Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 150

Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Crewcamel on 23:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:United States presidential election (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) 2020 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Crewcamel (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The 2020 Election is not underway and nothing factual has occurred yet. The wikipage however is loaded with useless information. The article at times borders the line of absurdity. Such as when it includes: Polls between Donald Trump and Oprah Winfrey "Candidates" such as Jeremy Gable (not a US citizen), Kanye West and Jeffrey Sharp (an unheard of movie producer) On his show, Bill Maher jokes about Anthony Wiener running for president, he is included as a candidate within 24 hours. There many other issues, such as sources not having the info necessary, but those are the biggest ones. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The other editors began including Will Smith, George Clooney, Beyonce, Scarlett Johanson and others as candidates. 1. I told everyone to consider WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTABILITY before making edits. 2. Reminded editors they should read the sources they post. I've noticed sometimes the sources posted as evidence for speculative candidates barely mention the candidate or the election at all. How do you think we can help? Gutting the article almost entirely then locking it, or delete it. Or just go on the talk page and tell everyone their page and tell them that certain things are unnecessary and should be removed. This is what the page looked like in March: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2020&oldid=768340726#Democratic_Party Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There doesn't seem to be any discussion on Talk:United States presidential election and the relevant discussion seems to be taking place at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020. I have made this correction. Please also notify all users involved on their talk pages before proceeding. eurodyne (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - Please discuss more in depth the conflict on the talk page of the article, before discussion here can take place. eurodyne (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2017 (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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silver_Master&oldid=775121198

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Silver Master on 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Silver Master (talk · contribs) Amortias (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The admin Amortias assumed me doing promotional articles and considered that i am used promotional external links + articles also promo. in the last two articles i have created Safety and health training‎ + Data gathering and representation techniques...he revoked also my auto-patrolled right....My reply in i am not doing any promotion an i can discuss that! Have you tried to resolve this previously? To prove i am not doing promotion and recover the auto review right How do you think we can help? He is a new admin who just promoted from a few time...and i want some formal discussion for that from some respected admin Summary of dispute by Amortias Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The issue has not been discussed (that I'm aware of) by Silver Master and myself, minor discussion has been held here but there was no ping or talkback to advise me there was a comment made. Two new articles were created after the user had been granted the autopatrolled flag. Safety and health training and Voluntary Protection Program. Both of these articles contained external links in violation of the guidelines and content was of a promotional nature. Being my first ever need to revoke permissions, i sought guidance from other administrators and they agreed with my intent. I will happily request they add to this if it is felt useful they do so to confirm this statement but I'm not willing to throw names around if its nor required that they are involved. Amortias (T)(C) 21:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Silver_Master&oldid=775121198 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Fenugreek#A herb/an_herb

