Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 205 - Wikipedia
6 people in discussion
| Archive 200 | ← | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | → | Archive 210 |
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The topic of the article appears to polarize many. I was surprised by the number of writing/journalistic errors in the article. When I tried to correct these, the reaction was WP:EW. In my attempt to avert WP:EW, I tried to document the issues on the Talk page, requested a self-reversion and made suggestions on how to move forward. It seems like there is a concerted effort to suppress information from being presented to potential readers. Obi2canibe does not permit corrections to writing/journalistic errors in the article. For example:
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Death_Toll How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Perhaps someone with journalist training might be able to help explain the importance of citations, how to quote a source, comprehending quotations within news articles, etc. Also, any suggestions/advice on how to be more productive/efficient in such circumstances would be appreciated. Thanks! Summary of dispute by Obi2canibeThe dispute isn't about the specifics mentioned above by Jayingeneva but is about whether we should include a headline death toll figure in the article and, if so, what number that should be. Jayingeneva wants to include a headline figure of 80,000-100,000, characterising it as an "UN estimate" (see this edit). His source for this a news report from May 2009. This unfortunately ignores all subsequent sources which give different, contradictory figures. The UN's own Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (published March 2011) estimated that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed in final stages of the war (September 2008 to May 2009). The Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka (published in November 2012) mentions credible information that indicate that as many as 70,000 people caught up in fighting in late 2008/09 were unaccounted for. And let us not forget that the civil war had been going on since 1983 and that in 2007 sources were giving an estimate of 70,000 deaths (e.g. BBC July 2007). Given that we have contradictory figures and that even the UN can't seem to settle on a figure, I don't believe Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should give any headline figure but mention all the sourced figures and let readers judge for themselves. The fact is that we will probably never know how many died - the Sri Lankan government went to great lengths during and after the war to hide what occurred during the war. [If there were obvious errors which were re-introduced as a result of me enforcing WP:BRD Jayingeneva is welcome to correct them but he should not change the thrust of the article vis-à-vis the death toll until the dispute is resolved.] Jayingeneva has repeatedly claimed that the UN panel had dismissed the figures of 70,000 + dead in the final phase of the war. They have done nothing of the sort. The follow up UN Internal Review Panel report in 2012 said on page 14: 'Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.' That is not a dismissal of the 70,000+ figure by the UN as Jayingeneva alleges. The International Truth and Justice Project which covers the human rights abuses in Sri Lanka from 2009 and after, and is run by Yasmin Sooka, a human rights lawyer and one of the members of the UN panel of experts (one of the 3 who authored the aforementioned UN panel of experts report) has recently released this document with the various estimates of the death toll for the final phase of the war: https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ITJP_death_toll_A4_v6.pdf As can be clearly seen she has not outright dismissed the figures of 70,000+ dead, nor the estimates closer to 100,000+.Oz346 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Sri Lankan_Civil_War discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's Opening StatementI am willing to mediate this dispute, however- after reviewing the talk page discussion I need all involved editors to agree to a strict set of rules first. Also, There is a 3rd editor who has been involved in this discussion- I have added them to this dispute and posted a note on their talk page. All involved users must be invited and notified- it is not fair to cherry pick who you want to engage in this dispute with. The Rules: I am mandating these four rules because of the WP:Battleground behavior that has been exhibited thus far on the talk page. If you both want to work towards a compromise- I am happy to help you do so. If you want to continue to bicker and attack each other- none of the volunteers here have time for that and you will both need to head over to the ANI and let the admins sort it out. This board is for content only- and I'm happy to mediate this dispute- but on the content only- not the behavior of other editors. Do you all agree to these parameters? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Its not about who edit warred- its about who is involved with the discussion. The DRN is not a reward for edit wars- it is a place to continue discussions that have reached a block. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Volunteer Statement 1Okay- to begin- I'm going to ask each of you to post what you want the contested sentence to look like- complete with sources. Please do not comment on each other's sentence- I just want to see how far apart we are to start with- and that will give us an idea of what direction to start moving in. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC) Obi2canibe's statementThere is no accurate estimate of the number of people killed during the 26 year civil war.[1][2][3] Currently it is estimated that at least 100,000 were killed.[4][5][6] In 2006, prior to the government launching its military offensive to recapture LTTE held areas in the Vanni, the death toll was estimated to be 70,000.[7][8] Tens of thousands of civilians were killed in the final stages of the war in 2009.[9][10][11] Estimates of the death toll in the final assault range from 20,000 to 75,000.[12] The UN has estimated that between 40,000 and 70,000 civilians died during the phase of the war.[13][14][15] The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (March 2011) estimated that as many as 40,000 civilians may have been killed between September 2008 and May 2009.[16][17][18] The Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka (November 2012) found credible information that up to 70,000 civilians displaced by the fighting in the Vanni and trapped in the No Fire Zone were "unaccounted for".[19][20][21] The Sri Lankan government has claimed that 6,200 troops and up to 22,000 LTTE cadres were killed during Eelam War IV (July 2006 to May 2009).[22][23][24] [The above is my suggestion for the opening paragraph of the "Casualties" section. The lede can summarise this to "There is no accurate estimate of the number of people killed during the 26 year civil war. Currently it is estimated that at least 100,000 were killed. The UN has estimated that between 40,000 and 70,000 civilians died during the phase of the war in 2008-09". For the infobox, I suggest "At least 100,000".] Oz346's statementFor over 25 years, the war caused significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the country, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war.[25][26][27] In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "Around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[28] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that over 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[29][30] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll,[31][32] with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[33] Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[34][35][36] The Sri Lankan government itself claims that only 7000 civilians and combatants were killed during the final phase of the war.[37] Source Review* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2007/10/12/sri-lanka-fighting-claims-lives-2 - reliable source, only supports number, not the rest of the sentence.
