Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 200
![]() | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Contents
- 1 Frédéric Chopin
- 1.1 Summary of dispute by Nihil novi
- 1.2 Summary of dispute by Smerus
- 1.3 Summary of dispute by kosboot
- 1.4 Summary of dispute by François Robere
- 1.5 Summary of dispute by Toccata quarta
- 1.6 Summary of dispute by Glissando1234567890
- 1.7 Frédéric Chopin discussion
- 1.7.1 First statement by moderator (Chopin)
- 1.7.2 First statements by editors (Chopin)
- 1.7.3 Reflist
- 1.7.4 Second statement by moderator (Chopin)
- 1.7.5 Second statements by editors (Chopin)
- 1.7.6 Third statement by moderator (Chopin)
- 1.7.7 Third statements by editors (Chopin)
- 1.7.8 Third statements by editors (Chopin), continuation
- 1.7.9 Fourth statement by moderator (Chopin)
- 1.7.10 Fourth statements by editors (Chopin)
- 1.7.11 Fifth statement by moderator (Chopin)
- 1.7.12 Fifth statements by editors (Chopin)
- 1.7.13 Sixth statement by moderator (Chopin)
- 1.7.14 Sixth statements by editors (Chopin)
- 1.7.15 Seventh statement by moderator (Chopin)
- 1.7.16 Seventh statements by editors (Chopin)
- 1.7.17 Back-and-forth discussion
- 2 Forbidden Relationships in Judaism
- 3 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
- 4 Miklós Horthy
- 5 2021 in heavy metal music
- 6 Baháʼí Faith on life after death
- 7 Narendra Modi
- 8 Frederick S. Jaffe
- 9 List of coups and coup attempts
- 10 Draft:CalFile
- 11 Draft talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Temp/Temp
- 12 Dunoon
- 13 Peter Navarro
- 14 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes
- 14.1 Summary of dispute by Grandmaster
- 14.2 Summary of dispute by Sataralynd
- 14.3 Summary of dispute by Beshogur
- 14.4 Summary of dispute by Solavirum
- 14.5 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes discussion
- 14.5.1 First statement by moderator (War crimes discussion)
- 14.5.2 First statements by editors
- 14.5.3 Second statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)
- 14.5.4 Second statements by editors (war crimes discussion)
- 14.5.5 Third statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)
- 14.5.6 Third statements by editors (war crimes discussion)
- 14.5.7 Fourth statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)
- 14.5.8 Fourth statements by editors (war crimes discussion)
- 14.5.9 Fifth statement by moderator (war crimes)
- 14.5.10 Fifth statements by editors (war crimes)
- 14.5.11 Back-and-forth discussion
- 15 Impeachment
- 16 Eric Bieniemy
- 17 Nazi Germany
- 18 One Night in Miami (Movie)
- 19 Hasmonean dynasty
- 20 Nissan S30 Berliet_T100
- 21 Nutrisystem Discussion
- 22 Project Veritas
- 23 Vitalik Buterin
Frédéric Chopin
![]() | Closed. A Request for Comments is in progress to decide the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview An extensive discussion started a couple of weeks ago about Chopins love or sexual life or desires. Some users seem to dominate the discussion, by refusing some sources harshly and by welcoming other sources quite uncritically. Some are starting to be quite rude, commenting „Yawn“ or so. It is also interesting that some users demand more and more proof for homosexual actions or desires, but can‘t provide proof of the same quality for heterosexual actions or desires. A resolution, which was brought up by a number of users in that talk, would be to complete the article with 1-2 quotes by Chopin, taken from his letters, where he clearly wrote about his desires. It would also be nothing but transparent, to add 1-2 portraits of addressees to the article, addressees Chopin wrote to the most letters. Like this, the readers could read themselves what Chopin wrote and build their opinion on their own. Also a section about the quite large discourse on the topic would be nothing but transparent. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Frédéric_Chopin#Chopin’s_sexuality How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps guide the talk, so that not 2-3 users dominate the discussion. Ask for reliable sources of a comparable quality from both sides, judge the quality of the sources, help finding a solution. Bring back more friendlyness, politeness and, most important, more impartiality to the talk. Summary of dispute by Nihil noviPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The discussions in question ("Chopin's sexuality", on the "Talk:Chopin" page) have largely centered on brief ambiguous passages from several letters that Chopin wrote in 1829–30 to his schoolmate Tytus Woyciechowski – which passages Moritz Weber, in a 7 December 2020 Swiss Radio and TV program, "Chopin was gay and no one must know about it", interpreted as indicating that Chopin was homosexual. The dispute appears to have been resolved in a balanced, neutral way by Smerus (in the "Chopin" article's "Gender and sexuality in music and life" section), to the satisfaction of most parties except, notably, for Chip-chip-2020, who seems to have first brought Weber's views to the "Chopin" article and talk page. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by SmerusPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Nothing to say that is not on the talk page. There is no dispute here, only a consensus which didn't go the way of the complainant.--Smerus (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by kosbootPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I've been on Wikipedia for 14 years with over 13K edits and this is the first time I've been summoned to this page. As with the U.S. presidential election, it boils down to a few people who refuse to work toward consensus and feel their views are the correct ones despite the relative quality of the sources. - kosboot (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by François RobereAs Robert McClenon notes this was a very lengthy discussion. I feel that some editors were defensive of Chopin/'s reputation (in a manner that again mirrors how this was received in the "real world"), and at times this contributed to a raising of sourcing standards almost to WP:BLP levels. The resulting text is appreciable for trying to summarize all of he main viewpoints without embarrassing any of the sources (some of whom have theorized on Chopin's sexuality in a manner that's out of vogue these days), but I think it's way too long and obtuse, and does not give due weight to some dissenting sources. I have no opinion on whether this, or anything else, suits DRN. François Robere (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Toccata quartaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The debate was a bit heated and not very structured initially, but the dust has settled and we have achieved some kind of consensus. I'm surprised by the size of the section on Chopin's sexuality that has just been added to the article and intend to make some further points on the talk page, but overall I'm happy with it and think it provides a balanced and well-written summary of the topic. I'm somewhat surprised that this has reached DRN in the first place; the debate was mostly civil and did not reach anything approaching the levels of acrimony that the talk pages of political articles often witness. I have been asked by Chip-chip-2020 to provide a rationale for my reversal of his edit, so I will just state that the topic is a sensitive one and consensus was being sought on the talk page; hence, it was natural to revert the article to its "default" state, which is consistent with WP:BRD. The Chopin entry is a featured article and Chip-chip-2020's edits were reverted by other editors as well, which further supports the appropriateness of the steps taken. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Glissando1234567890Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Frédéric Chopin discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Chopin)As long as I have read through the very long statements once, I might as well take this a little further. Please read the rules that are in effect. It should not be necessary for me to restate the rules. Sometimes when I say "Be civil and concise", I emphasize, "Be civil". In this case, I will emphasize, "Be concise". The comments on the talk page are mostly civil, and are repetitious. I was asked to comment on the tone. I have no particular comments on the tone except that one unregistered editor has been uncivil. Other editors have been civil and long-winded, and what we need is to summarize them. It appears to me that Chopin's sexuality is a matter of considerable continued discussion. That is clear to me. We need some formulation to state that his sexuality is a matter of continued discussion. I didn't try to review the reliability of the sources with different viewpoints. It would be ideal to find some mutually agreeable formulation of the differing viewpoints. Otherwise we will develop two or three candidate versions of the section and have an RFC to choose between them. Each editor should think about what can be said that will present the different viewpoints with due weight. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be said as a neutral balanced summary of what reliable sources say? Do not just focus on what you think his orientation or sexuality was, but on what you think scholars say his orientation or sexuality was. Do not respond to each other, except in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me, and to the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (Chopin)
