Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 221 - Wikipedia

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Second Temple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kcerb (talk · contribs)
• Duponiuex (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Another user is reverting my changes and refusing to participate in a conversation about it. I added a talk page and requested they discuss instead of reverting my changes but they are not responding.

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

Extensive discussion has not taken place because they refuse to participate.

Talk:Second_Temple#Religious_views_on_successor_buildings/concepts

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I don't actually know, I'm new to this and have been having trouble figure out how/where to get help with this kind of problem. The articles I'm reading seem to assume that someone who repeatedly "undo"s a change will be willing to discuss it on the talk page.

Summary of dispute by Duponiuex

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

Second Temple discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Andrevan (talk · contribs)
• Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs)
• Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have a draft for an RFC at User:Andrevan/FoxNewsRFCdraft and I am trying in good faith to get it appropriately brief and neutral to post. I am working to incorporate all the feedback but users are reverting the addition.

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

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, User_talk:Hemiauchenia

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to understand what steps are needed to have the RFC opened or if I am in the wrong here or misunderstanding something, please let me know what that is.

Summary of dispute by Hemiauchenia

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

Summary of dispute by Firefangledfeathers

I don't think this requires moderated discussion, but I'm happy to participate if others disagree. I would prefer to see another 48 hours or so if discussion at WT:RSN to see what Hemiauchenia's objections are and if they can be resolved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems fair. Andrevan@ 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jeanie Johnston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The Banner (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For years, this article about the Irish famine ship Jeanie Johnston has included the story about a baby being born on the maiden voyage and surviving (a rarity for these notorious "coffin ships"). Which not only poignantly illustrates the plight and desperation of the passengers on these "famine ships" (boarding a boat nine months pregnant). But also perfectly proving the preceding point about the importance of having a qualified doctor on board (a rarity on these ships). Setting up the rest of the story as well(as left in by this editor) on how this ship remarkably had no losses throughout it's journeys (unlike all the other so called "coffin ships"). Which is why this ship is so celebrated. And was recreated to sit outside the FAMINE MUSEUM in Dublin to this day.

This story of a baby being born on this ship's maiden voyage and somehow surviving is central to this story. Proving the previous point about the importance (and rarity) of having a doctor on board. And perfectly setting up the rest of the story about how this ship never lost another passenger throughout it's service.

I did not place this story in the original entry. But I can substantiate it as the great grandson of this baby who was born on that ship. And I have all the original documents found thru Ancestry.com to prove this "birth at sea" (as listed on my great-grandfather's birth records).

I was alerted to this entry by the author who wrote "All Standing: The Remarkable Story of the Jeanie Johnston, the Legendary Irish Famine Ship." when she found me thru Ancestry.com and contacted me for a comment in her book (I being one of the last surviving relatives of this baby, Nicholas Johnston Reilly). And for the life of me, I can't understand why this new editor is so insistent of removing it after all these years.

He says this is without relevance and is improperly sourced. I respectfully disagree. Please inform me how to keep this key part of this original article alive alive and included.

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

I don't know how to find the exact links, but you can see the extended conversations back and forth under COMPARE SELECTED REVISIONS.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please restore the article to its longstanding, original version. Or inform me how to properly document this to please this editor (who seems dead set on suddenly removing this as "irrelevant to the story of this boat" while I see it as central to the whole story (just as the original author did). Illustrating why the owner's insistence on having a doctor on board (a rarity on similar "famine ships") was so important. And setting up the rest of the story about how no one was lost on this ship.

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

Jeanie Johnston discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Flor de la Mar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mamabear1331 (talk · contribs)
• ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I made a link 2 years ago regarding a coin found in a 2020 search for the Flor de la Mar on the Flor de la Mar page. I linked to a google site page housing a youtube video link of a short documentary made by a third party company showing the discovery of the. This google site also shows an article published in a treasure magazine outlining the find.

User ScottishFinnishRadish keeps deleting my link now after it has appeared on the Wikipedia page for 2 and a half years, threatening to have me blocked saying a treasure hunting magazine isn't reputable in his opinion. I explained that the publication in question would have to vet it's stories before publishing but he keeps deleted that section. He has also accused me of linking to a book on amazon which I have never done and this seems to be some sort of vendetta move.

So I am seeking arbitration on the matter.

Thank you,

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mamabear1331

I have agreed with some of his comments on my linking and posts and asked how we can move forward on the matter but it seemed to have escalated into an ego situation more than a rational conversation. I have reposted in the conversation sections of Wikipedia's guidelines to explain my point but that hasn't proven to be helpful.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A third party to look at the situation with a clear mind and advise how the information can be addressed and posted would be very helpful.

Summary of dispute by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Obvious promotional edits are obvious, maybe we don't waste time on this, and someone else tells them that this is inappropriate before we end up at ANI. Here they are readding the self published book's Amazon link. To be fair, that was likely because they just reverted a pile of edits without looking. The real issue is the obvious promotional/COI edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The Flor de la Mar discussion

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

• Coordinator note - @Mamabear1331: the other mentioned party has not been made aware on their talk page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I have now made them aware. Thank you. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jaredscribe (talk · contribs)
• HurricaneEdgar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

An editor who exercised revdel to remove a (highly relevant and therefore encyclopedic) statement by the US Secretary of State, acting in an official capacity. Antony Blinken's official statements are in the public domain, and then can (and should be) quoted on articles that concern questions of US foreign policy.

I assert that this editor is misinformed about our content policy. This is not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, but rather to resolve the content dispute.

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

Talk:2022_Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan#Restore_statement_by_US_Secretary_of_State_Antony_Blinken

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please clarify the copyright policy to us both. If possible, restore the direct quote that was revdel'd. If not, please make a statement protecting me from retaliation by this or other editors, so that I can restore it. This is time sensitive, as the article has been nominated for main page.

2022 Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan discussion

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

I stated. that this user meets to WP:LISTEN When I compare, in the source (CNN) which was copy paste into wikipedia added by the user Jaredscribe (talk · contribs) there are copyright violations I add copyright reveal which was removed by the admin. Nthep (talk · contribs) (1) HurricaneEdgar 02:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Taylor Swift (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tree Critter (talk · contribs)
• Ippantekina (talk · contribs)
• Binksternet (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In a 2019 interview Taylor Swift stated "Starting November 2020 I can re-record albums one through five all over again" in reference to her masters controversy. User:Ippantekina feels this is not an adequate source to add to the relevant articles that she recorded them no earlier than November 2020. This user and I are both guilty of edit warring, but I'm done doing that. I am confident that I am right and I'm sure User:Ippantekina is too. User:Binksternet has also reverted my edits and agrees with User:Ippantekina, which I still don't.