Volunteer Comment No source supports "significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the country" Because these are not expressly stated in the sources. Now- its probably true, but without support it is WP:OR and the writers opinion so it must be removed. * Mahr, Krista. "Sri Lanka to Start Tally of Civil-War Dead". Time. - reliable source, supports sentence. * https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/sri-lanka/sri-lankas-dead-and-missing-need-accounting - Very reliable source per [1] HOWEVER, it says up to 140,000 were unaccounted for- does not support sentence of "over 140000." * International Truth and Justice Project (2021) https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ITJP_death_toll_A4_v6.pdf - Unknown reliability- however- it states 70,000 unacounted for- Does not support sentence of "over 140000." Volunteer Comment' Based on sources- sentence needs to be changed to Up to 140,0000. Not over.
* https://itjpsl.com/assets/press/ENGLISH-ITJP-Press-release-Disappearance.pdf- Unknown Reliability- Severely biased. Does support sentence. Recomend review at WP:RSN * Channel 4 News, 27 Jul 2011, The Sri Lankan soldiers ‘whose hearts turned to stone’, https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone - Cannot access page? Server issues?
Revised Paragraph Post ReviewFor over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war.[38][39][40] In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "Around 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[41] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[42][43] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll,[44][45] with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[46][47] Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[48] Jayingeneva's statementFor over 25 years, the war caused significant hardships for the population, environment and the economy of the country, with the UN estimating 80,000–100,000 deaths.[49][50][51][52] In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" in the "final phase" of the war.[53] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[54]
Source Review• "Up to 100,000 killed in Sri Lanka's civil war: UN". ABC Australia. 20 May 2009. Reliable Source- supports up to 100,000 number only. • "Sri Lanka PM will protect military on UN rights action". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 27 May 2011. Retrieved 5 February 2021. – Reliable Source, supports numbers. • "Sri Lanka blocks Tamil memorials amid war parade". British Broadcasting Corporation. 18 May 2014. Retrieved 5 February 2021. – Reliable source, supports numbers. • "Sri Lanka crisis: One dead after minister's bodyguard fires at crowd". British Broadcasting Corporation. 28 October 2018. Retrieved 22 March 2021. This source has nothing to do with the subject and should be removed. • "REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S PANEL OF EXPERTS ON ACCOUNTABILITY IN SRI LANKA" (PDF). United Nations. 31 March 2011. Page 59 Retrieved 5 February 2021. – Reliable source, however the quote is not accurate when examined in context. The report said- “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.” Because you are quoting- you need to be exact. I have added the page number for ease of reference. Does not state Final Stage of the war connected to these numbers. • "Report of the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations action in Sri Lanka" (PDF). UN. 14 Nov 2012. Page 14 Retrieved 21 March 2021. – Reliable and supports sentence. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Revised Paragraph Post ReviewFor over 25 years, the war continued, with the UN estimating 80,000–100,000 deaths.[49][50] In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "“A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[55] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[56]Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer's 2nd StatementOkay- that was a ton of work. But I did find a couple of things- there is actually very little difference between what both of you want to say. So I have a sugestion: Suggested CompromiseFor over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war.[65][66][67] The UN estimats 80,000–100,000 deaths.[49][50]
In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "“A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[71] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[72] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll,[73][74] with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[75][76] Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[77]
Discussion of Compromise proposalI broadly agree with this compromise, however, I have an issue with this statement. "The UN estimats 80,000–100,000 deaths.[25][26]" I do not believe it should be included as it is an outdated figure preceding the subsequent UN leaks and reports. However, if it must be included, then it should be qualified: "Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.[25][26]" Other than that, provided the repetitions in this compromise paragraph are ironed out, it seems fine to me. Also please recheck the source I provided with the table of estimates, it has all the figures, the 147,000 unaccounted figure is present in the 3rd row from bottom. thanks Oz346 (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Jayingeneva's feedbackre: "For over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed during the first phase of the war. The UN estimats 80,000–100,000 deaths."
re: "In 2011, the UN panel estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "Around 40,000 died ..."
re: "Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone."
re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll"
re: "with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances."
re: "Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."
--Jayingeneva (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Nightenbelle Thanks for all the time you've spent on this, apologies for the following late suggestion! I think the first three paragraphs would read better as follows and I've added a UN citation for the 70,000 estimate: The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimate of 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war. [79][80][81] The UN estimates 80,000 to 100,000 deaths during the war.[49][50][51] In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[82] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[83] Other sources, quoting discrepancies in the census figures, state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during the final phase.[84] --Jayingeneva (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
re: "For over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war."