I broadly agree with Francis Schonken's summary above as regards allocating the topic(s). The question is how much detail is appropriate. As regards Chopin's sexuality, it only needs (imo) a sentence noting that the correspondence with Woychiekowski has given rise to discussion about Chopin's sexual orientation at the time of writing them, and then citations of (say) Walker and Zamoyski. Chip-chip-2020 is absolutely unjustified in talking about "unproved...alleged stories around Gladkowska and Wodzinska"; this is pure WP:OR as there is plenty of evidence about these two in other people's correspondence of the period. To elaborate on this sort of speculation is just being WP:POINTy. As regards Kallberg's speculaltions, these are indeed pretty esoteric and don't deserve much more than a brief reference in a 'legacy' section. Further, there is no good reason to go overboard about a poorly sourced program last month on Swiss radio which had little or no balance whatever, and whose false controversiality (because the issues it discussed were well known) gained it a transient wider media coverage. The broader context is that this is an FA article on a major figure in music history, and needs to meet fully standards about using reliable secondary sources if it is to retain that status; it receives 3-4,000 views a day, and it is essential for the reputation of WP that it remains WP:NPOV and avoids WP:RECENTISM. Context and proportion are therefore essential. Chip-chip-2020 above is urging that all sorts of doubtful and marginally relevant detail should be added as, somehow, by right; that is the argument of a partisan. Francis Schonken is suggesting that material should be properly evaluated and appropriately placed; this must be the right approach.--Smerus (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] @Robert McClenon: I dispute that any of this section is in good shape or that any of it is NPOV DUE WEIGHT for this article. It's poorly sourced and conflates many diverse issues, none of which is adequately verified or tied to the subject of the article aside from speculation. Noting the recent references to this as a Featured Article, I think the entire section should be removed until such time as it is fit to print. SPECIFICO talk 16:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am in sympathy with the immediately above views of SPECIFICO and kosboot. The speculations about Chopin's gender orientation and sexuality are part of a trend of "fake news"; and while it is important to "fact-check" allegations placed before the public, I am not sure that Wikipedia should become a repository of misguided speculations. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ReflistReferences
Second statement by moderator (Chopin)The views of the editors taking part in this DRN appear to have three different viewpoints as to what to say about Chopin's sexuality. The filing editor wishes to make some statements about Chopin's sexuality (basically that he was bisexual) based on modern publications. Two editors have stated that these statements need to be properly evaluated and appropriately placed. Four editors have expressed the opinion that the challenged statements are undersourced or non-neutral and are not encyclopedic, and should be removed. If the editors want to work toward compromise, which would involve evaluating the material in question, we can proceed toward compromise. However, it seems that a Request for Comments is in order. I am asking the editor who wants to add material to provide the paragraph or paragraphs to be added, specifying where to add them. The editors who don't want anything added do not need to provide any input to the RFC. They can provide their arguments against the addition when the RFC is published. The two editors who are taking a middle position should state what they want as a middle option in the RFC. If there are remaining questions, please ask them now, because otherwise I would like to get the RFC started before the December solstice. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Moderator CommentI have moved the material that was included by User:Chip-Chip-2020 to a subpage, because it displays images and is otherwise longer than is usual in-line for DRN. I am not taking issue with the inclusion of the material by User:Chip-Chip-2020, but it makes reading of DRN not flow well. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (Chopin)
Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Chip-Chip-2020 portion --Chip-chip-2020 (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Third statement by moderator (Chopin)After reviewing the material that I moved to a section for User:Chip-chip-2020, I see that it is not formatted appropriately for a section of a Wikipedia article. Each editor who wants to propose any material on Chopin's sexuality should prepare a draft paragraph or section, so that I will be able to include it in the RFC (Request for Comments). That is, do not describe in general terms what you want the article to say. Write exactly what you want the article to say. If you have questions about this request, please ask the questions now. I would still like to get the RFC published within a week. It will take thirty days to run. You may put your recommended text in-line here, or create a subpage, except that if you include any images, please create a subpage, so as not to distract readers of DRN. Please write what you want the article to say, and we will ask the community to decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (Chopin)Chopin: 3rd statement by FrancisProposal (seen as 3rd and last subsection added to Frédéric Chopin#Early Life): See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion. Third statements by editors (Chopin), continued
Chopin: 3rd statement by kosbootSmerus posted an excerpt from a reliable source which says exactly what I think the article needs to say. It is focused and does not get into the issue of gender identity which I think is another issue.
- kosboot (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (Chopin), continuation
Fourth statement by moderator (Chopin)Maybe when I state the ground rules I should transclude them rather than instructing the editors to read them. What wasn't understood about not editing the article? But please continue providing statements as to what you want in an RFC. And don't just describe the work that will need to be done to write the section. Write it. It will be what the other editors will be !voting on. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (Chopin)
Fifth statement by moderator (Chopin)Any editor who wants to present a viewpoint to be considered in the RFC should state it within 48 hours. In particular, if any editor wants any part of the existing article omitted, they should say what they want deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Fifth statements by editors (Chopin)
Sixth statement by moderator (Chopin)Perhaps I need to explain what I am trying to do at this point. I am trying to get proposed sections for the article to go to the community for the RFC. We are not discussing the proposed sections. The discussion can and will be done when the RFC is discussed. For the time being, please, just let me know what you want to propose be in the article, or what you want to propose be taken out of the article. We know that there is disagreement. We aren't trying to compromise. So you do not need to comment, only provide your proposed section. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Sixth statements by editors (Chopin)
Seventh statement by moderator (Chopin)This is what I will be posting for the RFC. If you follow certain traditions concerning December 25, it may appear in your sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC) Which of the following sections on Chopin's sexuality should be included in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] A. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Chip-Chip-2020 portion. B. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion. C. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/François Robere's proposal. D. See User:Smerus/chopforrfc. E. I apologize for not placing my text recommendations in the appropriate slot – I'm not familiar with how to do it. I broadly agree with most of Francis Schonken's comments made at 9:13, 24 December 2020, after his above–proposed text – periodize the "Frédéric Chopin" text into "Poland" and "France" rather than into "Early life" and "Career"; and in the music–reception parts, provide any serious matter concerning the emotional influences on Chopin's compositions, not necessarily viewed specifically as "sexual" (arguably, sexual strands of one kind or another exist in every individual's life, and – as the Fryderyk Chopin Institute representative observed – Chopin was very discreet about his actual sexual involvements, so that not much is known about them; while he is known to have experienced infatuations with quite a few women). Chopin's adolescent correspondence – whose varied interpretations precipitated this controversy – would adequately be treated in something like the article's current note 6. As background for further disputants, I recommend taking the 90 minutes to view the 2010 BBC documentary, "Chopin: the Women behind the Music", [2], available on YouTube. Chopin was, from childhood, mesmerized by the female singing voice. As Emanuel Ax shows, Chopin managed to capture that voice on the piano. The music of Chopin, this "basically very shy" man, captivates with "the sheer depth of his emotional experience." At the conclusion of the documentary, the commentator points out that little is known of Chopin's sexual life but that "The singing of Konstancja Gładkowska, Delfina Potocka, Pauline Viardot, and Jenny Lind is immortalized within his music." Nihil novi (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Seventh statements by editors (Chopin)
Back-and-forth discussion
Could one of the inclusion advocates please state briefly why anything called "Chopin's sexuality" is relevant to this article and significant for his notability? Having reviewed several sources available to me, I do see many references to silly, vacuous, speculation or contemporaneous characterization of him as effeminate (whatever that meant in the 1800s where everyone wore ruffles, wigs, and freely splashed themselves with cologne?) or even as androgenous or a hermaphrodite. Well, I think if that had been the case they would have discovered it when they dissected his corpse. I could see a mention of the nonsense that persisted during and for a while after his lifetime. But gender issues are so specific to time and place that the sort of discussion that purports to be about Chopin's sexuality rather than about associated uninformed chatter seem entirely UNDUE. What about Liszt with his girly hairdo? Some of his groupies must have been openly homosexual. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that my extra-terrestrial example does not appeal to François Robere; so I offer the following as an alternative. Chopin spent his mature life in France; his father was French, he was able to speak and write in French, and at one point he had a French passport. Yet despite this, the article has the temerity to centre on the alleged 'fact' that he was Polish. Clearly this must be proof that certain wicked people are seeking to suppress the fact that Chopin considered himself to be entirely French, even though there is no evidence that he though so.--Smerus (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by User:Smerus on proposal by User:François Robere - Far too much attention to these two letters to Titus. On what basis is the 1829 letter construed to have any homosexual import? - you do not give any justification or reference for assuming this. What is meant by the suggestion that TW was "the true object of the composer's affection throughout the period" - which period? are we talking about the 11 months between the letters (i.e. when Chopin was 19 or 20, before he had embarked on his career) - or just the time of the 1830 letter - or implying that a larger period is involved? What evidence is offered by the broadcast about Chopin's affections elsewhere at this time? Why do we gloss over the broadcast's utterly unjustified attempts to ignore the reality of involvement with Gladowska and others? Are we talking about the 11 months between the letters? "In other letters he is more suggestive" - who demonstrates that the first letter is suggestive at all? What does the Piza quote add - we see anyway from the letters to TW that Chopin may have had homosexual desires, in what way does Piza show them to be "clear"? Who on earth is Corinna da Fonseca-Wollheim? (ah, this explains, perhaps, her valuable status as an authority) and why is her slagging off of George Sand (itself rather insensitive to a minority) of any relevance to this article? It's all grossly unencyclopaedic and phrased and arranged in a decidedly non-neutral style so as to give weight to sensationalized journalism vis-a-vis measured scholarly assessment.--Smerus (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smerus: here are some thoughts on your proposal (User:Smerus/chopforrfc) – I was considering to post them at User talk:Smerus/chopforrfc or Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Francis Schonken portion (which would perhaps needlessly chop up the discussion), or to wait until the RfC is launched (but maybe better these are known now already):