The two have accused me WP:SYNTHESIS, which I also disagree with, as I am using one source and only one sentence from that source. One sentence, that in my opinion, states very clearly that she re-recorded these songs no earlier than November 2020.

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

• [10]
• [11]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like as many people as you can provide to watch the interview in question, or at least the sentence in question, and come to your own conclusions on whether, based on the interview, there should be an inclusion of the recording date of "November 2020–..." on the pages of the songs on Taylor Swift's re-recorded albums.

Eg. [12]

Summary of dispute by Ippantekina

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

Summary of dispute by Binksternet

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

This is a simple violation of WP:SYNTH by Tree Critter, who has been insisting on inserting recording dates in many song articles, based on a source that does not discuss recording dates. Instead, the source says that Swift was unable to begin recording until her label contract expired. There is no dispute to resolve. One person is in the wrong. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Taylor Swift discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Debt-trap diplomacy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Qiushufang (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Content on the article's Counterarguments subsection under China section has been the subject of a dispute on its inclusion or exclusion from the article from 20 July to 22 July. The content describes news broadcaster BBC's misrepresentation of Deborah Bräutigam's views on debt-trap diplomacy in a news broadcast, Bräutigam contacting BBC, and BBC's apology. Kautilya3 believes the content should not be included in the article because the news broadcast itself is not used as a source in the article and is UNDUE. Qiushufang believes it should be included due to its relevance to BBC and Bräutigam's views on the subject of the article, debt-trap diplomacy, and how they are presented in media.

Diffs: [13], [14], [15], [16]

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

Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Kautilya3's_removal_of_content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide assistance in reaching consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of the relevant content.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

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

The filing parrty's description above is fairly accurate. The dispute is not about any content regarding "debt-trap diplomacy" or Deborah Brautigam's views on the topic. But it is about BBC's coverage of her views (in a small segment in a larger programme), which was allegedly a misrepresentation. Since we are not even mentioning or citing that BBC programme, my position is that the content is entirely tangential to the topic of the page.

(I will be away for the most of the weekend. So if the case is started now, I will be able to respond on late Sunday or Monday.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Debt-trap diplomacy discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - While there has been extended discussion on the article talk page, it only covered a period of about six hours, which is not long enough to give the parties an opportunity to think about the merits of the other editor's views. I am neither closing this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but will wait until both editors have resumed discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• Hopefully this can be resolved on its own. To me, the article has undue weight for a pro-China stance.BooleanQuackery (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (debt-trap diplomacy)

Please read the usual ground rules. I am willing to act as the mediator. If so, we will not be discussing any content issues that are stated as broad generalities, such as a lack of neutrality. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to talk about what needs to be improved in the article. So each editor should state what portions of the article should be changed, or what portions of the article should be left the same if another editor wants to change them. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Qiushufang, User:Kautilya3, User:BooleanQuackery – Do you want to take part in moderated discussion? If so, make the statement described above of what content issues you see.

Zeroth statements by editors (debt-trap diplomacy)

The disputed content, which the filing party insists on keeping, is peripheral to the topic. It does not concern debt-trap diplomacy, but rather BBC's apparent disinterest in covering a particular commentator's views. This is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The disputed content is not peripheral to the topic "debt-trap diplomacy." It details an incident between a scholar (Deborah Bräutigam) and the BBC covering their views on debt-trap diplomacy and presenting a particular version of it, rather than a disinterest in covering their views entirely. This is relevant to how both media outlets and scholars have presented their views on debt-trap diplomacy, the topic of the article. Qiushufang (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Debt-trap)

Are there any content issues besides whether to include the paragraph about BBC's coverage of Brautigam's views on debt-trap diplomacy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I see three ways to resolve the question about the addition or deletion of the paragraph:

• 1. The editors can request a Third Opinion, at the Third Opinion noticeboard, about whether the inclusion of the paragraph is due weight or WP:UNDUE.
• 2. We can try to compromise.
• 3. We can use an RFC to obtain community input on the Yes-No question of whether to include the paragraph in question.

The order in which I have listed the steps is the order in which they should be done if they are done. If the editors request a third opinion, I will put this dispute on hold while we wait for the third opinion. Steps 1 and 2 are voluntary. If steps 1 and 2 either are not used or are not successful, we will post an RFC. Do the editors want to request a Third Opinion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Debt-trap)

There may be another dispute which arose from the current one: how to structure the Debt-trap_diplomacy#Assessments section based on sections Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Verifiability_of_China-Africa_statistics and Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Why_are_the_studies_chronologically_ordered?. The currently disputed content on Bräutigam used to belong to the subsection of Counter-arguments under China, but it has since been combined with certain parts of Arguments and renamed to Reception, then Assessments. The material was then listed chronologically. This was suggested by me in talk as an in between solution to NPOV disagreements with the further goal of removing the section entirely and portioning its content to other sections because of their overlapping nature and other issues. The other two users in the dispute resolution seem to disagree with the current in between state, listing by chronology, and combining sections, which has been described as sweeping things under the rug.

As for the Bräutigam content, I agree to both a third opinion and compromise. I do not know what a compromise might look like. The original content deleted was two short sentences. Perhaps moving to another section would count as compromise? Qiushufang (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

[My apologies for the delay. I didn't notice that it had moved to the next stage.] This doesn't qualify for WP:3O because there are more than 2 editors on the talk page (though they didn't get involved in this particular issue). We can try a compromise, I suppose. I don't see the need to explore the RFC option here, because that is always an option if this discussion fails. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (debt-trap diplomacy)

Since there have been other editors on the talk page, I can ask one of them if they will provide a Third Opinion. Do the editors want me to ask for another opinion on this question?

Does either of the editors have a compromise proposal?