re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[64] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[65]"
--Jayingeneva (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Nightenbelle obi2canibe's recent contribution is conflating verified estimates with projected estimates. That is comparing apples to oranges. The official UN estimate of 80,000 to 100,000 is based on verified deaths. The other estimates are based on projections. I agree with Oz364 that we need to include both. I strongly disagree with obi2canibe's request to suppress the verified estimates. I suspect you have noticed that Oz364 and I are presenting very similar text. The dispute is with obi2canibe and the attempts to suppress verified estimates. --Jayingeneva (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
New Updated ParagraphFor over 25 years, the war continued, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war.[88][89][90] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. [49][50]
In 2011, the Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, "“A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[93] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[94] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll,[95][96] with government forces raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[97][98] Others accuse government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[99]
Volunteer Statement 3I am going to try to answer all ongoing discussions here- please respond to them in the discussion section under this section- With so many discussions going on at different places its hard for me to keep track of them. First- in response to Obi2canibe's opening statement- I will first remind you- you agreed to WP:AGF. Saying that Jayingeneva is trying to surpress numbers is not assuming good faith. I would ask you strike that. Also- I want to remind you to provided sources when you claim a source is to be dismissed- as you have with the UN Estimate- the source he uses to support his numbers is from sources as late as 2012. Unless you can find a source that specifically says in no uncertain terms these are false- and that source is more reliable than the UN- then their numbers are just as reliable as the other numbers coming from journalistic sources. So either both numbers must be included- or none. Now- I believe all parties agree there should be a death toll listed- the problem is in which. THe obvious solution is to include multiple numbers and their sources to show there is no agreed upon number- as you said- the true number will probably never be known, so we must do the best we can to present all POVs. As for the quote saying that the UN failed to publicize information- I think looking at the entire quote is necessary for context "Former UN officials serving in the Sri Lanka at the time say they were forced to make difficult decisions under great pressure. The report, the work of a panel led by the former UN official Charles Petrie, details how the organisation failed to publicise authoritative data about the human toll of the fighting as casualties mounted. It criticises an earlier decision to withdraw UN staff from zones where much of the killing later took place because the Sri Lankan government said their safety could no longer be guaranteed." They were not surpressing numbers- they were acting on incomplete numbers because they could not investigate safely. The difference is important- because it does not indicate wrongdoing on the part of the UN, thus does not indicate they are an unreliable source- it mearly indicates that time provided better information. Its also worth noting that this article is from 2012- just a year after the report Jayingeneva is using- so there is no reason to assume that report is also inaccurate since it was published at the time of this article, yet is not mentioned. Your assertion that they are using inaccurate 2009 information is incorrect. They are using 2011 information directly from a UN report- not from a news report. I was finally able to view the Trevor Grant source- it does say chemicals were imported and skeletons dissolved- so that statement is supported by a WP:RS. I would suggest adding that "journalists reported " to make it clear that this has not been confirmed by official review- but rather was "uncovered" by reporters. Still valid- but not AS reliable if that makes sense. I will add that to the proposed compromise. Jayingeneva- their estimates are not based on simple projections- but they are based on inquires and reports completed outside of the UN. Their sources are as valid as yours and have as much right to be included as others- especially because they provide the other point of view. Is there any disagreement about putting "At least 100,000" in the info box? I thank you all for your patience and cooperation. I knew absolutely nothing about the Sri Lanken civil war before today, and oh boy have I had an introduction as I've waded through all of the sources. I usually try to read every word of every source in issues like this- there is way way too much to do that in this case- but I have read significant portions of every source. Truly- they are all seeking the same thing- to accurately report the enormous toll this war took on the people involved. And, I believe, that is what all of you would like to do as well. So I'm confident that we will get there soon!Nightenbelle (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC) Fourth Draft of Compromise ParagraphThe war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war.[100][101][102] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. [49][50]
Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[105] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[106] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll,[107][108] with some reports claiming the government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[109][110] 4th draft DiscussionI re-worked the paragraphs- I do think they flow better this way separating the two points of view more clearly- while still including all the requested information Nightenbelle (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Jayingeneva's feedback on Fourth DraftThanks, that is a much better structure! The penny dropped for me! Instead of infinitely discussing on the Talk page to reach a consensus, insert the text with citations that demonstrates that a particular claim is incorrect/contested. If a User then starts a WP:EW / WP:VD, then bring it to the attention of WP:DRN. re: "Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN initially estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths."
re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."
re: "Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone."
re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll"
re: "with some reports claiming the government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances"
re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."
re: Infobox
Thanks again for your Herculean effort! --Jayingeneva (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer's responsesRegarding the BBC source- we have 2 WP:RS- I don't see why a third will make it more true. Multiple sources cite that number from the UN. The fact that the UN said that is well established. More sources will not make it any more true. We don't have to cite every article that discusses this. Adding the UN methodology would fall under WP:UNDUE. If people want to know about the UN methodology- they should go to the appropriate article, but people who want to know about the Sri Lanken civil war should not have to slog through the methodology for each agency to get to numbers. This is an overview- not the be-all, end-all report. Encyclopedia- not graduate dissertation. :-) I will change to, in 20xx the UN estimated.... this does give a date- allowing for later changes, but does not have the connotation of "initially" Your problem with estimates and projections does not make sense to me, I'm sorry. It seems like you are saying your source's numbers of greater value than the others- and I have to say- that's just not the case. The other sources have done as much research and investigation as the UN. They are just as valid numbers. I'm sorry- but I don't think its fair to do anything more to highlight the UN numbers. The other numbers are no more projections than the UN- both sides are estimating. Using the available information to make their best educated guess. An estimate IS a projection- they are synonyms. You look at the facts you have, and make some guided guesses at what the bigger picture is. So, no- I don't think its fair to add any more weight to the UN numbers or pull any weight from the other numbers. I think that would be biased- and we need to present both sides equally. "Is there a way to clearly convey that the 2013 Time article cited, https://world.time.com/2013/11/28/sri-lanka-to-start-tally-of-civil-war-dead/ , is quoting the Sri Lankan Government and not the UN Panel report? " No one is saying that it is quoting the UN Panel. The article says the UN estimate, and then says other independent sources that is clarifying that other non-un sources are making other estimates. "re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the final death toll" I will adjust the wording to reflect the sources more accurately. " "with some reports claiming the government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances"" I will wait to see what the WP:RSN says before I adjust. "re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."" The source does say the chemicals were poured in the graves to make bodies disappear. This is quibbling over synonyms here. Dissolve, and make disappear have the same meaning. We don't have to quote articles- summarizing them is okay. Dissolve is what liquids do to solids to make them disappear. The source does support the sentence as written. re: Infobox- you stated earlier you were fine with the number, now you want to add another section? Again- both numbers are verified estimates- they are verified by sources other than the UN- but that does not make them less valid. Its not apples and oranges, its more like Blood Oranges and Mandarin Oranges. Both are oranges- just from a different tree. "If this is not deemed as reliable, than what is stopping us from calling the UN panel unreliable too?"- This is why I recommended that you take it to the WP:RS noticeboard. My other self-chosen job here on wp is reviewing articles for creation- which is a whole lotta fact checking. I was also an English teacher in another world- so teaching teenagers how to do research was part of my job. So, I'm pretty good with gauging reliability- but I'm not infallible. And some human rights organizations are rigorous in their fact checking and review, and some are more concerned with motivating people. I am not familiar with this one, and I could not find their review process on their website, nor could I find other websites specifically discussing their reliability. Same with their parent company. While yes, the founder has an esteemed background- that does not automatically make everything they publish reliable. So- I recommend you go to WP:RSN and ask their opinion of this source so there is no question. I searched their board before I reviewed- and I do not see any previous discussion of this source. As to what will keep you from saying the UN is not a WP:RS, well the fact that it has already been discussed on WP:RSN and deemed a reliable source is what will keep you from saying that. And that statement is aggressive and unhelpful. Please, this discussion is making progress, lets keep it polite so that we can wrap this up. I think we are getting close. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Fifth Draft of ParagraphThe war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed before the final phase of the war.[112][113][114] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths. [49][50] In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009: "As many as 40,000 died while other independent reports estimated the number of civilians dead to exceed 100,000."[115] The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[116] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[117] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths". Some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[118] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[119][120] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[121][122] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[123][124] Discussion on 5th draftLooks good to me. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Jayingeneva's feedback on 5th DraftNightenbelle We are almost there! re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"
re: '"“A number of credible ...'