--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Forbidden Relationships in Judaism
![]() | Closed. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Also, the discussion on the article talk page is not about article content, but is mostly a personal attack on the other editor. The filing editor is reminded that civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. If the filing editor wants to discuss article content, they may do so on the article talk page, while avoiding personal attacks. The other editor may report future personal attacks at WP:ANI. The closing of this request can serve as a final warning to the filing editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The article omitted "One's genetic relative (Leviticus 18:6) (Leviticus 18:24–28)" which was the part of my Haftorah portion. The mod for the page claimed to be a Jewish Rabbi but has made work edits on the Shabbat and during a holiday which were time stamped UTC which would mean that despite his claim of being Israeli he still made the edits during the Shabbat and again during a holiday that if he was actually a Rabbi he would have been performing a service during. They seek to remove this addition of the beginning of that Torah section along with additional supporting citation from the Talmud, Midrash, and other actual Jewish authorities. It is 100% transparent that they are not Jewish nor are they Rabbis and are legitimately omitting portions of the related Torah section to twist and contort the narrative to allow for incest and pagan worship. This paints a narrative of Judaism which is full of depravity and creates a social narrative that we Jew practice inbreeding. I can again supply the additional sources that support the prohibition against relationships from genetic relatives and the specifically cited section of the Torah literally says: "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.", the Hebrew reads the same but I figure it would be easier for the dispute resolver to have it in Hebrew. This was literally my Haftorah portion and as such during Hebrew school I was required to spend several hours a day learning the specifics of this one section. Spent roughly 5 years or so learning just this section and the related cases from through-out Jewish history related to relationship judgements. I am not sure about if the mod themselves are just ignorant, trolling, or actually antisemitic so I am hoping to keep this to the content of the page, but it is slanderous against Jews. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Under the Incest section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Forbidden_relationships_in_Judaism How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Leave my edit in and find someone who is at least actually Jewish to moderate the page instead of a poser. This is how misinformation and antisemitism breed. Some non-Jew thinks they can alter and omit portions of the Torah and then they propagate that narrative as Judaism. Summary of dispute by DebresserPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Forbidden Relationships in Judaism discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
![]() | Closed. The filing party has also opened a thread involving the unregistered editor(s) at WP:ANI. See the policy against forum-shopping. Wikipedia strongly discourages conducting multiple dispute discussions in multiple forums at the same time. If this is about whether to include the campaign name, 'Operation Iron Fist', in the lede paragraph, or only in the article body, this is probably a yes-no question that can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Code-name "Operation Iron Fist" is mentioned in the opening sentence of the article, along with "2020 NK war", without any info/source for the details of that Operation available yet. There is nothing but a code-name circulated by Az. government AFTER the war. I wonder whether this is giving undue weight to a so-far-a-name-only concept that has a chance of being retrospectively coined as part of government propaganda on a military parade (the only self-referring and undetailed publication is published on 10 December, a month after the ceasefire and the reality that there is heavy propaganda from both warring sides, is a common knowledge for editors familiar with NKR topics). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think, while mentioning "Operation Iron Fist" somewhere in the article body (perhaps in Aftermath - the military parade paragraph) is okay pending further publications, it should not be in the very first sentence, to avoid undue weight to a so-far-a-name-only concept. Interested in uninvolved editors' opinions, please. P.S. 212.156.71.30 and 37.155.240.129 are claimed by the same person, hence a summary from either IP should do. Summary of dispute by SolavirumPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Vici VidiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 212.156.71.30Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 37.155.240.129Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Miklós Horthy
![]() | Closed due to failure to notify. The filing editor has not notified the other editors, more than 48 hours after they were reminded to the need to notify them. Continue discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This one user will not concede that Miklos Horthy and Fidesz are nationalists. He is basically using original research to justify his claims. I have. tried to look up sources for what he calls Hungarian Nationalism vs Hungarian Nationalism and I have found nothing. He is trying to segregate that category for far right and fascists, even though other categories under this umbrella are not held to that standard. If there were a far right group called Hungarian Nationalists than I can forgive it but there is no such group called that. National Conservatism is a form of nationalism, it even says so on its wikipedia page. It embraces both Conservatism and Nationalism. So by definition if you are a national conservative than you are a nationalist and a conservative. I am holding this category to the same standard as all other nationalist categories. Let us go south from Hungary for second and go to the category, Serbian nationalists. This category includes the Chetniks, the fascists, The Milosevic era politicians, the Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) which is a national Conservative party and Aleksandar Vučić who runs a conservative and populist government. Are these all the same? No. The Chetniks- The Chetniks were Royalists, however the Milosevic politicians were communists. You don't have to be a certain political orientation to be a nationalist. Or let us use Romania. There was Ion Antonescu, the fascist leader of Romania, and Nicolae Ceausescu the Communist leader of Romania, both were nationalist just had a different way of implementing it. It would be inappropriate to NOT call either one a nationalist. Just because you are not a fascist or a far right winger, doesn't mean that you aren't a nationalist. There ar things like National Communism and left wing nationalism, I don't have to love them or support them, but I have to acknowledge that they are forms of nationalism. I have credible sources like BBC and WSJ on my side.There ar things like National Communism and left wing nationalism, I don't have to love them or support them, but I have to acknowledge that they are forms of nationalism. I have credible sources like BBC and WSJ on my side. He also keeps ignoring the fact that his argument is essentially original research. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miklós_Horthy#Recent_edits How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Sorting this out Summary of dispute by ManfrottosPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by KIENGIRRepeating an already discussed discussion is useless, the user fails to understand the explanations and arguments and repeatedly implying those false assertions as presented here (as well in other pages commited problematic assertions and edits). The debate has nothing to with user's initial assertions - which are even the same way problematic -, but for what the category was meant for.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC))[reply] Summary of dispute by NigejPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Miklós Horthy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
2021 in heavy metal music
![]() | Closed as premature. The discussion at the article talk page has not been extensive. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview If Gemini Syndrome is talking about releasing their third album here, can it not be listed under "Artists with material in production" at 2021 in heavy metal music? It is more than likely that the album will be released some time in 2021, and even if it does not, it can be moved to "2022 in heavy metal music". I have been reverted by two users, and discussion seems to have stalled. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Facilitate further discussion Summary of dispute by Tobi999tomasPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MetalDiablo666Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2021 in heavy metal music discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Baháʼí Faith on life after death