If there is not a positive response to either of the above questions, we will develop an RFC. If there is a positive response, we will pursue either a request for an opinion or a compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Does either of the editors wish to formulate the question about the Assessments section in a way that we can discuss article content? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (debt-trap diplomacy)

Asking other editors on the debt trap diplomacy talk page who have edited the article is probably not worthwhile as a third opinion. Their dispositions are obviously skewed to one side or another based on their comments there. My suggested compromise is as stated above, perhaps inclusion in another section. As for the assessments section, that discussion seems to have died down without any development while others have moved onto other topics on the talk page. Not sure if further pursuit of that discussion is necessary unless brought up again. Qiushufang (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (debt-trap diplomacy)

Only one of the editors has responded after 48 hours. Does that mean that the other editor has agreed to the inclusion of the paragraph about the BBC and Bräutigam? I will give the filing editor three options:

• 1. Include the challenged section (and continue to be ready to discuss it).
• 2. Develop a Request for Comments on whether to include the challenged section.
• 3. Wait for another 36 hours for a response by User:Kautilya3.

Robert McClenon (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (debt-trap diplomacy)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Draft:Madonna of Constantinople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tzim78 (talk · contribs)
• Fram (talk · contribs)
• Zeddedm (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Tzim78 created a page for the Draft:Madonna of Constantinople a Marian title used to describe the Virgin Mary. The name is used on paintings, statues, and churches all over the world. Wikipedia pages exist in 5 different languages for the same title Madonna von Konstantinopel. Fram proposed deletion and two editors removed the deletion, then Zeddedm approved the page but Fram went back and moved the page to a draft. I would enjoy a peaceful resolution to the dispute. I am grateful to all the editors for their countless work.

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

Draft talk:Madonna of Constantinople

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think multiple administrators should review the page created and give a consensus opinion on the article. This is the article: Draft:Madonna of Constantinople

Draft:Madonna of Constantinople discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Dominick Fernow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rainforestspiritualenslavement (talk · contribs)
• Ponyo (talk · contribs)
• Zinnober9 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Relevant information about artist/musician Dominick Fernow keeps being deleted from his wikipedia page. A self-published Substack post outlined numerous connections the musician has to far-right, racist, and Nazi musicians. Subsequent reporting in mainstream publication The Quietus confirmed this reporting. Interviews with Fernow were then removed from websites, his booking agency dropped him, and music websites made posts distancing themselves from him. This information should be included on his page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominick_Fernow

I believe users are actively misreading a disclaimer on the article in The Quietus to prevent this material from being shared.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominick_Fernow#Links_to_far_right https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rainforestspiritualenslavement

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think we need clarity on what kind of sources are reputable and what counts as worthy of biographical inclusion. I think an addendum to an article is being misread to justify not including it on the artist's wikipedia page. I also don't understand why the effects the reporting has had on the artist's career can't be included either.

Summary of dispute by Ponyo

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

Summary of dispute by Zinnober9

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

Dominick Fernow discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor was advised to initiate a discussion at the BLP noticeboard, not at this noticeboard. The Reliable Source Noticeboard would also be a forum to ask about the reliability of a source. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. If they instead file at BLPN, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• International System of Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Headbomb (talk · contribs)
• Yamla (talk · contribs)
• PianoDan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue is listing something that is not a constant (the speed of light) without extra context (in a vacuum) in a table of "defining constants".

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_System_of_Units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_71#Is_%22speed_of_light%22_misleading? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marrew

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Pointing out that making an assumption about the reader's familiarity with a topic or language conventions can lead to confusion; and that making an article use more consistent conventions throughout is a good way to avoid that kind of confusion.

And pointing out that this is a separate issue from my original edit (c=speed of causality), which was dropped pretty early on.

Summary of dispute by Headbomb

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

Summary of dispute by Yamla

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

Summary of dispute by PianoDan

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

International System_of_Units discussion

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

This is not the place to argue against a clear consensus. Please do not accept this case. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Federica Brignone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kasper2006 (talk · contribs)
• Marbe166 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The speech is very simple. The medal count of the World Cup races (sum of the podiums of Downhill, Slalom, Super-G and so on) has always been reported in the skiers' infoboxes, although medals are not actually awarded in these competitions. After all, in the "medaltemplate" the possibility is given to specify what it is and "World Cup race podiums" is a perfect description. The user in question, on the other hand, felt he had to remove this statistic from the infoboxes of only a few active athletes. And luckily it hasn't bothered to do it from the hundreds and hundreds of infoboxes of athletes in which this statistic has always been reported. Over time we tried to involve the various projects in a discussion, but with poor results. Very few have intervened, however it is believed that by asking for the simple confirmation of the status quo, if anything, it should be the other user who seeks a broad consensus and does not constantly revert with arrogance.

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

Template talk:Infobox alpine ski racer

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Explaining to the user that such an important statistic, which has always been present in skiers' infoboxes, cannot be so easily (and arbitrarily) removed, also because it is almost never present in the body of the articles (for example, in Federica Brignone I had to specifically create it after the bullying suffered).

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Felipe de la Mata Pizaña (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Pauletta Sofia (talk · contribs)
• Idoghor Melody (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I posted a new article on a Justice and the sources used were deemed unreliable, but they are the primary, most reliable sources, as they are the sentences and bulletins posted by the legal authority itself.

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

None.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By clarifying which sources can be reliable when posting about judicial criteria and judicial rulings.

Summary of dispute by Idoghor Melody

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

Felipe de la Mata Pizaña discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Draft:Travis Meyer (neuroscientist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Carlos Ruiz 112 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview Hi There, I created an article on a Professor I had who was widely recognized in our field. The editors did a good job initially of pointing out aspects of the article that needed work, but once these sections were corrected, they disappeared. It seem like these editors were only interested in easy corrections and were not intent on accepting the article once the concerns were met. The article has not been sitting for months in limbo, and no further issues have been found, and yet these editors again continue to ignore their initial interest.

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

I communicated with the editors in 'Talk'

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Perhaps find other editors, or reach out to the original ones.

Travis Meyer (neuroscientist) discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Cuba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Julian Bull (talk · contribs)
• Mako001 (talk · contribs)
• Hey man im josh (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm adding some information that comes directly from the Central Intelligence Agency archives. The person who keeps deleting my writing seems to be doing this purely because the information seems to demonstrate the Cuba has some positive characteristics that have resulted from communist leadership. If you read the CIA archives, it's pretty clear what Cuba is and why the Bourgoisie slander their socialism so terribly. I have much more information to add but I started slowly because I expected something like this might happen.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Julian_Bull

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Almost all the points I made come directly from the Intelligence Agency and other Government departments of the worst enemy of Cuba. They have a clear motive for slandering the Island in the mass media. However, within their own secret internal documents, they need very accurate information so that they can understand and destroy their enemy.

