Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 188 - Wikipedia
5 people in discussion
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 185 | Archive 186 | Archive 187 | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | → | Archive 195 |
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closing as premature, editors should continue discussion either at the talkpage or with the assistance of another noticeboard and narrow down the number of issues under contention. signed, Rosguill talk 18:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by GPinkerton on 17:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is an on-going dispute about the severity and extent of confiscations, deportations, and ghettoization of Jews in Bulgaria. Certain editors appear to seek to minimize the reality of the measures, and deny: 1.) that the Jews were deported from Sofia and other cities to ghettos and camps elsewhere in Bulgaria 2.) that Jews' property was confiscated, 3.) that Jews were confined to ghettos and camps, 4.) that the Bulgarian state and not the German army did this, 5.) that the Jews were subjected to forced labour. All this and more is evidenced by numerous reliable sources in English, which the vexatious editor claims are inferior to an number of unverifiable blogs and revisionist opinion pieces in Bulgarian, prominent among which is an antisemitic document produced by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and condemned within Bulgaria and internationally as malicious distortion. Some dispute focuses on exegesis of the word "deportation", which the (non-native English-speaker) editor claims (against all reason and evidence) means exclusively "deportation to Treblinka" rather than "deportation from their [confiscated] homes to ghettos and forced labour camps in Bulgarian territory". How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews#NPOV How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like a disinterested editor to review the discussion thus far and look at the sources cited to assure the quibbling editor that the mainstream interpretation of the facts, a presented in the article, is sound. Summary of dispute by StanProgThere's not a single sentence that is true as a whole from the so-called "Dispute overview". Four editors are participating in this discussion 3 of them including me have concerns about the GPinkerton's neutrality. Вени Марковски tried to help with the NPOV, but GPinkerton reverted his contributions. SSH 6842 was concerned about "inaccurate paraphrasing and presented information" of GPinkerton's contribution. Editors that doubt in his NPOV editing are indirectly or directly called "deniers of the holocaust" or even Nazis. I requested quotes, from the sources that are not publicly available and none was provided. This makes me doubt if he has access to them too. There's no way to confirm most of the claims made by Pinkerton that are being disputed. I have never quoted a blog, as he claims and all the sources that I provided are publicly available and can be easily checked. They are all reliable as most of them are direct state orders, quotes from a National State Archive reference books and articles by reputable scholars. I have never denied the points from 1 to 6, just the extent of some of them, the terms used and the fact that is sources do not confirm this. In short, he uses sources that claim something about a limited group of people and to a certain extent, and applies it to everyone, making enormous statements that contradict themselves. This article is about Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews and almost all his contributions are how they were actually "not rescued", selectively using the sources, rejecting all claims he disagrees with, reverting or marking as fringe all attempts to improve the article. --StanProg (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
(Bulgarian Jews) First statement by moderatorOk, given that StanProg and Вени Марковски have accepted the invitation to discuss here, I think that we're ready to begin. Please keep your comments clear and concise, refrain from making any edits to Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews that relate to the issues at hand while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, and review WP:DRN Rule A before responding. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here unless I explicitly give you space to do so. Focus on content and avoid commenting on other editor's behavior. Do not accuse editors of POV pushing or other problematic behavior: behavioral issues can be resolved if need be after this discussion has come to a close. StanProg, Вени, GPinkerton, could each of you please state in the section below, in one paragraph or less, specific changes, if any, that you want to see made to the article, as well as a brief justification? If your position does not significantly differ from a position that someone else has already written in their first statement, please just state that. signed, Rosguill talk 18:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
(Bulgarian Jews) First statements by participants
(Bulgarian Jews) Second statement by moderatorFrom reading the above, it seems that there are several different issues that are being contested, ranging from wording choices to disputing the entire scope of the article. I am inclined to agree with Вени that discussion should continue on the article talk page. If there's no objections, I will close this discussion i For future disputes strictly about source reliability, I would suggest posting at WP:RSN if a consensus cannot be reached on the talk page. signed, Rosguill talk 05:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed as premature. There does not appear to have been an attempt to discuss this either on the user's talk page or on the article talk pages. Since the issue appears to have to do with multiple dioceses, the best place to try to discuss is probably on the user talk page of the user, User:Carlm0404. The MOS indicates that honorifics and post-nominal letters should be used once, to indicate what a person's title and post-nominals are, and not used thereafter in running text. If there is an issue about their use in a specific article, discuss on the article talk page before requesting any other sort of dispute resolution. If there is an ongoing issue about their use in multiple articles, which appears to be what this filing says, discuss on the talk page of the editor who is re-introducing them. If there are any questions about the guidelines, they can be discussed on a guideline (MOS) talk page. Discuss somewhere, probably the editor's talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Per MOS:HON and MOS:POSTNOM I have been excising honorifics and post-nominal initials from biographies, chiefly Catholic bishops. Carlm0404 objects to this, and edit-wars to restore them. This is a truly trivial matter, but I have been on a months-long quest to excise these things where they are rampant (take one look at India's clergy, ugh) and have established good consensus with watchers and editors elsewhere. Carlm0404 edits extensively in bishop BLPs and our paths cross often enough that this needs to be resolved, somewhere, somehow. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User talk:Carlm0404#February 2020 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Make a determination if these MOS requirements are binding in the topic area where we are editing, and the situations where they are being applied. Summary of dispute by Carlm0404Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
| 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 list article appears to have no sources and from my point of view, fails a few rules of lists on wikipedia (easily summarized on WP:SOURCELIST). I edited the lead with some sources and removed other material per WP:OR and tagged the unsourced lists. the other user removed the edits and said I was a vandal for removing his neutral content. While I don't think what they wrote is incorrect, I felt it required sources. On discussing on the talk page, we can't come to a conclusion on the rules at hand. Can we have a third party come in and sort it out? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Nazi_zombies#Sourcing User_talk:ZombieHorrorMovie13#April_2020_2 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps someone clarifying which rules should be followed here for pages with list articles could come in so its not as opinion based. I'm thinking myself or the other editor have been misunderstanding rules. Summary of dispute by ZombieHorrorMovie13Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nazi zombies discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I try my best to add information to the list article "Nazi zombies". It lists the Films & Television, Video Games, and Books & Other, sources of Nazi Zombie related materials. I have tried my best to make it a better, more complete list. Other people keep coming along to vandalize the page, and delete relevant information. It is so hard to try and make a single article better when others just try to keep tearing down my efforts. I have tried to do non bias contributions, and list all the relevant information in the list of "Nazi Zombie" horror pop culture sources. Someone even tried to claim a copyright issue on the image of a "Nazi Zombie" that was shown on the article. I was 100% the creator of that image. There was no copyright violation, but the image was deleted anyways. I made a Nazi Zombie horror movie. I was just trying to make the article better by listing all the Movies, Video Games, and Comic Books that relate to Nazi Zombies. To make it a better list article.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2020 I try to be constructive and add information, when others try to be Fascists over what they think their stupid rules are, and delete relevant information. how about you try to be a constructive person, and stop trying to tear the world down. There were other people that were good people that added info to the article. I didn't revert their edits.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2020 I have since, tried to do re-writes to the article. Work with the other editor to improve the quality of the article, and the sourcing. It has been like pulling teeth. Nothing is good enough for the other editor. They even opinionatedly deleted edits I made that had sourcing. I am going to try my best to keep working on the "Nazi zombies" article, but my efforts keep being torn down, as I am trying to make the article better. ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2020