![]() | Closed as premature. A request for mediation should be made after extensive discussion. The discussion on the talk page consists of each editor making one statement every few weeks. Try making one statement a day for a few days. It might result in agreement or compromise. If it is extensive and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The presence of a broad subsection in the article about near-death experiences (NDE) phrasing the matter as if the NDE confirm the Bahai writtings in the afterlife, in my opinion, violete the NPOV policy. No other article about afterlife believes have the same content and as of the current redaction clearly shows a bias toward Bahaism presenting it a "truth" by what NDE "confirm". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Baháʼí_Faith_on_life_after_death#Near_Death_Experience How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Finding a possible alternative to this apparent violation of the NPOV. Summary of dispute by SmkolinsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Baháʼí Faith on life after death discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Narendra Modi
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
![]() | Closed as premature. Extensive discussion at the article talk page is required as a precondition to discussion here. There has not been any discussion at the talk page. The filing editor says that they have tried to discuss at the talk page. If they had difficulty in using the article talk page, they should request advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In the page of Narendra Modi, who is presently serving as Prime Minister of India, an image is required to be used which is File:PM Narendra Modi.jpg, which is the official portrait image of the Prime Minister but whenever it is used in that page, it is removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to discuss in the Talk page of that article. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? According to me, I think that the image which I use in that page, only that image is to be used for that. Narendra Modi discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Frederick S. Jaffe
![]() | Wrong place for this, and lack of volunteers willing to take it on, and lack of response from filing editor. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview After a long back and forth regarding this Wikipedia page the discussion was locked by a superuser (keri) who reviewed the content in our favor. A new user, Doniago, made several misleading content changes that just go back to the original discussion that was already decided. From 2016:The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The dispute was elevated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe. (non-admin closure) Keri (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. The dispute was elevated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe. (non-admin closure) Keri (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please prevent Doniago or anyone else from changing the content again Summary of dispute by DoniagoI don't have much to say here. I believe this case was file based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the last DRN case regarding the article concluded, and as the filing editor hasn't said anything else here, or in fact made any edits since 12/24, that this isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Additionally the matter seems to have been resolved at the article's Talk page. Cheers and Happy Holidays everyone. DonIago (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Robert McClenonI am taking part in this discussion as an involved editor, not as a DRN volunteer, but only if User:Doniago chooses to participate also. The filing party is mistaken in thinking that either User:Keri or anyone else locked the page. The applicable policies are conflict of interest, neutral point of view and verifiability. The filing party is the son of the subject of the article and so has a conflict of interest and should not be directly editing the article. The filing party does have a legitimate interest in protecting his father's historical reputation from conspiracy theories about a document known as the Jaffe memo. There had been an unsourced paragraph about the Jaffe memo. After the paragraph was tagged as needing a citation for two years, User:Doniago removed the paragraph entirely. The unsourced paragraph should not be restored because it is not verifiable. The filing party should not be editing the article directly, but may propose edits that are appropriate to maintain neutral point of view and are verifiable. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Frederick S. Jaffe discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer NoteThe DRN is a place for discussion and compramise, are you sure that is what you want to engage in? Or are you looking for administrator intervention? If so, you need to go to the WP:ANI. If you do want a discussion, please let me know and
|
List of coups and coup attempts
![]() | Closed as premature. Discussion on the article talk page is a precondition to discussion here. There has not been any discussion at Talk:List of coups and coup attempts. The filing editor says that they do not know how to resolve the dispute. The first step is to discuss at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The last item in the list about the incident on 6/1/2021 is not a 'coup' attempt. There is no evidence that Donald Trump incited anyone to go and attack the capital. Any 'evidence' there is is purely opinion or interpretation not FACT and should be removed. There is no proof and no way to PROVE that Donald Trump caused those people to do what they did. That so called 'coup attempt' is purely opinion and not an actual attempt. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I really do not know how to resolve disputed information this is the first thing I found by poking around the links. If I am not in the right place then please guide me to the right spot. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Remove the last entry in the list as while the sources may be real the information is purely based more on opinion than on facts. The clear FACT is that it was NOT a coup attempt just bad judgement from a few very frustrated individuals more than likely encouraged by ANTIFA plants. Summary of dispute by TataralPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jade TenPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of coups and coup attempts discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Draft:CalFile
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
![]() | Closed as wrong forum. The usual forum to discuss declined or rejected drafts is the Teahouse. This noticeboard is for discussing article content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview User:Tagishsimon claims Draft:CalFile :
This is an article is about a free government service. Thus not an advert. User:Tagishsimon is from UK and not familiar with USA government. This is suppression of non-TurboTax tax filing information. User:Tagishsimon]'s speech is obnoxious and abusive. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? restore Calfile Draft:CalFile discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Draft talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Temp/Temp
![]() | Filing editor indefinitely blocked, but even if that hadn't happened DRN does not accept cases about drafts. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I created a draft for a new article after reading an article earlier in September in the Boston Magazine titled "Could COVID-19 Have Escaped from a Lab?" I worked on the draft for a few weeks and when I submitted it for approval, it was twice declined with the reason given that it should be merged with the article "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic". I felt it was a mistake, as a number of reputed scientists quoted in a number of reliable sources now consider an accidental lab leak to be a plausible scientific theory, and not "misinformation". Based on new information that arose in a Nov '20 (addendum to a Nature article by Prof Shi Zhengli), a number of new sources covered the topic of an accidental lab leak (including the BBC, Le Monde, The Times, and the NYMag). This prompted me to try my luck on the talk pages of "Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic", and "Wuhan Institute of Virology", only to receive a barrage of negative responses, derogatory language, unfounded claims, and personal attacks. Unfortunately, the conversation devolved into something I do not like, and I do not think we will reach a consensus. In order to reach a resolution, I would like to put three questions to this board:
Thanks ScrupulousScribe How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By assuming good faith on my part. I am not here on a "crusade" as another user has said of me. It is important to distinguish clearly the theory of an accidental lab leak, from the conspiracy theory proposing a laboratory manipulation and deliberate release of the virus as a bioweapon. It is also important to distinguish the respected scientists proposing the possibility of an accidental lab leak, from scientists such as Li-Meng Yan, and Luc Montagnie, whose theories were discredited. Summary of dispute by AlexbrnPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Thucydides411Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BritishfinancePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DinglelingyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Adoring nannyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by ForichPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Draft talk:COVID-19_lab_leak_theory/Temp/Temp discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The filer was indefinitely blocked a couple of minutes ago. Also, he currently has a thread in WP:ANI, which may disqualify him from using dispute resolution. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
Dunoon
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Seasider53 (talk · contribs)
- Scope creep (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
A "Climate" section that is inside a "Geography" section at the top of other, more prominent articles I've checked is being moved to the bottom of the article because an editor doesn't like a "gap" that is appearing because of i) the infobox's placement and ii) a table appearing in the offending section. What's more, the user keeps adding it as a subsection of the "gallery" section, which makes no sense.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide input on what the correct article structure should be.