re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,"
re: "The source does say the chemicals were poured in the graves to make bodies disappear." Could you possibly be referring to another document? Can you please copy 'n' paste the quote you are referring to, from the cited article, https://www.channel4.com/news/the-sri-lankan-soldiers-whose-hearts-turned-to-stone ? In the cited news article, I can not find the words "chemical", "pour", "disappear", "dissolve" nor "skeleton". re: "Infobox- you stated earlier you were fine with the number, now you want to add another section?"
re: "The other sources have done as much research and investigation as the UN."
Thanks again for your effort! --Jayingeneva (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Jayingeneva's feedback on 5th Draft v2Noting Oz346's clarification and edits to the paragraph. re: "In 2011, the UN panel released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"
re: "The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,"
re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."
--Jayingeneva (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Obi2canibe's feedback on "Fifth Draft of Paragraph": [Due to time pressures I have not had time to read and digest the discussion above so I apologise if my feedback has already been addressed]
--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer NotePlease note, I had a personal issue come up this weekend and I did not mean to abandon this discussion. I'm trying to weed through all that has happened and review discussion. I will reply this evening, There is just too much going on today with work for me to focus as I need to with this. But I will reply / try to resolve this tonight. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Volunteer's ResponsesResponse to back & Forth between Jayingeneva and Oz346 Once again Jayingeneva We do not need to directly quote as long as we are summarizing accurately. The channel4 article supports the mass graves and destruction of evidence with the line "'But they couldn't bury all of them. What they did was, they bought a bulldozer, the spread the dead bodies out and put sand on top of them, making it look like a bund.'" With the other source specifically adding the chemical information. So- two sources support two parts of that sentence. Response to Jayingeneva 2.0- 1. No the : cannot be replaced because it is a direct quote- we cannot change anything within a direct quote. 2. I can change it to a semicolon to show a continued thought- but a period would create one complete sentence and one incomplete one. Response to Obi2canibe's feedback: 1a. I will change to by 2006. 1b. There is a source that supports the statement of the UN estimate. Leaving it in is part of the compromise with Jayingeneva who wants to ensure UN numbers are included. Removing it would basically undo everything we have discussed until now. 2. I will change the second paragraph 3. I don't see the repitition in the third- there are 3 different numbers cited by three different sources- your version eliminates one of them. Again- this is a compromise, so its best if all proposed number sources be included. 4. Since this is the lead, I'm going to omit this suggestion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC) 6th DraftThe war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed by 2006.[127][128][129] Immediately following the end of war, on 20 May 2009, the UN estimated a total of 80,000–100,000 deaths.[130] [49][50]However, in 2011, The Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka stated, “A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths.”[131] Other sources quoting discrepancies in the census figures state that up to 140,000 people were unaccounted for during this period alone.[132] In 2012, the Secretary-General's Internal Review Panel on United Nations Action in Sri Lanka stated, 'The Panel of Experts stated that "[a] number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths" while some Government sources state the number was well below 10,000. Other sources have referred to credible information indicating that over 70,000 people are unaccounted for.'[133] The Sri Lankan government has repeatedly refused an independent, international investigation to ascertain the full impact of the war,[134][135] with some reports claiming that government forces were raping and torturing Tamils involved in collating deaths and disappearances.[136][137] A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons.[138][139] Discussion about 6th versionThe 40,000 figure in the second paragraph needs to be made clear that it refers to the final phase of the war only (late 2008-2009). At the moment it is ambiguous. The way Obi2canibe worded it below seems fine to me: "However, in 2011 the UN Panel of Experts on Accountability released a report that estimated additional civilian deaths during the final phase of the war in late 2008-2009:"A number of credible sources have estimated that there could have been as many as 40,000 civilian deaths." Other than that it seems fine (barring the repeated sentence at the beginning, please read again). Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC) re: "The war was waged for over a quarter of a century, with an estimated 70,000 killed by 2006."
re: "A Military whistleblower accused government forces of a cover up with bodies being buried in mass graves and chemicals being used to dissolve skeletons."