Summary of dispute by Mako001

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

Summary of dispute by Hey man im josh

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

Cuba discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Egyptian pound (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheCurrencyGuy (talk · contribs)
• MatthewS. (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Another editor and I are currently in a seemingly unresolvable situation over what constitutes a reliable source fit for use in the article viz. the abbreviation used. He and I have previously had an edit war over this same issue. I attempted to resolve it through discussion but this was ignored out of hand and it escalated to an edit war. It seems the same is about to happen again and I am requesting a third party become involved in order to attempt to resolve the issue.

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

Talk:Egyptian_pound

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By settling once and for all which sources ought to be given the greatest weight.

Summary of dispute by MatthewS.

TheCurrencyGuy insists on forcing one only way or else. I am for including all the symbols that are actually in use, and I have referenced all of the usages of £, £E, and E£. LE is not in dispute, as far as I understand. Since all of them are valid currency signs for EGP and are actually all in use, there should be no dispute in using any of them, including the standalone £ sign, for the Egyptian pound, as well as the fact that £ stands for any pound the same way that $ stands for any dollar, and there is no real confusion about which pound is meant since this is the article for the Egyptian pound. MatthewS. (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the crux of the issue at hand, £ does not stand for any pound (as I found while researching) any more than ℳ stands for any mark. Infact I think this is probably the best comparison, as both are stylised forms of a basic Latin character which could stand for any currency by that name, but actual usage appears more mixed. The Israeli pound for example was always notated as IL in standard type, one could theoretically use I£ but this is not supported by any primary sources. I am not trying to force one way or another, I'm simply judging by the sources available, and an unqualified £ for the Egyptian pound is so extraordinarily uncommon (the only source I found was an old stamp) that I do not think it should be given as the primary symbol. LE seems to be the primary abbreviation used so I believe it ought to be given the greatest prominence in the article.

E£ appears to be a transposing of the characters of £E, I noted it as being a form used by FOREX sites as these seem to be the only places it appears. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian pound discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)

I am willing to act as the moderator if both editors want moderated discussion to resolve the content issue. Discuss of the conduct of the editors will not be permitted. Please read DRN Rule A, which will serve as the ground rules. If both editors answer in the affirmative within 48 hours, we will begin moderated discussion. Address your comments to me, on behalf of the community, not to each other. If either editor declines moderated discussion, or fails to reply within 48 hours, I will close the case with advice to both editors (even though the one who responded affirmatively is more likely to take the advice). Robert McClenon (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Egyptian pound)

@Robert McClenon: £ does stand for any pound, which explains why it is being used on the EGP, SSP, SDP, LBP, SYP, etc pages. TheCurrencyGuy doesn’t think it should, that’s a different story. £ = pound. Any “pound”. To specify EGP, both £E and E£ are in use nowadays. So the most accurate way is to mention all these ways of abbreviating EGP. He wants to keep one way and not the others, this is half a truth. The whole truth is that LE, £, £E, E£ are all used nowadays to mean EGP, depending on context. Have a good day. MatthewS. (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The point I am trying to establish is that "£" without an abbreviating qualification and "E£" do not seem to have wide use, they only appear on "currency converter" sites, and I suspect these may have got them from Wikipedia. The only examples of use outside of those sites, such as newspaper articles and banks, are "LE" and "£E". I am not trying to force only one abbreviation, I am just weighing up the validity of the sources used, as the sources for "£" and "E£" seem to be questionable at best. I had noted "E£" as being a reversal of the more usual "£E" which only currency conversion sites appear to use. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)

At this point, the only way to resolve this dispute appears to be a Request for Comments. Please read DRN Rule A one more time, although we will not have moderated discussion without the participation of both editors. I am asking each editor to make a brief statement as to what they either want to change or want to leave the same in the article. If only one editor answers, I will put together an RFC that tries to reflect their position and the opposing position. This case will be left open until the RFC is posted, at which time it will decide the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an open ANI case about this topic. [17]Nightenbelle (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The ANI case has been archived, and it appears that resolving the content dispute is the way to resolve this question. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

First statement by editors (Egyptian pound)

The issue at hand is verifiability. The sources using "£" on its own and "E£" for the Egyptian pound appear to only be random currency conversion sites and not reliable published sources. The sources I had used to support "LE" and "£E" were the Central Bank of Egypt, the CIA World Factbook, the World Bank, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Daily News Egypt, whereas the only sources for "£" and "E£" are Investopedia and Xe.com, both of which appear to have used Wikipedia for their summaries, they do not cite any sources and their summaries appear to have been copypasted, at least in part, from earlier iterations of the Wikipedia article.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Other sites use E£ as a currency sign for EGP as well, including PayPal. Sites like Google Flights, among others, do use the standalone £ sign for EGP since in context it is understood which pound is meant. All I am saying is that all of those are valid and in use. It’s no longer just “LE”. Maybe years ago but it’s not the case anymore. MatthewS. (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)

Each editor has made a brief statement supporting their position. However, I may not have been clear. I would like each editor to make a brief statement as to exactly what they want to change in the article, or exactly what they want to leave the same. We need to know this so that I can prepare the wording of the RFC. In particular, it would be helpful if either editor will ask: "Should the article be tweaked as follows" or "Should the article be changed as follows?" Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by editors (Egyptian pound)

I say it stays the way it is, mentioning the different ways EGP is symbolized. Nowadays E£ is totally valid, and so is LE and £E. As well as the standalone £ sign where it is naturally understood that the Egyptian pound is meant by the sign (like on the Egyptian pound Wikipedia article for instance (!!)). I provided proof that E£ is in use nowadays online and by payment services such as PayPal, as well as on some physical payment receipts here in Egypt (I’m in Egypt right now). MatthewS. (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the sourced abbreviations (LE and £E) that are supported by government sources (banknotes, postage stamps and government websites), notable style guides, the press, sources such as the CIA World Factbook and the World Bank etc. ought to be considered the acceptable abbreviations. Unofficial abbreviations used by certain websites are not helpful as it is not certain where they got them from. I have a strong suspicion it is a feedback loop from the Wikipedia entry itself, in which case they should be removed (the Investopedia and xe.com entries cited certainly appear to have been lifted from the Wikipedia entry, so they cannot be used). If something does not have a verifiable source then it should not be included. I have not been able to find any reliable source uses of an unqualified "£" sign for the Egyptian pound, only unofficial use by "currency converter" websites. I had added a number of reliable sources for "LE" and "£E", (the World Bank, the Central Bank of Egypt, the CIA World Factbook and Encyclopaedia Britannica) which have been taken out of the article for some reason, despite their credibility.