Summary of dispute by Scope creep
Dunoon discussion
- Volunteer Question - Is this a request for moderated discussion leading to compromise, for a Third Opinion, or for a Request for Comments which will obtain opinions from the community? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have you considered a "Geography and climate" section? Achar Sva (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: I think an RfC would be the best option. The obstacle appears to be that an editor doesn't understand how articles appear formatting-wise when boxes (infobox or informational) are involved and, instead, is just moving the section to the bottom of the article, when it's probably the most important section of the article. He/she thinks I'm responsible for the small whitespace gap that appeared below the "climate" section here - Seasider53 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Achar Sva: I was following the example of both the Edinburgh and Glasgow articles, which have Climate in the Geography section. I see no reason to deviate from that. - Seasider53 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Navarro
![]() | Closed. The other editors have not responded. Discussion can continue or resume at the article talk page, Talk:Peter Navarro. Do not edit war. Any remaining content disputes can be the subject of Requests for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview It is claimed that Peter Navarro holds economic views that are "fringe" and extensive references are given about his views on China trade. After dialog, I suggested that the wording should be changed to "controversial" since the wiki is a biography of a living person and thus a higher degree of sensitivity should be used. Mr. Navarro holds similar views with Bernie Sanders as it relates to China trade thus, I believe, negating the term "fringe." I believe the statement "fringe" is inflammatory at best and slanderous at worst; totally unnecessary. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Peter_Navarro#Fringe_Economic_Views_2021 [5] Third opinion 22:13, 3 January 2021 TransporterMan talk contribs 11,146 bytes −351 →Active disagreements: Remove Talk:Peter_Navarro, 3O given by Teishin; list is empty How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please examine the sentence at issue and the subsequent discussion. Summary of dispute by SnooganssnoogansThere is no need for dispute resolution. The text in question is long-standing and has been duked out on the talk page since 2017 or so. What we have here is one editor who is calling on us to ignore what RS say because the editor believes the RS are biased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by MrOllieThis is premature - talk discussion has only been ongoing for a few days, and one side of the dispute recently stated that they haven't even had time to read all of the relevant sources yet. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by Soibangla
soibangla (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Peter Navarro discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Peter Navarro)I want to hear from both sides why it should stay the same or change. First statement by editors (Peter Navarro)The term "fringe" is inflammatory and unnecessary. Both Bernie Sanders and Peter Navarro are strongly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and support tariffs on China which is repeated over and over in the articles referenced as the reason for Peter Navarro's economic views as being "fringe." I do not think Bernie Sanders ideas are "fringe," thus I believe Peter Navarro holding the same economic views are also not "fringe." I think the word in the sentence should be changed from "fringe" to "controversial." Editors have yet to specifically address what views of Mr. Navarro that are "fringe" despite being asked on multiple occasions. Karagory (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)karagory (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderatorI will first ask whether this is a dispute where compromise is possible. If there is a choice between words, as appears to be the case, a Request for Comments may work better. Please read the usual rules and follow them. In particular, comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. If you can describe a viewpoint without naming the editor, describe the viewpoint only, because we are trying to improve the article, not to discuss each other. So, are there any issues besides "fringe" or "controversial"? Be concise. Participation in DRN is voluntary, but if there is an RFC, you may be able to provide input to the RFC. (Everyone will of course have input to the RFC after it is posted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editorsThank you pointing me in the correct direction regarding viewpoint only; I have made edits to my comments to focus on content. If I have failed in this regard, anyone please point them out and I will make corrections. No, unfortunately, I do not believe that compromise is possible, because the editors do not see the need for further discussion on the subject matter. There are no other issues besides the wording of "fringe" (a pejorative) or "controversial." Karagory (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by moderator (Navarro)I am about to close this dispute because the other editors have not responded. If there are no comments from the other editors, I will advise that discussion resume on the article talk page, and that any editor can submit an RFC. Third statements by editors (Navarro)I agree; close the dispute. The other editors involved appear not to want to discuss or compromise. Thank you for your assistance. Karagory (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes
![]() | Closed to allow the case to be moved to RSN. The source reliability issue has not yet been opened at RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Armenia and Artsakh accused Azerbaijan of using phosphorus munition against Artsakh, with France 24, The Independent and Le Point publishing supporting articles including an independent medical expertise by a French doctor. A sentence following these supporting citations by Grandmaster denies the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan and cites two Russian-language articles - one featuring Russian "expert" Murakhovsky who is known for 1) claiming that phosphorus burns at 1000 C despite 2,760 C prevailing in literature 2) being a Russian propagandist 12 3) calling for invasion of "Nazi Ukraine" 12 4) claiming that white phosphorus "is not used in modern munitions" which contradicts with the evidence of white phosphorus use in recent wars 12, 5) claiming the superiority of Turkish military UAVs is a "myth" 1 6) claiming the Ukrainain plane was not hit in Iran and some Russian and Azerbaijani "experts" whose purely theoretical arguments raise questions about their credibility. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[10]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 1) Could uninvolved editors make a judgement whether the sentence denying the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan despite credible international publications saying the contrary has a right to stay in the article? 2) if yes, can you please make a judgement whether selectively citing the references denying phosphorus use by both Azerbaijani and Armenians only in the section about Azerbaijani war crimes but not in the section about Armenian war crimes is a fair approach to this article? Many thanks! Summary of dispute by GrandmasterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Thanks for taking this for dispute resolution, however WP:RSN would probably be a more appropriate venue. In any case, let me present my argumentation. The use of white phosphorus is claimed by both sides of the conflict, but there's so far no in depth investigation by an authoritative independent organization, such as HRW and Amnesty international, whose experts previously investigated the use of cluster munitions and other violations of war conduct rules in this conflict. Reports in mass media are based on information provided by one of the sides, and cannot be considered as witness or expert account. But in any case, our role here is not to prove or disprove whether or not phosphorus was used, but to report what the notable sources say. Media reports are quoted in the article, and so are 3 military expert opinions. Military experts all say that there's no sufficient evidence to prove the use of phosphorus by either side of the conflict. Murakhovsky is only one of the 3 experts saying the same thing. He is only linked as a source in the article, for further information if anyone is interested. The main source is actually the other 2 experts, one of whom is colonel Anatoly Tsyganok, a well-known military expert in Russia, whose biography could be found on Forbes website: [11] I think our purpose is to present balanced information, and not just the claims that support a certain position. Therefore the opinions of military experts questioning the claims on phosphorus use are notable and important for objective presentation of information in the article. Also please note that those experts are neutral in this conflict, they do not take any sides, and they all say that both sides have not presented any reliable evidence that white phosphorus was used. Grandmaster 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Btw, I do not mind if expert opinions questioning the use of phosphorous are included for both Armenian and Azerbaijani allegations. I never said that they should only apply to the Armenian allegations. Grandmaster 10:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by SataralyndIt is true that both sides accused each other about the use of white phosphorus. However, when comparing evidence about its use by Azerbaijan with evidence about the counterclaim, namely compare wounds confirmed by Armenian and foreign doctors who are operating under hippocratic oath with finding unexploded white phosphorus munition in Tartar, Azerbaijan and claiming it as evidence that Armenia used white phosphorus, it is not unreasonable to give higher credibility to the Armenian claim than the Azerbaijani one. We know both sides have engaged in an information war during this conflict but given the first hand nature of the evidence about the Armenian claim, and the reliability of their sources (a couple of which like The Independent is particularly listed in WP:RSP as reliable in this instance) we could rate the Armenian claim with a higher credibility. In summary, we are talking about medical evidence with a high level of reliability.