Almost there, thanks again! --Jayingeneva (talk) 09:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Volunteer Closing Statement
Volunteer note I'll change it to by 2007. That is the final change that will be made. This resolution is concluded. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC) References
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| First, the discussion has been going on less than a week- with most of the discussion happening in the last 48 hours. Not long enough. Second- there is an RFC already open. Third- There is ALSO a discussion on the WP:FRINGE Notice board. Fourth- there are WP:Battleground sanctions that someone needs to be aware of. Fifth- filing editor has not notified other involved editors and finally- in light of all this, opening a DRN after all the other things opened in the last couple of days is 100% forum shopping and not appropriate. Please resolve all the other dispute options going on right now before returning hereNightenbelle (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview There is tentative agreement that people of Middle Eastern ethnicities should be included in the list. The disagreement I want help with, is should the inclusion criteria defer to the existing consensus in main Middle East page as for which ethnicities are Middle Eastern, or should those decisions be made in the list's talk page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Middle_Eastern_superheroes#RFC:_Who_counts_as_"Middle_Eastern_Superhero"? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Hopefully more voices will help create resolution here. Summary of dispute by Rsk6400Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of Middle Eastern superheroes 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.
| The dispute is about original research. The simple answer is this- if a source does not currently exist which clearly calls the launch a success or failure- any analysis of the data is original research and does not belong on WP at all. Also- social media (IE-twitter) is not a WP:RS and if you are going to use the companies own webpage- make sure you are linking directly to the page on that website that is clearly saying "This launch was a success" or "This launch was a failure" do not just link to the homepage and make people hunt to find the statement themselves. Thanks. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2021 (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 on whether SN10's landing was a failure or partial failure. Two of the landing legs broke and the vehicle exploded around 10 min. later. SN8 and SN9 exploded on the moment of landing and they say failure, so many users think that SN10's landing should be marked as partial failure. (Starship is a prototype rocket.) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have changed it to Partial failure, but other people change is tack to failure. Other people have also had the same problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Starship_flights#SN10_outcome How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Maybe you can decide if it should be failure or partial failure. Summary of dispute by N828335Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jrcraft YtThere was discourse on the landing outcome of the Starship SN10 flight. After discussion in the talk page. The consensus was that because of the failure of the landing legs, The failure of the helium pressurization system, the failure of the engine to respond to commands, the failure of the vehicle structure which resulted in a methane leak, and the high speed in which the vehicle struck, failing to achieve a soft landing, the fire that was onboard the vehicle, and the fact that the rocket exploded after a hard touchdown. That the landing should be classified as a failure. SpaceX themselves initially claimed success, but later admitted problems throughout the landing that resulted in a reusable rocket exploding. The table includes a note that states "Despite making an intact landing and beginning the detaining procedures, the vehicle suffered an explosion several minutes later destroying the vehicle in the process. SpaceX has claimed it as a successful landing but later admitted problems with engine thrust and that the vehicle exploded." It also must be said that there are no sources to claim a "partial success" for landing. This mater was brought back to discussion by IP 64.121.103.144 . Who disregarded the discussion in the talk page, and changed the table, but not the charts which resulted in disparities in the data within the same page. In addition, their edits "broke" the formatting of the table. Leaving the table unreadable. Keep in mind the fact that this table is used on multiple pages. The editor then posted a message in the talk page stating " I think that it should be put as Partial Failure. Unfortunately, people keep changing it to failure, and I have to revert it. SN10 landed successfully, but 2 of the landing legs broke. But it did not explode on landing like SN8 and SN9. SN10 should have some difference than the failure put for SN8 and SN9. " This not only shows the editors failure to maintain a neutral point of view (" I think.") but the blatant disregard for what was discussed previously. I responded to the editor, but received no response. Please see Talk:List of Starship flights for the full conversation. In order to bring a dispute to this page, the editor bringing the dispire must "Have you discussed this on a talk page." This person did not do this, so this dispute should be a non-started. The user did not try to resolve this dispute before coming here, which again, must occor before a dispute is brought here. This should not have been brought here in the first place because 64.121.103.144 failed to engage in any discussion prior. SpaceX admitted that the vehicle had problems which resulted in the total loss and full destruction of the rocket. The landing failed. This was agreed upon, but was altered without any discussion, with personal bias, while runing the table, making it unusable. The combined failures resulted in the explosion of the rocket. It failed to properly land and was destroyed as a result. There is no sugar coating it because you dislike seeing the word failure. The landing was an objective failure. When the vehicle explodes (fails) after an anomalous landing, it's a failure. --Jrcraft Yt (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PeterstevPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by mfbPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Not sure why I was listed here, I made a single comment early on without stating a preference, and that's still my point of view. External sources tend to explain what happened instead of using a single short expression, so we can't just copy them. I don't mind either way. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by OsunpokehPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by AndrewRG10Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by crandlesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by N2ePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Despite the high interest of many editors to try to assign a single success criteria in a table for these test flights of prototype test articles, I don't think it can be done and stay in Wikipedia policy for verifiability and no original research/no synthesis. This kind of tea leaf grading on tests which are (quite naturally) run as proprietary tests by a private company can't be done. Why? The companies simply don't make public what all the test objectives are of any test. We often do not have a reliable basis to be lumping an entire complex development test as even success or failure, let alone splitting hairs on whether it is a success, partial success, partial failure, or failure. We just have a bunch of citizen journalists with cameras pointed trying to judge the entire thing from videos of whether the prototype landed or not, perhaps with a couple of vague tweets from the CEO. The entire "Landing outcome" column in the table is original research and/or WP:SYNTHESIS, neither of which are appropriate in Wikipedia articles. These are not operational flights, with some sort of single success criteria (the goods transported to the destination were either delivered or were not). Development engineering of new technology pushing the boundaries simply doesn't work that way. With these tests, we don't have a set of robust sources that agree, which could lead to easy consensus on the part of a bunch of Wikipedia editors on each test flight. There is no customer here, and therefore no objective way to measure a test against "successful" or "unsuccessful." That's just humans wanting to keep score. Just say what happened, with good sources, in the article prose. And leave it at that. The entire "Outcome" column in the table should not even be there, as that requires synthesis for editors to draw some conclusion. N2e (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ZerimPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by E.Wright1852Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The last edit I made to List of Starship flights was at 16:32, 19 March 2021.