In summary, I believe the primary abbreviation used on the article should be "LE", as this is universally supported (Egyptian banknotes use it, for example), "£E" should be mentioned as prior to the late 2000s it enjoyed widespread use, but "E£" and "£" should not be used as there are no reliable sources for them.

Here are the sources I used which have since been removed, I would like to ask MatthewS. why he thinks they should not be used in the article.

• "Central Bank of Egypt – Historical Overview". cbe.org.eg. Retrieved 2022-07-03.
• "World Bank Editorial Style Guide 2020 - page 135" (PDF). openknowledge.worldbank.org. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
• "CIA World Factbook 2000 - page 146". 2000. Retrieved 2022-08-15.
• Wood, Evelyn (1911). "Egypt/1 Modern Egypt" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 9 (11th ed.). pp. 21–39, see page 28. Currency.—
• "Central Bank of Egypt – Historical Overview". cbe.org.eg. Retrieved 2022-07-03.
• "Statesman's Year-Book 1899 American Edition – page 178". en.wikisource.org. 1899. Retrieved 2022-07-03.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)

Is there anything that is disputed other than what symbols may be used for the Egyptian pound? If so, please state the issue. If not, then each editor may propose a list of what symbols they think are used for the Egyptian pound, and an RFC will be published. It is not necessary to defend or explain the list of symbols. Just say what symbols you think should shown in the infobox as symbols for the Egyptian pound. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by editors (Egyptian pound)

I simply believe LE and £E are the most appropriate ones to use. As another user pointed out on the talk page there is no official symbol for the Egyptian pound, the abbreviations LE and £E seem to be the most appropriate as they have been featured on Egyptian stamps and banknotes and have been cited by generally reliable sources.

The piastre, the pound's main subunit, is a point of more mild contention. The generally accepted abbreviation seems to be PT (in all caps), with several sources stating that it is an abbreviation for "tariffed piastre", I added this but it was removed along with my other sources.

A final matter is whether "geneih" truly is derived from "guinea". I have not been able to find a source for this anywhere, certainly not in English, so while it is potentially true I think it should remain out of the article until a source can be found. If MatthewS. can find and translate an Arabic source for that I would be very happy to keep it in, but the lack of citations is troubling.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

All of the symbols are in use; so all of the symbols are valid to be used on the article, including E£ as I have shown proof of their current use in real life. £E is simply TheCurrencyGuy’s preference which is fine, but I don’t see any reason why that should take the place of E£ which is equally valid and in current use. MatthewS. (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)

It seems, on observing the discussion between the two editors, that there isn't really a substantive disagreement, that the question is over what symbols are preferred. The infobox can list multiple alternative symbols, which it does. I am not seeing a disagreement that requires an RFC to exclude any symbols. If different editors have different preferences, can we conclude this moderated discussion by saying that it has been resolved? (If not, can both editors please state very precisely what the issues are that require an RFC?) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by editors (Egyptian pound)

I am fine with closing this dispute if you choose, since I see no issue with the article the way it is currently. MatthewS. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel the present form of the article gives undue weight to less credible sources than those I am proposing ought to be given the greatest exposure. The sources I provided were taken out with no real explanation and it seems extremely difficult to tease out an explanation from MatthewS. as to why he feels they should not be cited. I opened a thread on the talk page asking him why and he never responded. My preference is for "LE", as this is the most widely used symbol and I feel to give preference to the quirks of currency converter websites is dishonest, especially as the sources MatthewS. provided were seemingly copypasted from Wikipedia, which is something known as citogenesis. My preference is to use whatever the bulk of sources suggest, and the sources are heavily in favour of "LE" and "£E" suggesting that these are the primary abbreviations, with "LE" being by far the most common and thus should be the main one used. The format I suggested was mentioning in a reference that "currency converter sites may occasionally swap the usual order and use "E£" in the reference for "£E". There do not appear to be any reliable sources suggesting an unqualified "£" as the primary symbol for the Egyptian pound, only a handful of currency converter sites, which all seem to have used Wikipedia as a source.

I would propose the RFC cover the following:

Which sources should be considered reliable sources for the symbols used. I had provided a number of broadly reliable sources which have almost all been taken out with no explanation, and preference has been given to potential citogenesis examples.

And:

Whether the unsourced claim that "geneih is derived from guinea" should be included in the article at all, as there are no sources for this.

While MatthewS. accused me of having a "personal preference", he himself seems to have a personal preference for "E£", resulting in him giving massively undue weight to sources that should not be given so much attention. The primary source surely ought to be the Central Bank of Egypt and not a random currency conversion website.

This was my last major edit to the article, I want to know EXACTLY what MatthewS.'s problem with it is, as he seems to simply see any change he does not personally approve of and immediately reverts it. I opened this notice because we have both previously been blocked for edit warring after I attempted to ask why my sources were no good, resulting in him blunt-force reverting.

I am at my wit's end, it feels as if nothing I can say or do will stop him simply kerbstomping any edits until both he and any other user committed to the article are permanently banned.

TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• CinnamonYT (talk · contribs)
• Maxbmogs (talk · contribs)
• Yuu Haru Angelo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The English dubs used to be on this page. There are five different dubs and they're vastly different from each other and from the Japanese original. Two of these dubs form the basis of various European dubs (Dutch, German, French), as well as the Brazilian Portuguese and Latin American Spanish dubs.

I've made an account just to restore the revision of Maxbmogs from 19 August 2022, but I got an error saying that my changes have not been published, because of an automated filter has prevented this edit in response to an ongoing pattern of abuse. Presumably because of the fact the there have been three edits with a change of 138.000 symbols in the same day.

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

[[18]] [[19]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

First of all please restore this information. I think it would be a good plan to have four different pages for these dubs in the same way that the Japanese episodes have there own page, this way the main page stays uncluttered. I think i described it good on the talk-page of this subject

Summary of dispute by Maxbmogs

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

I agree with Cinnamon that there should be separate pages for each dub, with the corresponding Japanese episodes.

Summary of dispute by Yuu Haru Angelo

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

List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Uyghurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hunan201p (talk · contribs)
• Ghizz Archus (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This dispute concerns a contested source (Li Jin, 2008) about the mtDNA genetic ancestry of Kazakhstan Uighur people. The source says that 55% of Kazakhstan Uighurs carry a European mtDNA haplogroup.