Now regarding the sentence mentioned in the article Military experts did not find evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. it is in fact not accurate. This is because the sources didn't engage with the medical evidence but evaluated videos and verbal claims against some of the chemical properties of phosphorus. The evidence provided about the Armenian claim is medical, and only a doctor reviewing the wounds in person should be able to question it or deem it unconvincing. Attaching this sentence to the paragraph presenting the medical evidence is not warranted. Further, the way the statement is written as a blanket statement that gives the impression of there being a consensus among the community of military experts that there is no evidence of use of white phosphorus by Azerbaijan, which is clearly not the case, if you read the Russian sources. Finally, there has been claims questioning the reliability of the referenced Russian sources, and I agree with the suggestion to take that to WP:RSN first. In the final analysis, the course of action I recommend is to remove the above sentence, establish the reliability of its sources and then include a modified version that some military experts find the evidence inconclusive, and that this doesn't pertain to the medical evidence. --Sataralynd (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by BeshogurPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not following the original discussion but seems like the user called me because deleted one of his text, which here it states: Summary of dispute by SolavirumPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (War crimes discussion)Please read the rules for moderated discussion. Read them again if you are not certain. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. My first question is whether this dispute is primarily about the reliability of sources. If so, we might do better to ask the reliable source noticeboard to rule on the reliability of the source. My second question is for each editor to tell as precisely as possible what they want the article to say about the focus of the dispute. If the issue has to do with the reliability of claims that white phosphorus was used, then who was reported by what source to have made that claim? Do not reply to each other, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion. The statements by editors should be addressed to me, as the representative of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editorsIndeed, the issue is about the reliability of sources, since Armatura (talk · contribs) questions that. I also think that WP:RS might be a more appropriate venue. The claims on use of phosphorus were made by both sites of the conflict, but there's no independent verification by an authoritative organization such as HRW or Amnesty international, whose experts usually do expert assessments of war conduct rule violations. However the article quotes a number of military experts who see no convincing evidence that phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. Those experts have no connection to either side of the conflict, so they are neutral on this particular issue. Armatura questions credibility of one of them, and generally is against inclusion of skeptical views. But I think that in order to maintain WP:NPOV it is important to include all opinions, and not just those that support the narrative of the parties to the conflict. Grandmaster 10:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Many thanks, Robert McClenon. It is mostly about the reliability of sources with experts denying the phosphorus use in NKR, hence I don't mind if this discussion is transferred to WP:RS, if you think it is a more suitable place, I am still learning what to discuss where. My other objection was that sentence denying the phosphorus use by both sides was for some reason put under only suspected Azerbaijani war crimes but not under suspected Armenian war crimes. I appreciate Grandmaster (talk · contribs)'s readiness to fix that, but I am still questioning the initial logic of selectively posting a seemingly neutral content to deny a war crime by Azerbaijan only. I argue that the citation 537 featuring highly controversial and unreliable "expert" Murakhovsky's claims should be deleted and it looks like Grandmaster agrees at least with that. I also question the reliability of the other reference - it is a Russian language article from Kavkaz-Uzel, that features two Russian experts who, basing their opinion purely on the appearances of the video of alleged phosphorus use by Azerbaijan, published by Armenian ombudsman, question whether it was phosphorus at all. One Russian expert - captain Vasilyh Dadikin is reported saying the video was not convincing and that it could be anything up to smoke grenades (Василий Дандыкин счел видео, опубликованное Арманом Татояном, не убедительным. "То, что там изображено, может быть чем угодно, вплоть до дымовых шашек", - сказал он.). The other Russian expert, Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Russian Center for Political-Military Studies is reported saying "In videos of phosphorus munition use by Israel against Gaza one can see a rocket flying, then opening and spraying phosphorus, but here we don't see it ("Известно, что фосфорные боеприпасы применял Израиль против сектора Газа. Сохранились видеосъемки: летит ракета, раскрывается и из нее сыплется фосфор. Здесь же этого нет", - указал он.). The trouble with Kavkaz-Uzel article is that 1) there was no expertise done beyond just looking at the video 2) it interviews an Azerbaijani expert Azad Isazade (who goes as far as implying that it might have been the Armenians burning their own forests to create a smoke cover - "армянским военным использовать фосфорное оружие выгодно - Это создание помех для средств воздушного нанесения ударов азербайджанской армии".) but not Armenian experts, and this raises a question about the impartiality of the authors of the article (Russia's is the 149th out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom index), 3) the article cites Azerbaijani expert saying that "Azerbaijan signed the convention on chemical warfare use, that prohibits the phosphorus munition use. ("Азербайджан подписал Конвенцию о запрещении разработки, производства, накопления и применения химического оружия и его уничтожении, которая регулирует запрет применения фосфорных боеприпасов"), however this contradicts with France24 publication which highlighted that "the use of white phosphorus is strictly regulated under an international agreement that neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia have signed", this raises a question whether Kavkaz-Uzel has vigorous editorial process at all to verify the claims in the article. What are the solutions I see? 1) One option is removing the phosphorus-use-not-used Kavkaz-uzel expert opinions at all. 2) Or, cite them under both Azerbaijani and Armenian suspected war crimes with greater attribution and clarity, like "two Russian military experts, after viewing the video evidence provided by the Armenian side, did not find it to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". Plus, if we are citing opinions based purely on visuals, add the Atlantis Global's DRFLab's investigation based on analysis of satellite images that supports the phosphorus use. One may argue that medium.com has been highlighted as unreliable source, however Modern Diplomacy' Turkish author cites it, and I don't think Kavkaz-Uzel's article's credibility is higher than DRFLab. Armatura (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)The majority of the participants in this discussion either agree with taking it to the reliable source noticeboard or are silent. So it will be taken to RSN. The editors have not stated the issue with sufficient clarity that I am ready to open a thread at RSN. Will one of the editors please either: Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (war crimes discussion)Third statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)Grandmaster says, in the back-and-forth discussion, that they think that we are done, and that there has been agreement. If no one disagrees, I will close this dispute as Resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (war crimes discussion)Fourth statement by moderator (war crimes discussion)
Will one of the editors please state concisely what the source article is, so that I can open the inquiry properly? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Can someone please open the inquiry? I don't read and write Cyrillic. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] I will, if you could explain a bit where / how. Does it have to be about the magazine as a whole or can the reliability dispute be about an article? Best regardsArmatura (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statements by editors (war crimes discussion)Fifth statement by moderator (war crimes)Has the issue of source reliability been taken to the Reliable Source Noticeboard yet? If not, will it be taken there? Can this discussion be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Fifth statements by editors (war crimes). Back-and-forth discussionA newbie question - would WP:RSN be appropriate for discussing the reliability of a particular article rather than the whole Kavkaz Uzel? I see issues in this particular article more than the resource as a whole. Specifically:
Due to the signs of unprofessional journalism above, I challenge the cited Kavkaz Uzel article's inclusion at all. Whether it requires WP:RSN or just a decision here - admins/community to kindly decide, please. If, in the end, it is decided that it can stay, then only in a form that would make crystally clear who said what based on what and not reflecting what, to avoid false generalisations. Regards, Armatura (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. --Sataralynd (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two Russian military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. And the suspected Armenian war crimes section will need this to be added Two Russian military experts expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
Impeachment
![]() | Not enough discussion on talk page. Seemplez {{ping}} me 09:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Kent Bargo on 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
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 It abrupt place a very large about Donald Trump without community approval. Now we need approval to get it removed? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment#Vote_to_block_Donald_Trump_on_article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A temporary solution to remove any Donald trump picture on the article while a solid solution is found. The article already mention Donald Trump being impeached a twce Summary of dispute by Kent BargoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BD2412Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
It is highly premature to bring this here, and frankly not at all clear what the objection being raised is. It seems odd that the fact that a specific subject is mentioned multiple times in the article for their multiple impeachments would militate against having a picture of that subject. Note that I have proposed on the talk page that the best solution would be a collage of famous subjects of impeachment. This proposal has not yet been subject to discussion, nor has any specific proposal for what images would best suit the page. BD2412 T 05:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by RamzuivPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Impeachment discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Eric Bieniemy