Andrzejbanas ruined the whole format of the article. Now movies are not listed in order of the year they were released. He is wrecking the whole article, not improving it.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2020 I am going to just give up. I am quitting. The user, "Andrzejbanas", butchered the article I was working on. I was going to add more films, and video games, and printed materials to the list. The user, "Andrzejbanas", came along and deleted way too much relevant information to the subject matter in the article "Nazi zombies". He mixed up the order of the films, which had been ordered by release date. The whole article has been butchered by the user, "Andrzejbanas". I tried to fix it up, and improve the overall quality, but he kept combating my efforts. He kept trying to undermine everything, and succeed in butchering the article. I am now done with Wikipedia all together. I have given up. I will not try to add any more contributions to Human knowledge, when people like "Andrzejbanas" just want to censor, vandalize, and tear everything down. You win, small minded Fascist people. I have given up.ZombieHorrorMovie13 (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2020
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is a dispute over political inclinations of major media companies and a political party of South Korea. To be more specific, the articles being disputed are The Chosun Ilbo, The Hankyoreh and United Future Party. The dispute is mainly on The Chosun Ilbo and The Hankyoreh. The contending editor, Jeff6045 keeps reverting the Chosun Ilbo article to a version where it is described as an ultraconservative and a far-right newspaper. I have changed the political inclination of the Chosun Ilbo as a conservative and a right-wing newspaper, based on peer-reviewed journal articles that deal with the political inclination of the Chosun Ilbo as their main subject. I have done the same for the Hankyoreh, changing its political inclination of center-left to left-wing, as it is described in the peer-reviewed journal articles. Jeff6045 claims that my edits are unconstructive and is original research.[1][2][3] I took this to the WP:OR noticeboard, but it is yet to have any input from other editors.[4] And in the talk page of Chosun Ilbo, he has expressed explicit intent not to engage in discussion[5] until his buddies[6] arrive. Any neutral and uninvolved editors willing to help resolve this dispute will be much appreciated. Res Iudicata (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Evaluation of reliable sources cited for the different definitions of the Chosun Ilbo, the Hankyoreh and the United Future Party. I consider that the problem is most significant on the subject of Chosun Ilbo, so this subject should be given priority in my opinion. Definition of political inclinations of the Chosun Ilbo, the Hankyoreh and the United Future Party. Evaluation of whether policies such as WP:OR, WP:BLUE, WP:DR, are being violated by my edits, as claimed by Jeff6045. Summary of dispute by Jeff6045Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The Chosun Ilbo discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| 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 whether or not an author is an independent, reliable source for the article. The particular line in the article is "Edward Niedermeyer, author of Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors, establishes the doxxing of Lawrence Fossi, a Seeking Alpha writer and Tesla short seller, as "catalyz[ing] th[e] loose association of individuals... some of whom were pure financial speculators [...] and others who were motivated by factors other than money." The subject of the article, TSLAQ, advocates directly for the author on its website (https://tslaq.org/who-is-elon-musk/), on top of other apparent conflicts of interest outlined on the TSLAQ Talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:TSLAQ#Edward_Niedermeyer_Book_Reference_-_Fails_WP:IIS_-_Remove_From_Article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can help by letting us know whether this is an acceptable source for the article and explaining why or why not. Summary of dispute by QRep2020Author in question is an expert in the field of automotive industry and published a book used as a reference on TSLAQ that's been reviewed by LA Times, WSJ, etc. I argue that just because someone on the TSLAQ website likes what Ed says in his book doesn't mean Ed's work is somehow invalid. Additionally, a consensus was reached on this matter but that consensus has been ignored in order to bring the "dispute" here. Summary of dispute by SchazjmdSchazjmd wrote on Talk:TSLAQ, "There's a book that mentions TSLAQ, Ludicrous: the unvarnished story of Tesla Motors, that might also be useful for the article. I initially suspected vanity publishing, but the book's been covered by Arstechnica and LA Times, and mentioned in Publishers Weekly, so probably reliable. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)" TSLAQ discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. The statement by User:Billybostickson is too long to be a useful statement of an article controversy. The party was asked to provide a more concise statement, and, after 48 hours, has not responded. This case is closed. The parties may resume discussion at the article talk page, and are advised to be concise, because overly long statements do not always convey meaning (even if they make the person making the statement feel better). If there are any disputes that can be summarized concisely, they can be resolved by RFC, but overly long RFCs just result in nothing being accomplished for a month. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Contributions have been deleted in the China section by one editor. Consensus building has been attempted but to little avail. I feel it would be helpful to have more opinions so that we can move forward in this dispute, so I am asking TransporterMan if he could kindly assist. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (/* Attempt to build consensus concerning recent deletions of contributions to China Section of List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic */ ) AND Talk:List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (Pre-edit war with someone who's broken the 3 revert rule) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It would be very helpful to get some neutral opinions on this dispute as I feel that the editor in question has a certain ideological bias which has caused him to delete well-written and factual contributions in the section in question, and when questioned about said deletions has failed to show a genuine attempt to build consensus. Of course, that is my opinion. Looking forward to seeing the opinions of neutral and experienced editors on this dispute. Here is the evidence of all my attempts to build consensus which have been met mainly by stonewalling: If you like I will try to find the official source for the letter and add it, but I contend that your deletion and questioning of the source is not helpful given that it is merely the source for the protest letter that is being sourced, not the opinion of “frontpageafrica”. Update, I have found another African newspaper that contains the full text of the protest letter here: https://www.zambianobserver.com/protest-letter-of-african-ambassadors-in-beijing/ @Donkey Hot-day: I have carefully read you response to my questions and thank you for taking the time to answer each one in good faith (I presume). Are you saying you would like me to input a source for that information? If so, can we agree that this one is acceptable: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/asia/china-virus-travel-ban.html or this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52059085 Let me know which you prefer? Are you saying you would like me to input a source for that information? If so, can we agree that this one is acceptable: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/world/asia/china-virus-travel-ban.html or this: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52059085 Let me know which you prefer? It is quite clear from the above that the Mexican Ambassador is in fact accusing China of hypocrisy, arrogance and “absolute lack of self-awareness”, so I will be happy to add these as well when I restore my edit, after reaching consensus with you and others. I am inclined to accept that critique, so will be happy to replace it with this source, if you agree: “As Coronavirus Fades in China, Nationalism and Xenophobia Flare…Now that the pandemic is raging outside China’s borders, foreigners are being shunned, barred from public spaces and even evicted.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/16/world/asia/coronavirus-china-nationalism.html So, to achieve consensus here I propose adding a new section with an analysis of the provocative attempts by Chinese State Media to stoke xenophobia against foreigners by manipulation of statistics (by publishing the numbers of imported cases without mentioning that 90% were via Chinese citizens). Can we agree on this proposal? So, we could delete the phrase “racist abuse: and replace it with “discrimination, xenophobia and racist jokes” and mention the details of the story. Can we agree on this? You have also failed to attempt to achieve consensus on using the only other source for the protest letter which I found in the hope of reaching consensus. As we are trying to reach consensus on adding my entire contribution, you are welcome to identify the “plenty of spacing errors among other things in your revert” so that my contribution will be more accurate. I am happy with that help you offer. I am happy to delete the word “students” and replace it with “citizens” if by doing that we can agree on re-adding the phrase which you deleted. Covid-19 health exams are intrusive by nature as they involve quite intrusive throat swabs. If this continues to be a sore point for you or stick in your throat, then I could replace it with the phrase “inhuman treatments” which is in the protest letter. 