My position is that this content is factually incorrect. For this figure, they cite Comas, et al (1998), which, as I've shown, actually says the opposite: that about 55% of Kazakhstan Uighurs carry an East Asian mtDNA haplogroup. Another study, Yong-Gang, et al (2004) also says this. And a third source, Macbeth & Collins (2002) also cites Comas, 1998, and says that European mtDNA haplogroups make up only about 1/3rd of the mitochondrial ancestry of Kazakhstan Uighurs.

I see this as a factual conflict between sources. Given that 3 sources diametrically conflict with Li Jin's study, including the very source that Li Jin (2008) cites for the claim, my position was that the content about Kazakhstan Uighurs should simply be removed, as it is not crucially important.

Ghizz Archus seems to think that Li Jin (2008) has "corrected" Comas, but he hasn't pointed out where this was done in the paper. This is the exact quote from Li Jin (2008):

"However, there were also much higher estimations (> 50%) when both classical markers7 and mtDNA8 were used; especially, sequences of 55% European mtDNA were found in Uyghurs sampled in the easternmost section of Kazakhstan, which is only 18 km from the boundary with northern Xinjiang,8

Source 8 = Comas et al (1998).

It should be noted that Li Jin (2008) is primary research; based on 26 samples that the authors themselves collected. I don't see anywhere in the article where they claim to correct Comas. They appear to just blatantly cite Comas (1998) for something they never said, and something that Yong-Gang (2004) and others never said about Comas (1998).

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Uyghurs#Uyghurs_in_Kazakhstan_genetics

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By offering independent input on the factual content dispute regarding Li Jin (2008), Yong-Gang (2004), Macbeth & Collins (2002) and Comas, et al (1998).

Summary of dispute by Ghizz Archus

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

Uyghurs discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• LGBT rights in Uzbekistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Lmharding (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute about lesbianism being illegal, the law mentions specifically male sexual activity but does not directly mention lesbianism either way. However law 130, which is a morality law banning showing sexual items to children and which can loosely also apply to sex and other "immorality" in public that can be seen by children. This is a morality law which can apply to anyone with no note stating that it only applies to male homosexuals. Also, note that this situation is not uncommon as Egypt and other countries also use pornography, crossdressing, public protesting and other laws to indirectly use against LGT. Should lesbianism be listed as illegal for this or should it be left as male sexuality only? No other source provided so far has been clear.

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

Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Uzbekistan#Legal_status

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

settle which source is more valid sand factually valid, or if not can you find a decent compromise edit for us? Keep in mind the context I have mentioned.

LGBT rights in Uzbekistan discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Speed of light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MMmpds (talk · contribs)
• XOR'easter (talk · contribs)
• DVdm (talk · contribs)
• NebY (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The last sentence of the first paragraph of the article contains unfounded claims that the theory of special relativity (alone) prohibits the superluminal transfer of energy and/or information. The bold cycle edit was to retain the word "matter" but delete "energy" and "information". This became out of control controversial as can be seen on the talk page. It may be the case that the original objecting editor called for a third party comment. However, the issue is that on account of the content being scientific, the opinions of a handful of editors are insufficient to attain a neutral point of view as required.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally consensus may be reached with a larger number of qualified editors. Barring this, there should be at least a compromise reached regarding the content, so as to neutrally provide both perspectives.

Summary of dispute by Xor'easter

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

Summary of dispute by DVdm

I can't help looking at this as an edit war ([20], [21], [22], [23]) flanking an attempt to counter-consensus-remove a bit of neutral lead section content that is properly supported in the article body, and now backed by several independent relevant text book sources. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NebY

There are two strands: what the article lead should say and how we should determine that.
The lead currently says that under special relatibity, the speed of light "is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter or energy, and thus any signal carrying information, can travel through space." OP describes this above as unfounded claims that it "prohibits the superluminal transfer of energy and/or information". (All emphases are mine.) The difference between "travel through space" and "transfer" for the general reader and the inclusion of “signal” may be critical and raise the possibility that the OP has been arguing against something the article doesn’t say.
I see no discussion of phrasing, only much in-depth discussion of quantum mechanics such as OP’s "If one looks carefully at equation (14) on page 780 of the 1935 EPR paper, one finds a false statement".
I’ve only participated to say there’s already been an Arbcom case on the speed of light Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light (WP:ARBSL), blockquote its findings on Neutral point of view, Neutrality and sources, Scientific focus and Decorum, and express a little in my own words eg “fundamental principle that Wikipedia isn't written by authorities on subjects; it's written by editors documenting what authorities have written.” In contrast, OP has responded to another editor “you are explicitly announcing that truth is relative to the consensus of editors. This has no place in science and it is not the spirit of Wikipedia. Factual arguments do matter. They matter in real life and they matter on Wikipedia.”

Summary of dispute by JayBeeEll

This is a pretty straightforward WP:1AM situation; it's too bad the filing party won't accept the local consensus against them. If they want a more definitive thing to happen they should have someone help them frame an RfC. --JBL (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Speed of light discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor says that they are asking for consensus to be reached with a larger number of qualified editors. If so, this may not be the right place for this request, because this noticeboard provides moderated discussion about article content. The filing editor may want to discuss at WikiProject Physics. If there is a specific question about article content, a Request for Comments is the way to obtain consensus with more editors. However, it is very hard for an editor with a scientific education to know what the filing editor wants. I am neither opening nor closing this case, but a concise clarification (and the talk page is not concise) might be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not explained in more detail what they want, and in fact has not edited in 48 hours. The filing editor is requested to clarify, within 24 hours, what they want changed in the article. The objective of any case here is to improve the article. If the filing editor wants the involvement of more editors, they are asked to post to WikiProject Physics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Lilium bosniacum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ip2alwayswins (talk · contribs)
• 195.252.64.156 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User is constantly reverting a sourced edit.

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

I have messaged them on their talk page.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Need a third opinion on the edit to resolve the issue.

Summary of dispute by 195.252.64.156

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

Lilium bosniacum discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Flag of Antarctica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Federalwafer (talk · contribs)
• Vanilla Wizard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Editor Vanilla Wizard has added claims about the Graham Bartram flag being flown at several bases in 2002, a claim contradicted by the primary source. Their arguments in favor of inclusion, and mine in favor of exclusion, are detailed in the talk page.