![]() | Log47933 does appear to be forum shopping. IceFrappe, SPI exists to report suspect sockpuppets. This isn't SPI. Seemplez {{ping}} me 09:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am a football fan. I have I recently noticed that Kansas City Chiefs Offensive Coordinator Eric Bieniemy's Wikipedia article had an extremely long section devoted to Controversies that was over half of the total word count of his page, very much unlike other football coaches. I attempted to condense it to about 15-20% of his wikipedia page's total word count, although some of his actions were undoubtedly immoral, I did not believe a bunch of misdemeanors from thirty years ago and gossip from former players deserved to make up over half of the content of his page, so I condensed a decent bit while still leaving a good bit in there. IceFrappe, the user that had written over half of Bieniemy's Wikipedia page, all of it on these misdemeanors, and I kept reverting each other's work. I realize now that was not wise. I offered justifications for why I was making my edits (It took up too much of the page, other coaches with checkered pasts did not have such lengthy parts of their pages about their controversies) but IceFrappe kept reverting all of my edits, refusing to be edited. They claimed the wikipedia pages of other football coaches were irrelevant to the discussion and claimed I was pushing a personal agenda by editing their work. Finally, they reported me for edit warring after less than a day, refusing to accept any compromise and claiming I was attempting to sanitize Bieniemy but editing their work just a little. They claimed I was a paid editor, that I should be investigated for violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest, and accused me of being a sockpuppet.I am hoping a third party can bring about some sort of compromise. I did not want to escalate but it is tough when IceFrappe is attempting to get me banned without any defense of their edits or any discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Log47933 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Bieniemy&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am not sure. I have tried to be reasonable, keeping a good portion of IceFrappe's edits. But I doubt any discussion will be productive while they are accusing me of being a sockpuppet and a paid editor with an agenda with no evidence. Summary of dispute by IceFrappeFirst, there's already an ongoing 3RR investigation on ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Log47933_reported_by_User:IceFrappe_(Result:_) against User:Log47933's edit-warring, so this is frankly a political attempt by User:Log47933 at forum shopping. I urge all interested parties to take this to the edit warring noticeboard because forum shopping shouldn't be condoned and incentivized. Second, you're supposed to discuss this issue on a talk page before resorting to this noticeboard. User:Log47933 has not discussed this issue on a talk page and openly lied about doing so above. Third, a quick perusal of this user's contribution [12] clearly indicates he is a single-purpose account. His account was created on on 5:30, January 14th, 2021 and he made his first revert to the Bieniemy article 8 minutes later. He has not edited any other mainspace article. The fact that he seems well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and dispute resolution process indicates he's likely a bad-hand account of an experienced editor. A sockpuppet investigation seems warranted. As for the content itself, the vast majority of of the incidents were already in the article way before I made my first contribution [13]. I merely organized them under a new "controversies" subheading. This is well-established by precedents, such as Richie Incognito, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry (wide receiver), and Antonio Brown. User:Log47933 made zero attempt to discuss in the relevant talkpage before his unilateral mass removal. This is a violation of WP:OWN. Frankly, User:Log47933's only objection appears to be he finds it "unfair" to Bieniemy that his well-documented, well-sourced criminal history is included. If that's the case, perhaps the criminal history of Richie Incognito, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry (wide receiver), and Antonio Brown should also be deleted and censored? The fact that User:Log47933 appears to have no other mainspace interest except Bieniemy means he likely has a conflict of interest and has a high likelihood of being a paid editor.IceFrappe (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] America discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Nazi Germany
![]() | Closed. This posting appears to be a hoax of some sort. Posting of hoaxes in Wikipedia often results in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Third Reich rose to attribution of representation by promising to end finance, not hair color. [1] Nickcarducci (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried sharing this information on the Holocaust Talk page too. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nickcarducci&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_Germany&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There are many sources saying Hitler manipulated and cited failing banks during the early rise to power. Claiming the population of Italy, Germany & Poland were not reacting to the Halakha or market-level colonialism and were reacting to hair color is obviously wrong because Italians have black hair Summary of dispute by AcroterionAdministrator comment: Stop posting fragmentary nonsense on talk pages. Acroterion (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Nazi Germany discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
One Night in Miami (Movie)
![]() | Closed. There is also a thread pending at WP:AN concerning this dispute. DRN does not handle a dispute that is also being discussed in a conduct forum. If there is a content issue to be resolved after any conduct issues are dealt with, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Dispute over how to refer to Malcolm (Shabazz/X) in the opening paragraph. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussed rules of wikipedia on name usage of notable figures How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Enforce rule about using most common name for notable figures/name referred to by in the advertising and credits for the movie described Summary of dispute by @ Samurai Kung fu CowboyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
One Night in Miami (Movie) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Hasmonean dynasty
![]() | Closed as no response. The other editor has not responded, and participation in DRN is voluntary. The filing editor is advised to try to discuss with the other editor on the article talk page. If that does not work, read this essay and follow its recommendations. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The dispute is over the use of biblical texts as sources for historical claims. There is a community consensus that such sources are unreliable (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and Scripture as sources) and I have removed them from a group of pages. Another user, Watchlonly, appears to have taken it upon themselves to follow me around on Wikipedia to revert such edits. I have tried to explain to them that biblical sources are unreliable (see Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Books_of_the_Maccabees and this message on their talk page) but they don't get it. One of the sources they keep reinserting is the Book of Maccabees which describes how an attempted temple plunder by a king is stopped by horse ridden angels that flog the king. It is, in my opinion, completely unconscionable to use sources that take angelic intervention as facts to narrate history. Other pages where watchlonly keeps reinserting biblical sources: Jonathan Apphus, Battle of Elasa, Sanhedrin, Mount Gerizim.
Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Books_of_the_Maccabees, their talk page How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully, you can convince Watchlonly that biblical texts aren't reliable sources.
Hasmonean dynasty discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Nissan S30 Berliet_T100
![]() | No edits in the last 48 hours. Seemplez {{ping}} me 08:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I believe I have been following the Wikipedia manual of style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement on the page Nissan S30 where I changed the primary power unit to kW per the manual of style. User:Mr.choppers continually reverts the page. A discussion took place on User talk:Mr.choppers and Talk:Nissan_S30#Complying_with_Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_for_a_Japanese_Car. I subsequently edited Berliet T100 which Mr.choppers also reverted, he appears to be checking items I edit. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User_talk:Mr.choppers,Talk:Nissan_S30#Complying_with_Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_for_a_Japanese_Car, Talk:Berliet T100 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am under the impression that if the country is metric then the SI unit is the lead unit. The exceptions in the Manual of style list the United States and the United Kingdom as exceptions. If the source material (US publication) lists Horsepower, Mr.Choppers thinks this unit should take preference on a Japanese or non US or UK vehicle, despite an eloquent explanation by Stepho on the intent of the manual of style. Clarification is needed by another party. Thanks. Summary of dispute by Mr.choppersThe metric horsepower (for some reason abbreviated "PS" in Wikipedia) is also metric and was the unit universally used in metric countries until it began to be gradually replaced by kilowatts in 1972. This changeover is still not complete, with horsepower still in frequent use, in particular when discussing cars built pre-SI. As per MOS:UNIT there are allowances for "such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions". For the Berliet T100, the manufacturer, all sources I can find (here is one), the French WP entry, and the country at the time all use metric horsepower. The truck even carries a giant "700 ch." plaque in its grille (ch. being the French abbreviation for horsepower). While not universal, it is exceedingly rare to find a reliable source discussing an older vehicle using kW as the leading unit. Generally, any such descriptions use the units in which the vehicle was designed and marketed, occasionally followed by kW output in brackets. For metric countries, this unit is the hp (metric). Similarly, we use hp (imperial) when discussing US, UK, or older Australian automobiles. To make it clear, there are two kinds of horsepower: the metric hp equals 735W while an imperial (or US) horsepower is 746W. This often causes confusion as people erroneously equate the two, converting and reconverting and muddling the numbers. As for the Datsun 280Z, this was a car developed by Datsun for sale in the United States. The engine was in special federalized trim, and was rated by the manufacturer in hp. All reliable sources, modern or period, describe the car using hp. The 280Z was never even offered in Japan. Japan itself only began using kW rather than PS after 2000. Under no circumstance have I ever suggested we ought to lead with an imperial unit on a metric car just because the source happens to be American. After Avi8tor's three edits to Nissan S30 introduced several factual errors and a number of WP:STYLE offences due to general sloppiness (e.g. changing 151hp to 152hp, 160PS to 210hp, "5&mph bumpers" leads with mph as it refers to a US legislation - it is a "quantity set by definition" as per MOS), I did indeed check their edit history and reverted them at Berliet T100. Mr.choppers | ✎ 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Summary of dispute by StephoPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This was covered in more detail at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Pferdstarke_(PS)_units. My gut feeling is to lead with modern units (kW) to help modern readers - the ratio of readers more familiar with kW than PS or hp will increase with time and us old timers will eventually fade away. The use of a rough approximation of the vehicle power in PS on vehicle names, badges, etc can be discounted as marketing. Similar to how many cars had the engine capacity in cubic inches as part of the name and many cars continue to use the engine capacity in cc or litres as part of the name. Marketing names should not be used to relate engineering figures unless the engine power figure is not available in any other form. Harder to dismiss is the use of PS in magazines. Period magazines of course use the units of that period and are therefore not relevant to modern readers. But many modern magazines about classic cars continue to use the older units. This is the argument that I find hard to dismiss. If the modern sources continue to use the older units than this prompts us to also lead with the older units. So I find myself unable to decide between catering to modern readers (kW first) and following modem magazines for classic cars (PS first). Beware that the same argument of following magazines can also be applied to all the other dimensions such as vehicle lengths, engine capacity, bore, stroke, etc. Which conflicts with the idea of being relevant to modern readers. Stepho talk 21:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Nissan S30 Berliet_T100 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
@Robert McClenon: Sorry, I thought I had notified them but apparently the method I chose did not work. Hopefully ping plus user name will work. We have 2 editors in agreement but the other still reverts changes, either Stepho.wrs and myself is mistaking the manual of style or Mr.choppers is. I'm new at this so not sure of the correct terminology, but someone else needs to be involved. Avi8tor (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
Nutrisystem Discussion
![]() | Closed by volunteer because the filing seems to have been malformed. Volunteer will try to refile. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Filed by Vojtaruzek on 03:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? In edit summaries and on the talk page, I have repeatedly explained to Alex why his edits are biased against Nutrisystem and misrepresent the source material. He has refused to substantively engage or dispute my arguments, instead reverting my changes and saying that his version is "better." I also posted a complaint on ANI, accusing Alex of tendentious editing. In retrospect, this was a poor decision on my part, since one should exhaust all non-punitive remedies before assuming bad faith. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You need to do two things. First, after reading my complaint, read the systematic review carefully. Second, determine whether whether the two sentences added to the article by Alex comport with Wikipedia policy concerning NPOV, WP:V, and OR. Alex's sentences are as follows: →A systematic review of 2015 said there was tentative evidence that at three months that Nutrisystem resulted in at least 3.8% more weight loss than a control group, but no good evidence of any benefit in the longer term. The authors recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence, in preference."