4.F Can we agree on this? "Correct it yourself if you dislike it so much (change 'others' to 'those' or whatever), I gave you the grammatically correct version." @Donkey Hot-day: OK, thanks, I will when the consensus building is finally achieved. I have no wish to change any edits that you made to the section at the moment, whether because of your poor grammar use or your misleading statements, because we are currently trying to build consensus and WP advice is to avoid editing during this process until consensus is achieved. Kindly re-read WP advice on WP:CONSBUILD and WP:DRNC @Donkey Hot-day: Regarding WP:PRIMARY Let's look at the advice and polices so that we can build consensus on using the sources that I contributed: " The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." @Donkey Hot-day: can you agree that my original contribution was in line with this advised practice? "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement." @Donkey Hot-day: It is clear from the above that the primary sources should be included as well as your secondary ones. So can we agree on this? "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary @Donkey Hot-day: Again, regarding the African Ambassador's protest letter, in the hope of building consensus, I am willing to include the two sources that provide the letter in its entirety (frontpageafrica and zambian news) and add your secondary sources, so that anyone interested in checking the details can quickly find the original protest letter and thus make up their own mind as to its contents. @Donkey Hot-day: Can we agree on this? "Yes, you've provided no evidence (other than your own opinion) that "Most complaints" in the protest letter are related to enforced testing of African students." @Donkey Hot-day: What are you talking about? I provided the evidence which is clear, based as it is on counting the items in the protest letter, while agreeing to replace the word "students" with "citizens" in an attempt to build consensus with you so that the phrase "most or majority of complaints" is valid and agreed by both parties. Instead you WP: STONEWALL again. "And sure, you can replace it with the phrase “inhuman treatments”, & I'll then change it to "demands the cessation of forceful testing, quarantine and other inhumane treatments meted out to Africans" since it's what the secondary, not primary sources say (something you're disregarding)." @Donkey Hot-day: That sounds OK, I am happy with that edit, I will do it myself then when consensus is finally achieved. "Personally, the current sentence here is better & more comprehensive than that." @Donkey Hot-day: Again, your personal opinion which does not really help us build consensus as by "the current sentence", you of course mean your edit. Summary of dispute by Donkey Hot-dayThe conflict first became clear here, and was then taken to the talk page (in the bottom 2 discussions here) when I first brought it up there. I saw several of Wikipedia's guidelines disregarded or distorted, which later included WP:CIVIL with disrespectful allegations levelled against me. It then turned into some rather annoying breaches of WP:TPO in Billybostickson's edits here. Someone after all this mentioned WP:BITE, but the violations here certainly go beyond the average newcomer I encounter. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC) List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Summary by Mac HenniSo basically what he's saying is he's been stonewalled. The same could be said of his actions. He's been pushing back with me. Maccore Henni Mii! Pictochat Mii! (Note: respond on minha (my) talk page) 00:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Futile. A majority of the participants have been notified but failed to participate. Participation in moderated dispute resolution is voluntary, so this filing is of no avail. Please continue discussion at the relevant talk pages and if dispute resolution is still desired, consider a request for comments, but please remember that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result in a wiki. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Among the issues are a preponderance of Catholic POV in Catholic and Christian articles, such as this one, Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Augustine of Hippo, and similar ones. Specifically, we are disputing the reliability of certain sources and the particulars of a Pew Research study regarding Catholic belief in the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide a neutral evaluation of the WP:NPOV issues at hand, primarily, and ensure all editors are complying with policies of neutrality. Discover the underlying issues here, which unfortunately have been obscured by argument over trivialities. Dr. Ryan E. may want to include more articles in his POV check because he feels there is systemic bias in this topic area. Summary of dispute by BealtainemíPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Dr. Ryan E.Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. If you need ANY more evidence of the POV push we are not disputing the Summary of dispute by AnupamPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by desmayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Transubstantiation discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I wrote in the industrial and organizational (i/o) psychology entry that occupational health psychology (OHP) is partly descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine. The idea that one discipline contributes to the emergence of another discipline is found in many places in WP (e.g., health psychology's relation to clinical psychology). I used the appropriate citation to support what I wrote. User:sportstir almost daily reversed my edits until two other WP editors, WhatamIdoing and Psych12, indicated that what I wrote was appropriate. Sportstir, then instead of eliminating my edits, modified my edits to make it seem as if OHP is wholly descended from i/o psychology and eliminated any reference to health psychology and occupational medicine. Such an edit gives a distorted picture. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? On the i/o psychology talk page, I had extensive discussions with Sportstir about the dispute. WhatamIdoing and Psyc12 joined in the discussions. They indicated that my writing that OHP is descended from i/o psychology as well as health psychology and occupational medicine is appropriate. It is accurate. Sportstir disagreed. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Another neutral editor or other neutral editors could review the dispute and arrive at a decision we can abide by. Summary of dispute by SportstirPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoingPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Psyc12Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Industrial and organizational psychology discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. There are several problems with this filing. First, the filing party has notified some of the other editors and not others of this filing. This is worse than failing to notify them, because it appears to be gaming the system byselective canvassing. Notifying the remaining editors will not cure this problem, because there appears to have been an effort to bias the dispute resolution. Second, some of the editors, in particular some of those who do not want a montage, are not interested in moderated dispute resolution, and moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Third, moderated dispute resolution with ten editors is likely to be like trying to herd four cats, four sheep, a border collie, and a llama. The way to resolve this dispute that is most likely to be effective will be a Request for Comments. If anyone wants assistance in formulating an RFC, please ask. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, but there does not appear to be disruptive editing. Otherwise, resume discussion on the article talk page, and/or proceed with the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Ashton 29 (talk · contribs) correctly listed me among the involved editors above, but did not notify me of this discussion as directed at the top of the page. I don't know how many others in the list this "oversight" applies to? And whether there's any bias in his choice of who he notified. HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Dispute overview For at least 10 years, a small cabal of the same people have continually opposed my (and other editor's) attempts at creating a montage of images for the infobox on the Sydney page. It is clear that just as many users (if not more) want a montage compared to those who do not, yet the same people come up with the same excuses ("Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure, we don't need montages for cities"). It is akin to stonewalling. AussieLegend is quick to revert EVERY attempt at adding a montage, they shut down discussions on the talk page by refusing to reach compromise. He does not assume good faith, and reverts something when he doesn't like it. A compromise, in my opinion, would be agreeing on a montage with images of Sydney landmarks they approve or agree to have used. However, I believe it is beyond compromising with him, it's essentially his way or the highway and usually he wins out, because many editors have given up because he stonewalls their attempts. To me, this is totally unfair, which is why I've taken this further. It is not constructive to claim ownership of the Sydney article, as User:AussieLegend has done for at least 5 years now. He/she will not agree to anything, and discussions on the talk page have been useless: they go around and around in circles, and no conclusion can be reached. It has been years. Opposition is the only result I see, but my problem is the opposition is always by the same small select number of users. This is why I endeavour to take this here, or to the Administrator's noticeboard. It needs external observation, moderation, resolution...whatever can help us. According to Wikipedia: "Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward. Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process." The understanding is not there. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I do believe that there are more users who support a montage than oppose it. As I said, I don't think anyone would have a serious issue with it, aside from one person who constantly stonewalls the process: AussieLegend. Yes, a few others tend to agree with him on the talk page, but their reasoning is sparse and brief. I believe someone without any bias to the article or conflict needs to review the discussion. I want.a montage, as do other users. Please help us achieve it. Summary of dispute by AussieLegendPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HiLo48Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I stopped reading the allegations here when I saw I was being accused of being part of a cabal. Just checked the definition of that word - "the contrived schemes of a group of persons secretly united in a plot..." I laughed. Any complaint that begins with words like that should be instantly dismissed, and the posting editor disciplined for making such a personal attack. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Cement4802Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. First and foremost, a consensual vote over whether we should proceed ahead with the photomontage amongst all editors involved is needed. This is such an important first step to a resolution, yet this doesn't seem to have ever been done on the talk page, hence why we've always ended back at square one with zero progress, with most editors weirdly going silent or backing out whenever any proposal to hold a vote is introduced. This will ensure that we can dispute any falsely backed claims over whether there has been a consensus or not, which has been the very main problem stalling any form of progress for the last decade. Once a vote is held and we finally get an agreement over the direction in which we should head in for the photomontage, there is simply no point in finding a way to completely satisfy those in opposition to the consensus. Sure, we can take onboard or consider their criticisms and ideas, but we need to simply go with the decision of the consensus and disregard any excuses to once again hold back progress. That's how a consensus works. Again, this has been such a ridiculous occurrence that has always kept progress at square one. Furthermore, editors who actually want progress need to take a more active role in decision making and actually participate in discussions. There seems to be strong overall support for a photomontage, yet every time a decision has to be made over whether to proceed with the photomontage or not, most seem to go silent or inactive, thus repeating the cycle of zero progress. There's no point in declaring your support and then leaving it to a few editors to take on the role of going ahead with a proposal. Nothing will happen. - Cement4802 (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gracchus250Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by PhilipTerryGrahamPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ImprovedWikiImprovmentPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by EothanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by CamV8Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by TrainsandtechPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sydney discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. The filing editor has been topic-banned from editing the article in question. This resolves the dispute. If there are any disagreements among other editors, they can discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The opposing editors say that primary radar data presented by Russian MoD from a civilian radar station is a "viewpoint" which, they believe, is WP:UNDUE [13][14][15]. I said that primary radar data is not a "viewpoint" but "objective evidence" which, according to WP:NPOV, must be present in the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17#Data from the radar station How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Is it really UNDUE since this is a reported objective evidence? Summary of dispute by StickeePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SlaterstevenI said it was a primary source, that needs wp:or to draw certain conclusions from. What I also said was that it would be better to use a wp:rs that analyses that data.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Also note I was not notified of this, I stumbled across a notice on the filers talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC) I have now notified the other 2 parties.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC) This may also be relevant [[16]]. This has been going on now for over a week.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC) I was aware of the FTN, its what brought me there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Can we close this and deal with it in once place?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by HeptorPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by PincretePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| 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 Hello, The source I am providing is a reliable one, from an anthropologist who says that historically, Pastilla is only consumed in Morocco and has only been introduced recently in Algeria. Someone keeps changing it and does not provide any reliable source. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:M.Bitton I have left a message to talk but it doesnt seem to work. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please check the source yourself and see that whatever information I have added is from a reliable source, while the other user does not provide any source. Thanks Summary of dispute by M. BittonPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Pastilla discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview In this section [[24]] there is a distorted use of a secondary source by K. Giakoumis. The scholar maintains that there has been a long coexistence between the Greeks and Albanians, predating the well documented account of the 14th century Albanian migrations in Epirus and Thessaly, thus challenging the Greek and Albanian nationalistic views. He presents three documented evidences of an Albanian presence before the migration wave and notes that recent studies in linguistics, onomastics and toponymy attest a much longer coexistence between Albanian and Greek speaking people (verbatim: [they] had been living together all along). Whereas the text in the article cites Giakoumis, but presents an almost opposite perspective: it briefly mentions one of the three documents as "the oldest reference", while simultaneously contradicting it as unreliable and putting a subtle emphasis to the 14th century migrations, as the only "confirmed" evidence. This view is in fact what Giakoumis himself dubs as "the old Greek nationalistic view" that "serves the concept of national purity". I rewrote this part by citing a long quote for the sensitive issue, but was reverted twice. To avoid breaching the 3RR, I addressed the issue in a discussion in Talk:Epirus and also WP:NPOVN. Having no reaction or will of mediation for almost 10 days, remade the changes 24h ago, only to be reverted with this tag [[25]] In the light of these edits, I see a denialist stance that undermines not only the section where the source is present, but the whole article's history, as the issue is a vital part of it. In the talk page there is more information. I hope we can reach a solution to correctly present the scholar's views. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The dispute can be solved by correctly quoting the author of the secondary source and presenting his views for the people he mentions in his study. Synthesizing the author's views by re-framing the problematic sentence and presenting his non-nationalistic views and the recent researches of a much older Greek-Albanian coexistence is important according to the article and the section's time span. Summary of dispute by KhirurgPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Epirus discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by 109.189.58.203 on 13:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have with two different sources written about a controversy regarding the personality. They are well regarded sources and if the other editor has a problem regarding the truth then probably should refrain from using Wikipedia How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? This is a simple edit and odes not need discussion, well known sources and print media, the editor seems to have a personal problem How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Decide the matter Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Atul Kochar discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
| Closed. Discussion at this noticeboard must be preceded by extended inconclusive discussion on an article talk page. The discussion on the article talk page has not been extensive. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved Dispute overview There is a dispute over the order of the Joey Bishop Show episodes, particularly in season three. 23.242.254.82 sites links to one source to claim his order is correct. I, Entercontainment, have listed multiple independent sources to prove my order is correct. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Somehow, we should be able to inform 23.242.254.82 that they are incorrect in their order of episodes and request them to stop replacing my correct version with theirs. Summary of dispute by Entercontainment 23.242.254.82Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of_The_Joey_Bishop_Show_episodes#Season_3_(1963%E2%80%9364) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Slatersteven on 16:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview A user is insisting that these two sources [[28]] [[29]] are "opinion pieces" as Neither "are newspapers". They are refusing to accept that (at the very least) the New Yorker is an RS for the claim that something is Corona Virus disinformation (the issue is this content [[30]]. Note also that the two disputed sources are not the only ones being sued in that section. References How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:The Federalist (website)#Budding edit war User talk:JungerMan Chips Ahoy!#Warning: disruptive editing How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either me (and a couple of other users are right and JungerMan Chips Ahoy! needs to be told this or we are wrong and we do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC) Talk:The Federalist (website) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| 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 editors who can change the article refuse to consider any information other than information that paints Flynn in the worst light. Any suggestion that is other than left wing is rejected and is not allowed even though it is factual. I went through all references that are listed in the article and now that the information from the Impeachment hearings have finally been released, and officials who said one thing to the public, said just the opposite under oath. Also the article will not name Stefan Halper as a source of the FBI, who admitted lying about General Flynn. People who are reading the article should have the right to know who these "Secret" not secret sources are to make a determination whether the article is accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Flynn How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Someone that can take over as overseer of the article. It is ran by liberals, Muboshgu has admitted to being liberal. This article exudes liberal POV on General Flynn, It is NOT balanced. It is not fair to only include references that spin against him when there is also a different interpretation to the same information. It should be balanced to get an ACCURATE article on him. Summary of dispute by Muboshgu: Korny O'Near :The 13th 4postle:: MelbourneStarPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Michael Flynn discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Request withdrawn Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 09:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Filed by Galendalia on 17:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Numerous times this editor has been asked not to revert changes and I told them I would revert back to the original before they started. They have once again, instead of waiting on discussion reverted the changes; keeps injecting POV despite being told not to. This was there latest un-due "Undid revision 955844219 by Galendalia (talk) User is holding an 'official' rape apologist POV, is refusing ing to discuss to his POV in good faith, is imposing his onesided edits, and is engaging in a covert edit war with straw manning, false accusations and distractions. Reverted until he completes discussion in good faith." I have not even had a chance to respond to the discussion and I have made my stances pretty obvious. Refuses to let discussion happen without them editing the article first and as I type this they are still making edits adding their POV. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 10:12 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7) / I have opened a SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MarnetteD Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 07:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC) I now need to add that shortly after I added this User:MarnetteD made a change to the genre (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_of_Hearts_(2019_film)&diff=next&oldid=955854456&diffmode=source) and made it “Sex Crime” of which this film has never been categorized as such until now. Possible SPI or they know each other? Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 10:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Queen_of_Hearts_(2019_film) User_talk:2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192