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

Talk:Flag of Antarctica#Seeking consensus on notoriety of Bartram flag

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would appreciate if you could determine if the sources for the claim of the Bartram flag being flown at "several bases" meet WP:RS. They have many errors and is contradicted by the primary source. If the sources do not meet reliable source standards, they and the related claim should be removed.

Thanks!

Summary of dispute by Vanilla Wizard

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

I'm pretty bad at making things concise, but I'll try my best to summarize all the points of disagreement without going into excessive detail and repeating all the arguments from the talk page.

In short, this dispute is over one sentence: [...] At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag. Or rather, this dispute is over whether or not the sources used to verify it are reliable.

A longer explanation is that we've disagreed over whether or not the claims made by these sources are contradicted by the primary source they've linked to, which I do not agree with. I don't believe any of the examples mentioned by Federalwafer directly contradict or otherwise make impossible the claims stated by the secondary sources. I am also of the belief that some of the statements they've made regarding the primary source are inaccurate and contradicted by it (an example being their claim that fewer than 100 flags were sold "at the time of the article's writing"; I explain in more detail at the talk page why this is not what the primary source says). We also disagreed over whether the flag being raised over Port Lockroy with the acceptance of the assistant base commander counts as an example of the flag flying over a base in Antarctica; this is mainly because we disagreed over whether or not the historic base was being staffed by members of the British Antarctic Survey. My understanding is that the base was in fact staffed by the BAS until 2006, which is years after the flag was raised.

I think those are all the most relevant points of disagreement.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Flag of Antarctica discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I did notify @Vanilla Wizard on the talk page of the article but just left a comment on their profile talk page as well. Federalwafer (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - This appears to be a dispute where a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion Noticeboard would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. I've raised it there also, but with no resolution yet. We'll see if we're able to get a reply. Federalwafer (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Volunteer Note - You opened the Third Opinion request before filing this request. Maybe I should have checked that. It is unhelpful to ask the same question in two forums at the same time. I am putting this request on hold until the Third Opinion request either is answered or is closed as unanswered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks, Robert. The dispute has been closed as unanswered on WP:3. I would appreciate support in resolving this. Federalwafer (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)

The editors are requested to read the rules that will be in effect. Address your answers to the moderator and the community. If there is to be back-and-forth discussion, conduct it in the section for that purpose. It appears that there is a question about the Bartram flag, which displays the outline of the continent centered on the South Pole. Is the question about the reliability of sources that specify when the flag has been flown? If so, please specify what the sources are whose reliability is questioned, or whose reliability is claimed. If the question is something else, please state what the question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Antarctic flag)

The statement under dispute is @Vanilla Wizard's addition to the article "At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag." Currently the cited sources for the claim are from worldatlas.com and gotoflags.com.

I am in favor of removing this claim and the sources as they are directly contradicted by more credible sources and do not seem to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The first source claims "In 2002, most bases on the continent started flying this flag alongside that of their own countries." The second source claims "The first time the flag was hoisted over the continent by the editor of the popular magazine “The Ravan” – Ted Kaye in 2002. At the same time, scientific bases, which are present on the continent, also raised the flag in solidarity." The primary source written by the person who brought the flag to Antarctica as a tourist names the one base the flag flew at in 2002, which was the Brazilian. It also flew at a museum. Both were already mentioned in the article ("On this trip, it flew at the Brazilian base Comandante Ferraz and the British museum at Port Lockroy.")

Further, the flag was raised for the first time in Antarctic on Dec. 30, and the subsequent station the primary source author visited (but did not fly the flag at) were in 2003, casting further doubt on the articles' claims. The primary source also mentions fewer than 100 flags were sold by the one known seller at the time of the article's writing, a claim substantiated by another source that states the flag was never frequently used on or off Antarctica.

The sources for Vanilla Wizard's claim also include other factual errors regarding the Bartram flag, including the claim that it was made official in 2002. According to the primary source, it was the emblem of the Antarctic Treaty, not the Bartram flag that was made official. Federalwafer (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)

It appears that a main issue is whether worldatlas.com and gotoflags.com should be considered reliable sources. Is that correct? It also appears that there are questions about certain statements about the Bartram flag. Please specify what those issues are.

If there are any other issues, please list them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Antarctic flag)

Yes, that seems like an accurate summary. The reliability of the sources is the principal concern.

The larger disagreement that comes from this is about whether or not the Graham Bartram flag is as notable or official as the True South flag. The two sources under dispute are the only mentions of the Graham Bartram flag receiving any broad use or recognition, so if these sources are concluded as unreliable I would also expect:

• True South, the flag with undisputed sourcing, be described as the flag of Antarctica with the most official use and recognition
• Its mention in the lede be restored to reflect this fact

The outcome of this also has implications for the ongoing RfC in the talk page about which flag to use as the flag for template:country data Antarctica, though I'm not sure if that's in the scope of this dispute. Federalwafer (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. This dispute is over whether the sentence in question is accurate and verifiable, or if the sources used to verify it are permissible. I don't second what Federalwafer said after that. I don't believe this particular dispute extends to disagreements over how the Bartram flag compares to the True South flag, or to the ongoing RfC (which is most likely to close with a consensus against using any flag for Antarctica in Wikipedia articles). I especially don't believe this dispute has any implications for whether or not the lede should emphasize the importance of the True South flag design, as that has nothing to do with this disagreement and other editors in the page history have reverted Federalwafer's preferred lede several times before. The scope of this particular dispute is only limited to the sentence in question and the sources used to verify it, nothing more.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 16:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Will each editor please state exactly what they want changed in the article. If they want something left the same that another editor wants changed, please state what they want left the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If there is a question about the reliability of a source, please ask about the reliability of the source at the reliable source noticeboard. If the source is not one of the ones already mentioned, please also name it here.

If there is some other issue, please state briefly what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Statement 3.1 by moderator (Antarctic flag)

Yes, the Reliable Source Noticeboard exists to advise and inform editors as to the reliability of sources, so that any questions about the reliability of sources are referred from this noticeboard to that noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Antarctic flag)

To clarify, @Robert McClenon:, are you suggesting we open the conversation at the reliable source noticeboard in addition to this one or instead of this one? To answer your question, yes, those are the only two sources whose credibility I question.