|
Project Veritas
![]() | I'm going to go ahead and close this for a few reasons. First- There is a clear consensus on the talk page. The DRN does not exist to overturn a consensus. Nor can we force people to participate. Also- filing editor has still not tagged all involved users and notified everyone on their own talk page. Now, in regards to your request- No one is saying a video doesn't exist- what they are saying that it is not a WP:RS and its not. It is, at best, a primary source. Primary sources will only rarely be accepted as acceptable, and this is not one of those cases. Because this topic is one that is contentious right now- there are many reliable, independent, secondary sources to pull from. Any information you want to use must come from an independent secondary reliable source. Also, your interpretation of the primary source you are using is WP:OR something else that is not allowed on articles- this is why we prefer secondary sources- they have already researched and analyzed the information so we don't have to. Now, I realize that the information you have pulled from this video is new and not currently covered, but until other sources have analyzed that information, it is not the place of WP to act as a news source and report on it. We are an encyclopedia. We summarize the available analysis, we do not provide our own. I hope this clears things up. If you find a WP:RS that supports your analysis of the video- you may re-open a discussion on the article talk page about including the information from that source. If you believe a source has been unfairly labeled as unreliable- you need to take that up elsewhere, we will not, at this board, declare something reliable. I'm sorry. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion |
---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The article provides info about some of the leaks PV published. The most recent one about Twitter CEO speaking about "doing more" than just banning Donald Trump. I provided multiple sources (Fox News, Federalist and some others), which usually featured the actual video, yet everything was rejected and reverted with the justification that "sources are unreliable". I didn't cite the original article on PV itself, since that would be rejected, considering that the article is mostly just slander about PV. One of the reverters, Ihateaccounts, actually called one of the sources "Unreliable, because it posts information from PV" (a circular logic and not very neutral and nonbiased thing to do). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Tried talking to XOR and NorthBySouthBaranof on their page, both reverted the question (whether they have actually seen the video) without even answering. Xor later posted on my talk page and accused me of "violating conduct policy" while IHateAccounts kept posting on my talk page asking me to "seek consensus" and or settle a dispute here. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Watch the video and therefore confirm its existence, apparently the other editors are unable to do so. I think it's pretty clear that PV really posted it, which is what the original edit was about (it was not even about its validity, just that they really posted it). Summary of dispute by Vojtaruzek; XOR'easter; IHateAccountsPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Project Veritas discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Vitalik Buterin
![]() | Editors declined to participate. It is recommended that the filing editor open a WP:RFC as a more appropriate option at this time. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] |
Closed discussion | ||
---|---|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Vitalik Buterin is the founder of Ethereum, a blockchain and cryptocurrency platform. Reliable sources have stated that it is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization behind Bitcoin and the most actively used blockchain. The following edit was made to the Vitalik Buterin article: "In 2014, Buterin launched Ethereum, which has become one of the most actively used blockchains in the world and the second-largest cryptocurrency platform by market capitalization." It included cites to Bloomberg and Fortune articles which supported those facts. Two editors deleted the second portion of the sentence that it was the "second-largest" and "most active", stating in the edit summary that it was a promotional edit.[2][3] The initial editor who added the content has argued against the deletion, stating that it is not promotional, as it is written in the NPOV, supported by facts and reliable sources, and illustrates why the subject of the article (Vitalik Buterin) is notable. Relevant cites:
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Yes, relevant discussion as well as a summary of arguments is here: Talk:Vitalik_Buterin#LEDE_promote How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Is the sentence "In 2014, Buterin launched Ethereum, which has become one of the most actively used blockchains in the world and the second-largest cryptocurrency platform by market capitalization." promotional or is it appropriate to include in the Vitalik Buterin article? Summary of dispute by Ladislav MecirPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JtbobwaysfThis article is subject of WP:GS/Crypto and editors that frequent this space such as myself and David Gerard (talk · contribs) we spend a lot of time clamping down on WP:PROMO edits. The relatively new user that opened this DRN is almost solely editing cryptocurrency articles (which in itself is fine). However, many of the edits are promotional and this user tends to WP:BLUDGEON the process as far as I have noticed. The user is very fixated on adding rankings of cryptocurrencies and we had a long discussion of it here Talk:Ethereum#Lede, at Talk:Uniswap#Rankings, and also at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Biased_list_of_altcoins. The theme of the disputed edits has been that a few of us find the edits to be promotional and often focused on the Lede rather than the body of the article. From a practical level, cryptocurrency rankings change daily, and it would be an unreasonable amount of work to try to keep this up to date. I can understand we might add as-of values and rankings to a historical section (not the lede), but this has not been discussed with this user that I recall, again it is almost always about the lede. Note, I eventually conceded at the Uniswap article as I found it interesting that the subject seems to be #1 ranked, and that led to its notability (the article is otherwise sparse). As for the Ethereum rankings (by proxy the subject of this DR, but not directly) we can also see that sometimes Tether (cryptocurrency) is also ranked #1 see bloomber saying tether is #1 However, the ranking notability of the Ethereum is not salient to this BLP article, and notability is easily established for Ethereum and Vitalik Buterin. It appears rather to be moving the dispute about rankings to yet another article for discussion. Note the user was quite unhappy relation to the now removed logos from Talk:Cryptocurrency which MrOllie (talk · contribs) and Smallbones (talk · contribs) also wanted them deleted. I have written too much, but in summary this is an issue where we are trying to stop promontionaism in the cryptocurrency areas of wikipedia. Comments welcome on our approach. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply] Vitalik Buterin discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
References
|
- ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-01/tether-not-bitcoin-likely-the-world-s-most-used-cryptocurrency.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)