I am suggesting that what the editor(s) are entering into a fictional film is WP:POV and WP:RSUW. The editor is trying to apply the law to change the plot to reflect their POV when everything I can find about the film has zero references to claiming what editor is entering in the article. At 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC), the following change was made to the article "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Queen_of_Hearts_(2019_film)&type=revision&diff=955944423&oldid=955937735&diffmode=source" where the person who did this applied the same concept "rmv pov" as the reason. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 17:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 2601:986:8001:D134:B1C7:54F4:A9A8:3192Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MarnetteDPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not in any dispute regarding this article. As has been pointed out on my talk page and at the 3rr report the only edit I made was to return it to the same version that Galendalia had left it at. Due to the fact that this has not yet been acknowledged by Galendalia I will not be posting here further. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Queen of Hearts (2019 film) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by AnadiDoD on 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The article mentioned above was edited by me to add a balanced perspective and improve the phrasing of some sentences to bring an unbiased and informative tone. The edits were provided with verifiable citations from credible sources. But the other editor without any constructive discussion reverted the edits repeatedly. As there was no proper reason attributed i discussed the same on the talk page of the editor and invited them for a discussion on the article talk page. My edits which followed the reverts and were not related to the content which was reverted before also met the same fate. On discussing it further the issue that the other editor had was brought out. I agreed to accept the issue as it was not related to the edits I made and asked the editor to edit only that particular sentence. But instead they kept going around the same issue without any consideration to my arguement. Thus, there is a need for someone experienced in this area to resolve this dispute by bringing in more suggestions and facts. I have attached the discussions between me and the other editor. Wikipedia thrives on community of the editors and no community can accomplish its ethics without proper discussion and perception to all the members. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hizbul_Mujahideen#Pakistan's_ISI_supports_the_outfit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kashmiri#Hizbul_Links_with_Pak_ISI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AnadiDoD#May_2020 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There is a need for other editors who are aware of the issue to bring about a consensus as to which of the two disputing editors have a valid argument and also bring fresh suggestions to resolve the dispute. Community needs communication. Summary of dispute by KashmiriRecommend speedy close and trout the OP. The discussion on the Talk started less than 48 hours ago and neither me nor other editors clearly had time to engage over the weekend. The OP needs to learn how Wikipedia works and also that civility[31] is required. — kashmīrī TALK 12:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC) By the way, I wonder whether DoD in AnadiDoD stand for the Indian Department of Defence? — kashmīrī TALK 12:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Hizbul MujahideenPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
| Resolved. The editors have agreed that the article will state that the McLaren remains the world's fastest normally aspirated production car, and will not state what car with forced induction was faster. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview There is an argument about the inclusion of the Dauer 962 surpassing the McLaren F1 mainly because it was proclaimed as the fastest production car in the world by Evo magazine. The same statement was used by a German automotive magazine Autobild some years later. Two editors on the talk page believe that what these magazines have said is true. There was an article posted in two talk page discussions from Evo magazine about the Dauer 962 in which the claim made earlier by the publication was not repeated. Yet the two editors would still take this fact as the main reason for the Dauer 962 to be included in the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By explaining a clear definition about the term production car and whether superlatives used to promote automobiles by magazines should be used as a reference on Wikipedia articles in the future. Summary of dispute by Toasted MeterNot sure why no one was notified of this. Anyways, I do not necessarily think those magazines are correct, I think that due to the definition of "production car" being so variable it is due to include this differing opinion from two leading automotive publications. U1Quattro seems convinced that Autobild is circularly reporting on what EVO wrote, I don't see any reason to think this is true, I also think it very unlikely that the dispute resolution noticeboard is going to create some authoritative definition of "production car". Toasted Meter (talk) 03:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DrachentötbärIt's about which car succeeded the McLaren F1 as fastest production car. Among the reliable sources there are three different opinions (each supported by several reliable sources). I want to mention all of them in a sentence like "Depending on the definition of production car it was succeeded by the Dauer 962, Koenigsegg CCR or the Bugatti Veyron" while U1Quattro posts one opinion as fact and ignores the rest which is unbalanced and contradicts the other sources. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC) McLaren F1 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderatorI will try to moderate this dispute. Read and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Be civil. That is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Be concise. Overly long statements do not help communicate, even if they make the author of the long statement feel better. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve an article, not to talk about editors. Now: Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issues are? I do not have knowledge of the subject area. I expect you to provide me with the knowledge. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC) First statements by editorsProduction car top speed records have been contentious long before Wikipedia came to be, with little consistency about what a production car is and what counts as a top speed record, take a look at Production car speed record#Difficulties with claims for all the odd minutia of why a car might not be considered the fastest by some even when others say it is. The definition of a production car has varied over the years, at Le Mans in 1993 the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO) introduced the LM GT1 class which asked that 25 road going cars of the type be made but only required that one exist at the time of the race, in the end only 13 Dauer 962s were ever made, however it won the most prestigious endurance race as a production car. Skirting the "production car" line was not out of the ordinary at the time, the Toyota GT-One which came second in 1999 met the requirement to have space for a suitcase by somehow convincing the scrutineers that the fuel tank would fit a suitcase and so what if it there is no way to actually open the tank the rules don't say that you actually need to have a way to get it inside, it would fit if you could. The rules of the 2001 American Le Mans Series let the BMW M3 GTR compete in the GT class despite only three road cars being made and zero being sold, the rules were changed the next year to demand that 100 cars and 1000 engines be sold. On Wikipedia defining the production car has been the subject of extensive discussion eventually leading to the definition used on the Production car speed record page. Now this dispute is about the McLaren F1 page, the history of the McLaren F1's record is also interesting, the eventual top speed was tested as a two way average at VW's Ehra-Lessien test facility, the two way average is to cancel out wind and any slope in the track. It took a few runs to get to the top speed, in the early runs the car was not being limited by aerodynamic drag becoming so much that the power of the car was equal to the external forces and losses, the limiting factor was the maximum rpm of the motor, after the gear reduction the tires were spinning as fast as they could with the gearing and redline, this is called a gearing limited top speed. The standard car had a redline of 8,000 rpm, due to the lifespan of a bonded rubber vibration damper being reduced at higher speeds (probably also due to being an even number), in pursuit of a higher top speed the limiter was eventually raised to 8,300 rpm and a two way average top-speed of 386.7 km/h (240.3 mph) was achieved in March 1998, the modification was accepted by the publications of the time with Guinness World Records declaring it the world's fastest production car. The Dauer's record is less well documented, the run happened in November 1998 again at Ehra-Lessien reaching 404.6 km/h (251.4 mph) in what may or may not be a unidirectional run. The CCR was tested at the Nardò Ring a very large banked circular track and reached 387.87 km/h (241.01 mph) (unidirectional) in February 2005, 14 cars were made. The specific content at issue is the inclusion of the Dauer, I and Drachentötbär think that two contemporaneous publications describing it as production car provide due weight for it's inclusion, not as definitely a production car but as something that went very fast and was described as production car by reliable sources. Toasted Meter (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorThe first statement is not concise. The first statement is not concise. Please just tell me, in one paragraph, what statement or statements in the article are in question. I will ask for the explanation or justification if I think it is needed, but I want to know what one or two sentences in the article the dispute is about. Continue to be civil. Start being concise, please. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Second statements by editorsSorry about making it so long, I guess I took the giving information about the subject area too far. This is about describing the Dauer as "Depending on the definition of "production car" a successor to the F1's record. Toasted Meter (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC) .