It seems our disagreement is not only about the reliability of those sources but also the implications about the sources' reliability. I disagree with @Vanilla Wizard: when they say this doesn't extend to disagreements over how the Bartram flag compares to the True South flag or to the ongoing RfC. Currently, the two sources in question are the only ones that claim the Bartram flag had any widespread use or acceptance, so if they are demonstrated as unreliable then True South, with nearly a dozen undisputed sources, is clearly the most widely adopted flag of Antarctica.

This extends to the RfC because editors are basing decisions on the (what I believe to be false) information in this and earlier versions of article. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that earlier this year, before sourcing for True South was removed and before Vanilla Wizard's claim was added, a nearly identical talk thread with many of the same participants came to a different consensus.

I think it is inappropriate to make any decisions based on the ongoing RfC until this dispute is resolved. Federalwafer (talk)

In response to Robert McClenon, my stance is that it is appropriate to keep the sentence the same as I believe the information in it is not incorrect and that the sources cited on it are acceptable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)

The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. At this point I will ask each editor to state exactly what changes they want made to the wording of the article. If you want a particular statement in the article kept the same, and the other editor wants to change it, say what you want to stay the same. When the editors have said exactly what they want to change, then we will proceed to resolve the content issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Antarctic flag)

I would like the following:

1. "At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag" and related sources be removed from the article.
2. True South, the flag with undisputed sourcing, be described as the flag of Antarctica with the most official use and recognition.
3. Its mention in the lede be restored to reflect this fact.
4. The RfC for the template flag be paused until we've resolved the above.

Federalwafer (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I would like the following:

1. For the article to remain the same by keeping the sentence "At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag"
2. For the article to remain the same by continuing to not insist on explaining to readers the importance of any particular flag design over others, either in the lede or elsewhere (it is inappropriate to suggest that in this conversation when the page history and talk comments suggest longstanding and overwhelming opposition to doing such a thing)

I've never heard of "pausing" new !votes on an RfC and I don't believe it's possible, much less appropriate, to try to do such a thing here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)

I think that I was sloppy in opening this dispute when there was already an RFC in progress. An RFC takes precedence over other forms of conflict resolution. An RFC involves the community, via listing on lists of open RFCs, and notices to editors by a bot, while a DRN involves only the participating editors. Rather than pausing the RFC while the question is resolved here at DRN, this DRN should be put on hold until the RFC is decided and closed.

I am not sure why the RFC has not yet been deactivated by the bot, but I will inquire. In the meantime, this DRN is on hold, and the editors may ask questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Antarctic flag)

Sixth statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)

I have been looking at the history of the RFC, and it appears that it tried to expire on 19 August, and that there has been editing of the RFC that required intervention by User:Redrose64, who rebuked some editors for churning the RFC ID. User:Vanilla Wizard, User:Federalwafer – Will you please explain the edits that you made to the RFC template and RFC ID? I know that User:Vanilla Wizard started the RFC on 20 July. Legobot then tried to deactivate it on 19 August, which is what it should have done, but there appears to have been editing of the RFC ID. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Antarctic flag)

In response to @Robert McClenon:, I don't believe that I have edited the RfC template or ID. I did make an edit expanding the prompt on the 20th of August to account for a 3rd option which many !voters selected without it being included in the original prompt, but I have not relisted the RfC or modified its ID.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked through the page history and it seems that the timeline of edits to the RFC template/ID is as follows:

1. Legobot added an RFC ID on 20 July
2. Legobot removed the expired RFC template on 19 August
3. Federalwafer re-added an RFC tag on 21 August
4. Legobot added a second RFC ID on 21 August
5. Legobot removed the RFC template immediately on 21 August as it was expired
6. Federalwafer added a third RFC tag on 21 August
7. Legobot added a third RFC ID on 21 August
8. Redrose64 fixed the RFC ID on 28 August

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion (Antarctic flag)

I'll put my response to Federalwafer here instead of in my 3rd statement as to not clutter my response to the moderator question, as I believe the secondary question of this disagreement's scope is a bit of a side tangent with little relevance. I'll start by saying that the February discussion wasn't much of a consensus as it was a very short discussion of only four editors and half of the !votes were just editors saying "I agree with that." without providing a rationale, and it was a regular thread as opposed to an RfC which suppressed participation. As for the ongoing one, I don't believe this dispute relates to the RfC considering that most of the !votes were cast prior to the sentence in question being added, and an overwhelming majority of the !votes are in favor of using no flag at all per the rationale that there is no official flag of Antarctica, a rationale unaffected by this sentence's inclusion or lack thereof. Most !voters don't even seem to agree with your belief that the single determining factor ought to be which flag was recently used by the greatest number of presently-active scientific research bases. In short, the outcome could not possibly be affected by this short sentence talking about the Bartram flag being used in the early 2000s.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• 1998 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Hongqilim (talk · contribs)
• Sneha04 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Newcomer, User:Sneha04 had the changed the statistics of the Indian delegation's medal count, which they claimed that I had deliberately introduced the wrong numbers and then tag me as vandalised the 1998 Commonwealth Games article. As if these were not enough, they then tag me for the second time in one of their edits at India at the Commonwealth Games which I did not involve. I had tried to talk to them, but they insist that I was wrong and have no room to discuss with them about the issue. And each time I talk to them, they removed my discussion on their talk page, then placed warnings on my talk page. I told him to ask the admin to take action against me if they think I did wrong, but there was no reply from them and from there on, our argument started to heat up. My edit is actually based on this archived medal tally https://web.archive.org/web/19990427222543/http://www.kl98.com.my/results/default.html

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

User talk:Sneha04 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1103113755#Continued_Harassment,_Personal_Attacks_and_Uncivil_comments,_restoring_removed_threats_on_my_talk_page_again_and_again_by_User:Hongqilim

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Convince Sneha04 that I did not vandalise the article.

Summary of dispute by Sneha04

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

1998 Commonwealth Games discussion

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

---

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

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

---

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Geoff Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Formaldude (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Geoff Young is the democratic nominee for ongress for Kentuckys 6th district. There has been a concerted organized POV attempt to delete this page. Editors have personally attacked other editors, deleted warnings, deleted comments on the talk page etc.

Again, this is a Democratic nominee for congress. Not some 3rd party nobody.

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

Talk:Geoff Young Deletion page of Geoff young Talk page of formaldude

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Non biased mediator to decide whether this person is notable enough to stay on wikipedia. Stop the npa and vast deletions of talk page comments

Summary of dispute by Formaldude

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

Geoff Young discussion

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

---

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