[1] User:64.121.103.144 first made an edit to the same article at 18:38, 29 March 2021, 10 days later.[2] We had a lot of trouble with disruptive editing after SN10 landed and I subsequently requested page protection.[3] A User was blocked for disruptive editing but the page was not protected.[4] When I reverted their disruptive edits this is the version of the page it went to.[5] On the 14 March I had to again revert disruptive editing as a user changed information to how they wanted it and would not engage constructively on the talk page.[6][7] It is becoming a problem on this article and page protection is needed to stop disruptive editing. Personally I do think the outcome was a failure. But should the outcome column be there, No I don't think it should. A good description of the flight with good sources and the article would be a lot better. I stopped editing on the article and talk page because of several users not engaging in constructive consensus building as it was not easy to create a good article. E.Wright1852 (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC) List of Starship Flights discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Jrcraft Yt just said that I did not discuss it on the talk page. I did. This is about the content of the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.103.144 (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
64.121.103.144 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
The source is SpaceX. And SpaceX did say that the landing was a success even after the explosion. SpaceX removes the mission details about a month after it happens, but for an example, visit SpaceX's Starship page 64.121.103.144 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not mean SpaceX's twitter account. I mean their website, spacex.com/starship. 64.121.103.144 (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. The filing editor has only notified some and not all of the editors who have taken part in editing and discussion. It is the responsibility of the filing editor to identify and notify all of the editors. Also, if this is a one-against-many dispute, the filing editor should consider whether the other editors have established a rough consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2021 (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 In the table, I would like Starship SN15 and BN1 added. When I did so, it was reverted. I did it once or twice more but it was again reverted. I brought it to the talk page. SpaceX has said that they want to fly SN15 and BN2. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried to convince them to put back SN15 and BN2. [2] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can decide whether SN15 and BN2 should be added before the vehicle is put on the pad or not. Summary of dispute by El RoihPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by FinTGMPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by mfbPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by crandlesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of Starship flights 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 was no response from the editors for 72 hours after they were asked whether to keep the case open. Also, the filing party has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Any editor who still wants to remove the image may request my assistance in filing a neutrally worded Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2021 (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 a dispute over whether an image of a few girls should be used in the infobox of an article about an ethnicity. I believe it's inappropriate for a few girls to represent an ethnicity of 30+ million people, consisting of different colours, genders and ages. A third opinion (Ardenter) was invited to resolve the dispute, however, the supporters of the image did not agree with the third opinion's conclusion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? User_talk:CuriousGolden#Azerbaijanis Talk:Azerbaijanis#Infobox_image
I imagine the editors involved are respectful enough to agree with the conclusion of a knowledgeable dispute resolver (is that what it's called?). Summary of dispute by ParishanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I believe the rationale provided does not apply to the case of a single photo. I also do not think that the role of an infobox image is to represented every colour, gender and age that a people displays. In my opinion, an image is acceptable as long as it is illustrative, non-controversial and properly cited, and all of these criteria seem to be met. Parishan (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ChillManChillPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by BrandmeisterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The objection to the image is unconvincing and it was already explained on the talk page why MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES does not apply here. As per file info, the infobox image shows Azerbaijani folk dancers, in traditional dresses, the source is Azerbaijan International and there's an OTRS permission. Brandmeistertalk 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ArjayayPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ArdenterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There was a dispute in the talk page of the user "CuriousGolden" about their removal of an image of five Azerbaijani girls from the Azerbaijanis article's infobox. The user "Parishan" criticized the removal, and after some discussion the dispute was moved to the talk page of Azerbaijanis. A third opinion was requested. I pointed to the No Ethnic Galleries policy, which was only rebutted to with the claim that the policy only applies to multiple images. I again pointed to the Break the Rules policy and that the spirit and consensus of the No Ethnic Galleries policy applies equally regardless of the number of images. Images such as the one in dispute are also non-common among other ethnicity articles. I believe the image is in violation of Wikipedia policy and precedent. Ardenter (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Azerbaijanis discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Azerbaijanis)I will act as the moderator. (That's the term for the dispute resolver.) Please read the usual rules. You are expected to follow the rules, so if you are not sure about anything, ask questions. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts are not helpful, and some Wikipedia disputes are complicated by overly long posts. Comment on content, not contributors. Comment on edits, not editors. Do not reply to the statements made by other editors in the space for statements. You may engage in back-and-forth discussion in the space for the purpose, but I will try to resolve this by having the editors reply to me, and to the community. This appears to be an image question. If there are any questions other than the image, please state in one paragraph what the issue is. Also, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what their position is about the image or images. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC) First statements by editors (Azerbaijanis)ArdenterI believe the image is in violation of No Ethnic Galleries, as per the consensus discussions on the topic. I also argue that images like the one in question is abnormal among ethnicity articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ardenter (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC) CuriousGoldenI find using a single photo of a few girls in the infobox inappropriate, as infoboxes usually are there to wrap up the general information about the article and using an image of few people would make a lot of readers think that 'this is how most Azerbaijanis look'. In addition, most ethnicity articles do not utilize such images for the controversies that it may create, so it'd be prudent for us to follow the consistency. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC) ParishanI still find many ethnicity articles that do feature such images in their infoboxes and fail to see how anyone would have the impression that half a dozen young women represent the whole of physical types encountered in a certain geographical area. I truly doubt that anyone approaches such articles with that idea in mind. The photo has featured in this article for nearly 14 years and has never been an issue of controversy regarding its illustrative properties. Parishan (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC) BrandmeisterIf "it's inappropriate for a few girls to represent an ethnicity of 30+ million people", then basically all similar images should be removed from other ethnicity articles. It's apparent that no such image pretends to represent an entire ethnicity, yet the encyclopedic value is obvious. In fact, the image in question has not been an issue since 2016, staying in the article for five years now. Brandmeistertalk 09:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Azerbaijanis)Opponents of the image state that it violates the MOS guideline on images, No Ethnic Galleries. I will ask those editors who support keeping the image to explain why it is consistent with the guideline, or why the guideline is not applicable. I will ask those editors who support removal of the image to state, in one concise paragraph, why they think that the image violates the guideline, AND what they think is the reason for the guideline. Address your replies to me and to the community, not to each other. If you want to reply to each other, you may do it in the space for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Azerbaijanis)ParishanWP:NOETHNICGALLERIES refers to collages of visuals depicting renowned people (sometimes up to 40) supposedly belonging to the ethnic group in question (example from a different article). The rule was put in place because ethnic galleries created too much controversy as to whether or not specific famous persons depicted in the collage, especially those that lived centuries ago, really did represent said ethnic group or identify with it. The picture in the article Azerbaijanis is not a gallery and does not depict anyone whose identity can be legitimately questioned, hence the policy is not applicable here. Parishan (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC) BrandmeisterFortunately there's no ongoing edit war over the image, but I agree with Parishan above. And as I explained in my first statement above, the concern raised by CuriousGolden doesn't warrant the removal of image from the article. Alternatively, the image could be moved out from the infobox down to some section in the article. Brandmeistertalk 08:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Azerbaijanis)Only one editor has responded to my second request for statements. If you do not respond, I may assume that you are no longer interested in the outcome of the case. If I think that the dispute has subsided to editors withdrawing from the case, I may close the case as resolved, or put the case on hold. Is there still disagreement about whether to include the picture? If so, please reply as to how the guideline either does apply or does not apply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Azerbaijanis)Back-and-forth discussion (Azerbaijanis)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closing per request of everyone except the filing editor. However- I want to be clear. There is a CONSENSUS on the page already. Filing editor is welcome to open an RFC- however, its not just that there is a majority- it is that there has been discussion- and the majority of WELL FORMED AND ARTICULATED OPINIONS have made the decision. The filing editor is reminded that just because he also has a valid well formed and articulated opinion- that does not mean there is not a consensus against them. An RFC may change that, and it may not. There is no evidence in the opinion of 2 volunteers here of WP:OWN going on. If there were- both of us would have pushed harder to get the other editors to participate. However, the discussion proceeded appropriately and reached a clear conclusion, so we will not pressure editors to compromise against that consensus. Again- you are welcome and even encouraged to open an RFC to get more eyes on this, but the DRN is a voluntary process. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview This page begins "The Schutzstaffel was a major paramilitary organization ..." I find this use of the word "paramilitary" misleading. Even though the SS began as a purely paramilitary organization, when the Nazi party seized power, the SS assumed many non-paramilitary roles. By the time the Third Reich fell most of its personnel were soldiers (the Waffen SS fielded 41 divisions with 900,000 soldiers, larger than the US Marine Corps in the same war), police (both political and criminal), intelligence, and prison staff. I believe some more general description is needed. (The SS is perhaps best known for being in charge of one of the worst acts of genocide in human history. I don't think this counts as "paramilitary," but even if it does it was only one function, among many other evils.) To be fair, my initial attempts to reword the intro were poorly considered. (If I were to start from scratch, I'd just change "paramilitary" to "uniformed service," a wording I've stolen from Britannica.) But the response to my edits were lacking in good faith. The counterarguments, when given at all (I was reverted several times without explanation) had to do with wordiness. When they finally addressed my reason for the change, their arguments boiled down to "is too a paramilitary force." I won't attempt to summarize these (obviously I'm biased) but I don't think any of them address the simple matter of the small percentage of personnel dedicated to paramilitary functions. Personal issues forced me to let this drop for a while. When I returned, I decided that trying to resume the argument was pointless, but a Fact or Fiction tag might at least bring more people into the discussion. But this minimal non-content change was met by an angry response and organized dogpiling. Plus (ironically) accusations of edit warring. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Schutzstaffel#Reversion_without_explanation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Schutzstaffel#Paramilitary_organization_issue_AGAIN How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I need more people (not the three or so people who "own" the page) to weigh in on two issues:
Summary of dispute by KierzekPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The editor who opened this thread is looking at it "the wrong way around". The SS began as a bodyguard unit for Hitler, created in 1925. It was expanded and remained a sub-branch under the SA (another larger Nazi para-military organization) until the summer of 1934. The SS became a large organization overall, run through the main branch of the Allgemeine SS, under Heinrich Himmler in his capacity as Reichsführer-SS, from January 1929, forward. He certainly was not a military officer, only one who liked to play general. Within the SS, were the main branches of the Allgemeine SS, SS-Totenkopfverbände or SS-TV and Waffen-SS, there further existed sub-branches, including the RSHA (which had as departments: the Sicherheitsdienst or SD, Gestapo and the Kriminalpolizei or Kripo). Just because the Waffen-SS came to have the most members, it never stopped being a branch organization under the SS umbrella, controlled by Himmler. The Waffen-SS grew out of the SS-Verfügungstruppe or SS-VT, personal political troops for Hitler and the Nazi Party. That aspect did not change, the Waffen-SS remained an armed-wing of political soldiers, always at Hitler's disposal. Also, it must be remembered that by 1944, some 40,000 of the Waffen-SS were assigned to other branches and units of the SS organization. There was also a continuous rotation of Waffen-SS men (and exchange of personnel) with the concentration-camp staff/troops (SS-TV) throughout the war; so, that adds to the SS overall being a para-military organization. Kierzek (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by ObenritterPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This editor raised the issue of the Schutzstaffel (SS) being characterized as a paramilitary force due to the fact that parts of it later developed into a military force, the Waffen-SS. The editors identified in this complaint have all addressed this matter on the Talk Page, to include demonstrating that RS sources define the SS as "paramilitary". Unsatisfied with this response, the editor who brought this here must assume that RS (academic substantiation) and consensus opinion among well-informed editors are insufficient. It is a non-issue, unworthy of this forum in my opinion, particularly since there was no RS counter evidence disputing the claim that the SS was "paramilitary" aside from the complainant's opinion.--Obenritter (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by DiannaaIsaac Rabinovitch added the Summary of dispute by Beyond My KenThis is an absurd request. There is absolutely no doubt about whether the SS was primarily a paramilitary organization, just as a church which operates a thrift store or a food pantry remains primarily a church. The OP has never presented a citation from a reliable source saying that the SS was not primarily a paramilitary organization. Given the blatantly ahistorical and counter-factual nature of their claim, I will not be participating in this process, as Wikipedia dispute resolution cannot change what is or is not historical fact, nor can it overturn a clear consensus. The request should be rejected out of hand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Schutzstaffel discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Since part of your role as volunteer is to advise on policy, can I get an opinion as to whether my use of Fact or Fiction was a violation of policy? Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Since I was asked by name, I will offer my opinion, although an opinion has already been provided which I am not disputing. Tags are subject to the rule of Bold, Revert, Discuss. User:Isaac Rabinovitch applied the tag boldly. This was consistent with policy. The tag was then discussed, and there was a local consensus against the tag, so the tag was removed. After the local consensus was established, re-applying the tag violated the local consensus, and was edit-warring, and was therefore against policy. The tag is now off the article, and there is a local consensus that "paramilitary" is a statement of fact. If the filing editor wishes to expand the discussion, they may use a Request for Comments to obtain a larger consensus. The RFC should not be about a tag. RFCs should not apply tags, and should remove tags by resolving the disputes. The RFC could propose to replace the word "paramilitary" was something else. It seems unlikely that the RFC would be successful, because the editors who have already discussed are probably a good cross-section of the community. However, an RFC is the policy-consistent vehicle for further discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC) The SS was a part of the occupying force in Poland and other countries that are in Eastern Europe as normally defined. Tendentious or otherwise disruptive editing is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the Eastern Europe decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| No response from editors in 48 hours. If you decide to participate before this case is archived- this can be re-opened, after that a new DRN will need to be filed Nightenbelle (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2021 (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 See the Talk page for this story. I get a cannonnade of comments on my edits about being against Neutral Point of View and Original Research rules, but as I read the comments the other editor simply does not read the case and my changes, and/or does not understand the Wikipedia rules. My edits improve the neutral point of view (as the current article by leaving out lots of sources is biased) and are not OR. And as my suggestion for a third-person discussion got no response, now sadly I'll have to follow the DRN route. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2019_Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? As this is about multiple policies, simply have one or two fellow editors, hopefully with some knowledge of governmental issues as this is about those, form an opinion and add to the Talk page. Then let's see whether we can get a consensus on the needed text changes. I notified Kingsif through my response to him on my Talk page. Summary of dispute by KingsifPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2019 Sri_Lanka_Easter_bombings discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer StatementBefore we begin this- are both involved editors willing to participate in this process? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
|
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
| Closed. There are two problems with this case, one of which could be solved by the filing party. The solvable problem is that they have not notified the other editors. The essential problem is that this is a dispute over an alternative to deletion, which is that an article is being cut down to a redirect due to a notability issue. DRN does not resolve notability disputes. The usual way of resolving a notability dispute, in this case whether Warina Hussain satisfies acting notability, is a deletion discussion. If the article existed, it could be nominated for deletion, and the AFD would decide the notability. Since there is presently a redirect, one approach would be to tag the redirect for Redirects for Discussion to replace the redirect with the article. The approach that I recommend is, however, to prepare a draft, Draft:Warina Hussain, and submit the draft for review, and discuss whether the draft should be accepted, at Talk:Warina Hussain. (There has been discussion there, but it has not been extensive.) Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2021 (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 I replaced the redirect tag and created an article on 3rd April[3] which was reverted by User:GSS, after which discussion took place on the talk page[4] regarding the subject's notability. I extensively described how the subject passes each criterion, while those opposing are not agreeing and this doesn't seem to go anywhere now. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Warina Hussain#Redirect How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By involving the uninvolved editors in the dispute. Summary of dispute by GSSPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Onel5969Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Warina Hussain 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 a few problems wit this filing. First, the filing party has not notified the other editor on their talk page. Second, the filing party has been mostly editing logged out but has a registered account, and so is not editing consistently. Third, the discussion on the talk page has mostly not been about the format of the table, so much as about not liking the format, and has not been focused on an article content issue. Fourth, there have been other editors involved in the discussion. The parties should resume discussion on the article talk page, and should remain logged in at all times. If there is relevant discussion that is logged in, then a new case request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2021 (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 Last month there has been a substantial change of format to this page, which has made the section 'Weeks at No 1' rather biased. I have attempted to restore the old format (pre-March 2021) numerous times, however all of my chsnges have been repeatedly and unfairly deleted, and now i have been told that I may be blocked if I attempt to make any more changes. My reasoning and suggestions on the Talk Page have been ignored and dismissed - I would expect that there would be some reasonable and logical responses given to my objections, to justify the actions of persistent deletion of my contributions. Therefore, I am requesting a 'Third Opinion (3O)' by an outside objective and unbiased 3rd party, to help resolve this dispute. Thanks in advance How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I have explained my perspective and reasoning on the Talk Page (indicated above). I am seeking a demonstrably unbiased and objective third party to hear my side of the story and help make a fair judgment in order to help resolve this dispute, and make the page in question unbiased again, as it has been for many years prior to March 2021. I would also appreciate the opportunity to edit wikipedia withouth my contributions being forcefully and persistently deleted. Thanks Summary of dispute by ForzaUVPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_tennis_players 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.
| as Roseguill said- there has not been discussion on the article talk page- and discussion on user talk pages is not sufficient for opening a dispute here. Please engage in discussion on the talk page of the article in question adn see if getting more eyes on the problem leads to a solution. If that does not work, you may return and open a dispute here. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview As a new Wikipedia user I added a section to an existing article. Another user indicated some issues with my change. I kept changing the new section according the the advice of the other user. However, the other user kept critisizing my section. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I tried to discuss the issue with the other user and adjusted my text accordingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie#Medical_devices How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The discussion ended with accusations of personal attacks, rather than discussing open questions in a kind manner. You could probably resolve the dispute by having a look at our discussion and give advice to both of us. Thank you for your help. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Medical device discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|