Third statement by moderatorIs the disagreement about what car succeeded the McLaren F1 as the fastest production car? If so, can that statement be replaced by stating that this depends on the definition of production car? Can the disagreement be worked with a clarification about the definition of a production car? Will each editor please propose a wording that they think should resolve the concerns of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Third statements by editorsSort of, none of the editors who want it included think the Dauer is the objective "rightful heir" just that with some sources saying it's a production car it's due to mention it among the other putative successors. I think the long standing (4 year) wording that includes the Dauer does a good job of noting that definitions have never been consistent and lets the sources do the defining. I can't think of a good disclaimer beyond what's there now, but I would be open to one. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
What car succeeded the McLaren F1 as the fastest production car depends on the definition of production car, the disagreement seems to be whether we list all three cars supported by reliable sources (including the Dauer) or not. That this depends on the definition of production car is already stated in the article. There is no definition of a production car upon which there is a general consensus at Wikipedia or in the media and I don't think there'll ever be. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderatorWill each editor please propose a wording for the sentence in question? We can then try to piece together something that we agree on. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC) Fourth statements by editorsDepending on the definition of "production car" the BMW-powered McLaren's record lasted until it was surpassed in November 1998 by the Dauer 962 Le Mans (404.6 km/h (251.4 mph) in Ehra-Lessien), in February 2005 by the Koenigsegg CCR (387.866 km/h (241.009 mph) in one direction at the Nardò Ring) or in April 2007 by the Bugatti Veyron (408.47 km/h (253.81 mph) in Ehra-Lessien). Drachentötbär (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderatorIf the article is about the McLaren F1, then can we say something vague, that what the fastest production car was after the McLaren is disputed but appears to reflect differences in definitions? This doesn't seem to be a major point in the article on the McLaren. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Fifth statements by editorsI agree with you that the dispute is not something even related to the McLaren F1. But as the dispute is about the which car succeeded the F1 as the world's fastest production car, I suggest that we use the mutually agreed definition at List of fastest production cars as this list has the proper agreed upon rules and procedures about what to classify and what not to classify at the world's fastest production car on Wikipedia (at least). When there is a page on Wikipedia which has agreed upon rules about the said topic under dispute, I believe we should give that preference over sources which use the term "production car" in a seemingly promotional sense with no logic or reasoning behind the term as proven by my conversation with the editor of Evo magazine.U1 quattro TALK 09:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderatorSince there is a List of fastest production cars, shouldn't we be consistent with other articles in Wikipedia? If we are proposing that this article disagree with the List of fastest production cars, should we disagreeing instead about what is in that list? If there is disagreement, then how do we make the disagreement consistent in this article, where it is minor, and the list, where it is what the list is about? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Sixth statements by editorsI agree with using the definition in the list since it is that definition that pertains to the matter about which this dispute is about. Consensus should take precedence over what sources say which is not based on any logic or standard. The best way to resolve this dispute would be to make the article consistent with the definition in List of fastest production cars.U1 quattro TALK 00:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderatorDo not engage in back-and-forth discussion. There appear to be two viewpoints, one that the successor should be listed as the Bugatti Veyron to be consistent with the list of fastest cars, and the other that a different car should be listed here. If a different car should be listed here, should this page and the list be inconsistent, or should the list be changed? Please provide an answer both to what this article should say, and either to how consistency should be maintained in the encyclopedia, or why it should not. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion in the space labeled Seventh Statements. If you want to argue, argue in the space for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC) Seventh statements by editorsOne viewpoint is that only the Bugatti Veyron should be listed as successor as in the list of fastest cars, the other is that all three cars mentioned by reliable sources should be listed. Listing only the Veyron would contradict reliable sources while listing all contradicts neither the reliable source nor the list site. There is no inconsistency between the list and this page so there's no need to change anything. Drachentötbär (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderatorWhy should this article contradict another article? If there are different reasonable views as to what the fastest production car was after the McLaren F1, why should the differences of opinion be presented in this article rather than in the list? Why anyway is it worth having a content dispute in an article about the McLaren about a matter that isn't about the McLaren? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC) Eighth statements by editorsI support the consistency of the article with the List of fastest production cars page. It is not worth it to have a dispute about two cars whose record claims are disqualified in the List of fastest production cars page with the Dauer being promoted by superlative statements with no reasoning behind them contrary to what the others think and still refuse to accept.U1 quattro TALK 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC) I think that using the criteria for the list would be incorrect, it's a local consensus that allows the list to remain manageable, not an immutable truth. Sticking to reliable sources while not over stating them seems like the corect move, although I can see the point that the section might not make sense on the page. If I were writing the page from scratch I don't think I would have written it the same way, you could probably remove the entire "Depending on the definition of" section leaving only the "
Ninth statement by moderatorFirst, are the editors willing to leave out the statement as to what car was faster? Second, are the editors willing to leave in only "As of 2017, the F1 remains the fastest naturally aspirated production car in the world as the cars who have surpassed it in terms of speed records use forced induction engines."? Third, is there alternate language proposed that does not contradict the list? If you want to contradict the list, fourth, please explain how Wikipedia can explain to its readers how it can argue with itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC) Ninth statements by editorsI would say removing it would be fine. If other editors disagree, I think the best argument to diverge from the list would be that those criteria are a local consensus that does not supersede the principle of verifiability and due weight. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Upon checking the talk page of the article in question, a consensus with an adequate source was reached this morning, so this case is no longer needed. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will re-open it. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Mvblair on 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I believe that Dorothy Stang should be included in the list of "notable alumni." I made the addition, which another editor (John from Idegon) changed within a few hours, saying it was unsourced. I found a source and updated the page, which the same editor quickly reverted, saying "Reverted 6 edits by Mvblair: No independent sources for attendance, change if headings based on an incorrect assumption and without consensus. and we still do not use titles. do not restore without consensus." I requested clarification on the Chaminade Julienne High School talk page, but received no answer after several days. Mvblair (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Chaminade Julienne High School How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like clarification on what steps can be taken to include Dorothy Stang on the notable alumni list. It seems to me that John from Idegon is being reasonable in requesting a source, but I don't understand the order he gave to "not restore without consensus." In addition to telling me what steps could be taken to include Dorothy Stang, I would like a better understanding of what "consensus" is. Mvblair (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by John from IdegonIf I haven't had time to participate in the talk page discussion, why would you even accept this? Sorry, but IRL is very hectic right now. WP:NODEADLINE applies. And DRN isn't for editor training. If the OP dosen't understand what consensus is, that's an issue for WP:TEAHOUSE. You can close this. It's ridiculously premature. John from Idegon (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Moderator Notes
Chaminade Julienne High School discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. ----
