in Spanish. WP:NONENG appears to state that "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia".
6. There are many more sources that I didn't include, because the ones I included are widely used in Wikipedia, and IMO there would also be a contradiction in not using them this time. ExoEditor (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
7. After having a look to his last unfounded "About your claims/arguments", it seems to me that this user has something personal against the author (who is a known science communicator btw).

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

[[13]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd glad if just Wikipedia policies are applied, which I understand that it says that a new that is widely covered in detail by several secondary reliable sources can be included. I'm more than glad to debate about the way the sentence I suggested can be written in the WOW! Signal page. I have previously contributed to that article and I would like to be allowed to continue doing so, even if it's just with a couple of lines for now.

Summary of dispute by Deeday-UK

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

Summary of dispute by David J Johnson

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

This is the second time ExoEditor had brought the dispute to this page. The initial one being rejected a few days ago. This person has already been blocked twice for edit warring and warned for deleting other editors comments on the article Talk page. They do not seem to understand that it is the original news by a amateur that is subject to the reliable source comments and any amount of subsequent news reports does not make it a reliable source. There is also some evidence that there is a possible WP:COI here, raised by 2804:d57:2e84:d000:1016:8a05:318f:9285 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All other commenting editors have been against ExoEditor's changes. David J Johnson (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, to answer ExoEditor's comments above. I did not revert their comments three times in 24 hrs, unlike their reverts, which were over three reverts and the reason for a block by an adminstrator. I only highlighted another editor's comments regarding a possible WP:COI. Also they were blocked for a further day - that's two blocks. I rest my case. David J Johnson (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GurrenLagannTSS

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

I would like to state that ExoEditor has a history of edit warring, and that Alberto's papers are all under WP:OR. If i was him, i would drop this DRN for their health's sake.

About the sources:

- Alberto's paper itself is not peer-reviwered, and arXiv is generally unreliable under WP:RSP and WP:NPPSG.

- Hackaday might fall under WP:BLOGS and WP:SPS, but WP:NPPSG says that there is no consensus yet.

- Daily Mail UK is deprecated under WP:RSP - see WP:RSPDM.

- Coast to Coast AM... Nope, its a radio talk show that frequently promotes conspiracies.

- Astronomy.com is relayed from Phys.org, the latter of which can fall under WP:SPS.

- I'm unsure about Interesting Engineering and ABC Spain, but i have doubts. The latter falls under WP:NONENG.

In conclusion: between 60 and 100% of the listed sources are unreliable or dont meet Wikipedia's policies, and so, i would wait until the paper is peer-reviewed. No matter how many news sources mention it, i declare this paper null and void. --GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just replying to ExoEditor's reply, because he is clearly trying to make real claims fake. Also, face it, you are in a one against many situation, there is no return here.
About your claims/arguments:
- 1. See the Wow! signal revision history log page here, between the 14th and 30th of November.
- 2. Not valid under WP:OTHER and WP:OTHERSTUFF.
- 3. That is not the case at all. Just because it isnt on WP:RSP, it doesnt mean that its valid/reliale automatically.
- 4. Prove it yourself. Phys.org is also churnalism as well.
- 5. WP:NONENG also states that if you quote a non-English source, a translation into English should always accompany the quote. See the Quoting subsection.
- 6. Which is only the case for Interesting Engineering, but only that.
- 7. [Added around 15 hours later] It seems that your (ExoEditor's) behavior is slowly "evolving" to be classified as WP:DISRUPT, so far meeting WP:DISRUPTSIGNS 1, 2, 4a, 4b, and 5, leaving only 3 left. If you are going to keep calling every editor's argument against you "unfounded", even though i myself had provided examples that are just a single click from you, you can be banned from Wikipedia under WP:DISRUPT. --GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC) [in italics due to this being a future addition]
Also, i can feel that you are trying your best to cover up your actions. Please, for your own sake, close the damm DRN, you clearly lost this dispute... --GurrenLagannTSS (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Crossroads

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

ExoEditor should drop this for their own sake. Sometimes other editors just don't see it your way. I've been on both ends of that. I still stand by what I said on the talk page that it would be better to wait until peer review or reference by a peer-reviewed source. The other source ExoEditor points to for comparison at least is by a subject-matter expert and was presented at a symposium; this is a preprint recently added to ArXiv. I don't see the big deal in waiting for peer review. Crossroads -talk- 22:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jswhitten

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

Summary of dispute by

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

Talk:Wow! signal discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer question - Is this a yes-no issue, or an issue where compromise is possible? Is there a possible compromise as to what the filing editor wants to add and the other editors do not want to add? If so, we can try moderated discussion if the other editors want moderated discussion, but it is voluntary. If this is a yes-no question, then it appears that the filing editor has the choice of accepting that a local consensus is against them, or of using an RFC to include more editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment The filer has submitted this case to WP:RFAR here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2020 (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_198&oldid=1030057224"