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Because there is a |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Midnightblueowl on 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The Magic (supernatural) article has been fairly stable for approximately two years. In this form I am the primary contributor and hoped to get it to GA and ultimately FA quality, as I have done with many other articles. On 11 May, Rupert Loup, an editor who had previously never edited the article before, made a massive alteration to it, adding significant quantities of text and altering the structure and scope of the article. Many of the additions are poorly written or referenced and often represent trivia; much of it is copy-and-pasted from material that used to be in the article but which I removed as part of a clean-up in 2018. Other material has just been copy-and-pasted from articles like Practical Kabbalah and Incantation bowl. Rupert's main argument appears to be that he does not think I had consensus for removing some of this material back in 2018 and that it should thus be restored. He also maintains that I created a WP:POVFORK back in 2018 (which I dispute) and that I rely too much on Western scholars and thus push a "Western POV" in the article. On this count he opened a case against me at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard which has been ignored by uninvolved editors. I reverted Rupert's additions as per WP:BRD, and they have subsequently edit warred to push their version through (breaching 3RR, I believe). Attempts to engage at the Talk Page have not proven constructive. They also pinged Morgan Leigh, an editor with a longer history of involvement in said article, but with whom I have had disagreements in the past (possibly WP:Canvassing). Morgan Leigh has now joined Rupert Loup on the Talk Page arguing for the inclusion of this mass of material and the altered structure. Talk Page messages often read more like personal attacks and I do not believe that I am getting a fair hearing in my criticisms of the substantial recent alterations. Some cooler, uninvolved heads might help things. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Uninvolved editors might help to decide whether the massive recent alteration of the scope and structure of the article is warranted and whether the large quantity of added material is beneficial to the article. In my view, the recent alterations have been primarily detrimental to it. Ideally, I would like to see the article restored to its stable form (as it was on 10 May), at which Talk Page discussions can take place about Rupert's proposed alterations. Summary of dispute by Rupert loupPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Morgan LeighPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Magic (supernatural) discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Chrisvacc on 00:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Edit: It appears the issue has been resolved by another editor for now. Chrisvacc (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC) I’m requesting an arbitrator or mediator - and ideally one that’s politically centrist in order to be objective about this. Article is biased and fails to show two sides of a very controversial debate. Whenever other editors bring up concerns about the article's neutrality a "my way or the highway" attitude is taken in regards to their concerns or edits. For example, more than 6 editors have disputed the neutrality of the word "jogging" but edits are consistently reverted, with no attempts to Talk first. I added a Neutrality tag and made a section to discuss it and the tag – but it was deleted without discussing it first on the Talk page. A lot of relevant information (such as Arbery's prior theft charges) have been deleted to fit a specific, yet-to-be-proven narrative of the events. These charges are important because they're part of the controversy and they've been reported on in many other news outlets. The main dispute is between the use of the words "running" and "jogging," both of which have been used in credible media outlets; and the perspective they take generally depends on if they’re a Left-leaning (Liberal/Progressive) or Right-leaning (Conservative) news outlet. Different accounts and articles from credible sources use different words. Right-wing news outlets generally say “suspected burglar caught running from the scene” and Left-wing (Liberal) news outlets say “innocent black man was jogging when he was gunned down" - In my view an encyclopedia should not subscribe to either narrative but be neutral and provide a balanced view of the controversy. Here are 3 separate places that rank the objectivity of media outlets: Arbery was seen on video entering a construction site, not taking anything, then running or jogging away – potentially when he saw someone come after him. Accounts from Arbery’s family who was not present said he was ‘jogging.’ Police Reports and neighbors said he was ‘hauling ass’ (running) Videos appear to show him running: Neighbors Camera Video from inside building. (Note the neighbors video is time-lag, but even if you slow it down it’s still apparent he’s running) Despite this, I do not recommend referring to it as "running" (as that word implies guilt) but I also do not recommend referring to it as "jogging" (as the word implies innocence.) I recommend simply stating the facts that we know to be true and keeping a Neutral position. Both words violate neutrality. I believe the running vs jogging controversy to simply be a symptom of a larger neutrality problem, but one that needs addressing first. My recommendation was a compromise where we state Arbery was “reportedly jogging” but an editor reverted that. "Jogging" is a disputed factual claim. The fact that his mother stated that he was jogging is undisputed. Editors have also removed Arbery's histories of theft even though many media outlets are reporting on it, which is very relevant to the controversy. Short version is: in these types of events there are almost always two narratives: The Left (Liberal/Progressive) version and the Right (Conservative) version. In this article, undue weight is given to the Left narrative rather than maintaining a Neutral point of view. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide politically unbiased or centrist arbitrators to help resolve this. Summary of dispute by AussiewikiladyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by BarrelProofPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Miss HollyJPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 93.159.149.134Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Nice4WhatPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 98.238.206.57Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 63.155.99.218Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by O3000Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by KoncordePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranofPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute byPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Moderator notesI’m suggesting that McClenon take this one Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 00:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Pboni75 on 02:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The article mistakingly states that Gardel, the singer was born in Toulouse France, when IN FACT, he was born in Tacuarembo Uruguay on 11 December 1887. There is a significant amount of documents that proves that he was born in Uruguay. The editor of this article keeps insisting that Gardel was born in France, which is a fabricated lie. I have plenty of documents and scans, including research books, that the author/editor did not allow me to publish. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carlos_Gardel&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Make the author or the editor of this page change the incorrect date of birth from 11 December 1890 to the correct DOB 11 December 1887 and make the author/editor of this article change the place of birth, from Toulouse France to Tacuarembo, Uruguay. Summary of dispute by Peaceray(Alerting MartinezMD & Materialscientist, who also reverted this editor for the same reasons.) As of the time of this response, Pboni75 has not discussed this matter on any talk page, despite MartinezMD & my direction for Pboni75 to go to the talk page in two reversion edit summaries, & my requests to discuss it on the talk page in three warnings on Pboni75’s talk page. Opening up this dispute resolution has been Pboni75’s first communication about me, & Pboni75 has never communicated to me on any talk page about this matter. To the best of my knowledge, Pboni75’s only actions thus far have been edit warring. I know that this editor is newly registered, but that does not excuse ignoring policies and guidelines or neglecting to observe or seek concensus. I have reviewed all of Pboni75’s edits to this article, & not once did this editor include verification of these claims with a citation. Peaceray (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Carlos Gardel discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Moderator NotesVolunteer Note User PBoni75 has been blocked for edit warring and adding uncited sources which is set to expire in ~31 hours. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
First statements by editors
Second statement by moderator
Will the editors involved please give their opinion in the section below 'Second statements by editors' and then we can proceed to the next step. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 03:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer Second statements by editors
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Filed by Year1 on 17:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Any mention of The Five; the Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper (2019) by Hallie Rubenhold is being systematically edited out of every page concerning the Whitechapel murders, as well as the biography pages of the five victims; Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly. The Five has won the 2019 Baillie Gifford Prize for nonfiction and is shortlisted for the 2020 Wolfson History Prize, the two most prestigious nonfiction awards in the UK. Wikipedia editors are banning any mention of it from Wikipedia pages claiming it is 'fringe'. The work has been universally recognised and applauded by some of the country's leading historians for its pains-taking research and thorough reevaluation of existing source material, but is considered anathema by amateur 'Ripperologists' who disagree with the argument put forward in the book that not all of the women killed were prostitutes. The author has been the victim of misogynistic trolling and on-line abuse as a result. The Wikipedia editors of these pages wish to uphold the so-called 'consensus' view maintained by Ripperologists by banning Rubenhold's book and thereby excluding any mention of this important work within the canon of books on the Whitechapel murders, while also claiming they have to be impartial. To date, no scholarship by any woman is mentioned on any of the wiki pages discussing the Whitechapel murders, a brutally violent series of murders of women. This does not offer balance or impartiality and appears to be a deliberate act of sexism. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Require these editors to allow fair mention and discussion of other theories, information and scholarly works, especially when those works are recognised as legitimate mainstream works vetted by academic professionals outside of the circle of hobbyists (Ripperologists) who wish to control public discourse and exclude women. Summary of dispute by DrKayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is no evidence of any misogynistic trolling, online abuse or sexism at the Whitechapel murders page or any other wikipedia page related to Jack the Ripper, and none has been presented here. The opening party has an undeclared conflict of interest. If the book under discussion is "universally recognised and applauded" then in time it will be incorporated into the articles as it gains credence and support. The opening party should follow the advice at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. DrKay (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by John B123Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Rubenhold's book disagrees with the raft of previously accepted WP:RS sources over whether the victims were prostitutes. The "systematically edited out" is in fact resistance to the opening party changing the article to reflect Rubenhold's views, dismissing all other sources. The book has been applauded by some but dismissed by others. Claiming those who support Rubenhold's theories are "country's leading historians" and those who dismiss it are "amateur 'Ripperologists'" is a gross misrepresentation of the books reception. Literary awards are give for "good reads". They are not the same thing as academic or scientific awards that are based on content not writing skills. Rubenhold's book has been discussed on Talk:Whitechapel murders previously and the general consensus is that its not a WP:RS. The only "dispute" I can see here is that the opening party is not prepared to accept the principles of consensus, which is one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, and WP:DUE weight. I would add to DrKay's comments above that it matters little what sex an author is, it's the content that counts. To infer other editors are exhibiting sexism when they disagree with you is totally unacceptable. --John B123 (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Moderator Notes
Whitechapel Murders discussionI waded in as its not wholly new stuff (in fact I am pretty sure I have read the claim they were not prostitutes in the Psychic hunt for Jack the Ripper about 20 years ago). The fact is this is (in terms of all (not just armature) Ripperolgy) very much a fringe claim. I am not sure we should not mention this, I am concerned with how much weight. I am also concerned with how this debate was being framed, and we see that reflected here as well). We are not here to right great wrongs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC I was wondering about the COI accusation and so looked at the filers edit history, a wp:spa whose only edits have been to try and add this book as far as I can see (and mainly as link spam it looks like, rather that as a cite).Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Also there is a the claim "To date, no scholarship by any woman is mentioned on any of the wiki pages discussing the Whitechapel murders", this is false, at least one of our articles on the subject uses Miriam Rivett and Molly Whittington-Egan.Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. OK since 1889 it has been widely (in fact universally) regarded the the victims of the Ripper were prostitutes [[38]], This was also the view at the time. Recently one historian has said that only 2 of the five were, this is not wholly new (see my earlier post), but it is (as far as I know) the first time a reputable researcher has said it. Also (as far as I know) this is the first time a non psychic female researcher has said it (and there are not many, but a few).Slatersteven (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC) First statement by moderatorI will try to moderate this dispute. Read and follow the rules. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise. Be civil. That is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Be concise. Overly long statements do not help communicate, even if they make the author of the long statement feel better. Comment on content, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve an article, not to talk about editors. Now: Will each editor please state, concisely, what they think the issues are? I do not have knowledge of the subject area. I expect you to provide me with the knowledge. Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC) First statements by editorsAs I understand it there are two content issues: (1) whether or not to describe three of the five victims of Jack the Ripper as sex workers (or prostitutes, or casual prostitutes) at their individual articles [Note that they are not called prostitutes, or sex workers, at either the Jack the Ripper article or the Whitechapel murders article—both of which are featured articles that have gone through extensive review processes.]; and (2) whether or not to include Rubenhold's book about these victims The Five in the list of references. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC) To add to what DrKay wrote, this is one academic going against over 100 years of scholarship (both professional, armature and academic) including a few (but not many) women, as well as coroners and police reports. Thus it is is a violation of fringe to say they were not prostitutes in our voice, and it violates weight to give it undue attention. In fact its hard to see how we can use it given how fringe it is, one (attributed) sentence may be in each relevant article maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC) I think I keep contributing in the wrong place, hopefully this is the right place for an opinion: Rubenhold has at least problematised the actual scholarship and raised questions about the way (style/tone) writers should be addressing the Whitechapel murders. She is a reputable scholar, from a reputable publisher in a entering a field that is fringe in itself. I think there is a case to start stating that the victims have been perceived as "prostitutes". There's also a case for mentioning Rubenhold's contentions in the text. IIRC she does demonstrate that police and coroners didn't put prostitute on the official forms. Finally, I'd add that "fringe" isn't a question of numbers, and attention should be paid to the reception/reviews of the text in reputable journals/academic sources. As historian of prostitution (her actual field) she is not fringe. Red Deathy (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorI am still waiting on the creator to respond. If they do not when the time expires, I will close out this dispute and move it to an RFC as the originator is not participating. No response is necessary at this time from the other editors as I have read your comments above. Thanks! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 06:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC) DRN Volunteer
|
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Bmojaddidi (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Hello,
It seems that somebody is constantly falsifying the information regarding the Greater Khorasan (G.K) which was a totally separate country/ Empire from Iran or Greater Iran (term which in the Persian world has never been heard of.) Khorasan was a Muslim-Persian Empire formed during the Muslim Caliphate Usman. The empire's information is falsified to state that G.K was a province of Iran is absolutely untrue.
In the same manner, the scholars' nationalities that were from the G.K (listed under the title Cultural Importance) is constantly changed to Iranian which is like hijacking a country's intellectual property. A good chunk of Iran was part of G.K but G.K was not Iran.
I have been trying to edit the information to what is true and correct but somebody keeps changing it again and again.
Can you please fix this issue how let's say how to fix this problem?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Khorasan
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I would love to see an end to this "edit war" and state what is true. The correct information should be permanent and not editable. It is a shame that some Iranian is trying to Hijack an entire Empire and make it a province of Iran which is not the same.
Greater Khorasan discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
- Note to participants:
Bmojaddidi (talk · contribs) - Please indicate the other users involved in the dispute. For more information please read the information at the top of the page. Also please consider alternative dispute resolution processes such as WP:RFC. See WP:Dispute resolution for more information. Coastside (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Coastside Hello, I got a message from Wario-Man who stated the changes I made were not "constructive." So, I think it is him. Thanks. Bmojaddidi (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Bmojaddidi
Bmojaddidi (talk · contribs) Please review the dispute resolution process at WP:Dispute resolution. The dispute resolution notice board is where editors involved in a content dispute can have a discussion facilitated by uninvolved volunteers. As per the instructions at the top of this page, the dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page. It's not clear that has happened. I don't see anything in the talk page with your signature, for instance. Also, the editors need to willingly participate in the process, which is why you must identify them and notify them of the DRN posting using {{subst:drn-notice}}. If you want additional editors to review the disputed content and provide input in the discussion you might want to consider Requests for Comment or Third Party Opinion processes. If you want to continue with the Dispute Resolution process you need to notify the other editors. Coastside (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)