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Porphyro on 14:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Fenugreek#A herb/an herb (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Porphyro (talk · contribs) Jytdog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue in question is a minor one; whether or not the Fenugreek article should use "an herb" or "a herb". In April, I changed a few articles from "an herb" to "a herb", not realising it was an ENGVAR issue. After being made aware that it was, I read the policy and previous discussion on the Fenugreek page, I noted that the policy says that the first established use should be maintained. For Fenugreek, this is "a herb", and there is previous consensus on the talk page that it should be changed, that didn't seem to have been acted upon. At this time, User:Jytdog reverted my edit, and I reverted his in response, which I admit was a mistake. At this time, Jytdog placed an "Edit war" warning on my user page, which I will note is not recommended practice given that he/she was also a participant. After waiting some time to see if anyone else weighed in on the issue, I changed each of the articles in question to use whichever English variant they were originally created with. However, Jytdog seems determined to revert all changes to Fenugreek to match his preferred style, even though the policy and earlier consensus on the page was for the "a herb" style. I have been consistent in applying the policy to all the affected articles, reverting my own edits when they were inappropriate. I do not believe this to be the hallmark of a "style warrior". Previous discussion on the fenugreek page, including an administrator comment, made it clear there was consensus and rationale for the change. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to point out that the policy, and earlier discussion on the page, seems clear that the earliest usage should be kept. How do you think we can help? I think we need some impartial observers to take a look at this dispute and get some consensus one way or the other. Summary of dispute by Jytdog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. yes the filer went from article to article systemically changing "an herb" to "a herb" (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff). This is just classic style warrioring. The "an herb" was stable for several years before the filer did their thing and is now wikilawyering this to death. The whole point of ENGVAR is LEAVE IT ALONE, not read the tiny jot and tittle to get what you want. I would be arguing this regardless of what it was before. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC) fine with closing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Talk:Fenugreek#A herb/an_herb discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note There has been some discussion on the talk page. Both users have written their statements above. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Personal opinion I think a Third Opinion would have been much better but if a volunteer is willing, it could be tried here as well. (I am not volunteering as I am a bit busy and won't be able to respond in time). Yashovardhan (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note Agreed with above thought re 3O, though pinging the editors involved in the original discussion or at the appropriate project pages might have been a more expeditious approach as well. I was already tracking the article and noted that the earlier discussion seemed to confirm that "a" was the original text. I also noted that this seemed more appropriate for 3O before checking the case here. Given that I did comment there, I'm uncertain as to whether I should now be considered an "involved" editor, so I'll leave this in more experienced hands. DonIago (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC) @Doniago: I agree with your point on recusal. I saw your discussion there and either of the two might have objections to an 'involved' editor. However, if no one else volunteers and both parties have no objection, you can also volunteer here. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer) I think in my idealized world (note to anyone who's listening, I don't mean this as advocacy) both editors would accept my comments there as a third opinion and agree that this can be closed, but if the feeling is that a full case is merited, I won't stand in their way. If that is the case though, I'd like to know that, as I'll then shut up at the Talk page pending an outcome here. DonIago (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC) User:Doniago - What sort of "full case"? That terminology isn't normally used at DRN, and refers to an ArbCom case with full evidentiary proceedings, and this certainly isn't going to ArbCom. However, since this is a binary issue, this dispute is not well suited for this noticeboard, which is for mediation. In the words of Yoda: "Do it. Or do it not." If the editors can't agree, and can't accept a third opinion, then the next step is a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC) My wording may have been unclear. "Full DRN filing", then? What we're commenting on now, versus handling the situation through less formal (and potentially time-consuming) channels. DonIago (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC) As Jytdog is okay with this being closed[1] and Porphyro has indicated similarly[2], I think we're okay to close this, but given my involved state I'll leave that to another editor. Sorry for any confusion I created along the way. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2017 (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.

Talk:Scythians

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 78.173.30.48 on 19:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Scythians (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello. This is about a dispute between me and one of your users. Although I accepted his notice and your regulations about my first argument after he deleted it and posted a new and decent one under the topic Scythians, I found out that the user Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked me immediately! This is frustrating and must be unacceptable by Wikipedia as well, if you are really open to everybody and respect science and new findings. There I just wrote about the outcome of latest research by Turkish academics and scholars as people are now researching and learning and sharing the new findings. I am an academician and I believe I should be able to post messages about the works of mine and other scholars in this free world and particularly in this free platform, don't you think so? After all I have come across with many bad comments about Turks in Wikipedia pages under such topics as Armenian genocide; so obviously some people are quite free to post comments about Turks. So why can't I post a decent argument about the origin of Scythians and Sarmatians according to latest research? You really do not think that blocking people and erasing comments will help prevent the new ideas from spreading, do you? I am sorry but unless you take an action towards this wrong behaviour, I will start thinking that Wikipedia is a sided platform which does not avoid prejudice and cliche information. In this case we will always stay away from it. Thank you. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I accepted that my first comment that he deleted might have included personal opinion, so I wrote a new one trying to keep away from my personal thoughts according to his notice and your regulations. I was neutral and just wrote about the latest research results and findings of turkish scholars about roots of Scythians (and Sarmatians) and how they still live on in our culture.However, the above named user blocked me this time right away! How do you think we can help? I expect and hope that you become more welcoming towards turkish scholars and contributors just like you are towards other nations. What I wrote was not actually a personal opinion; it contained scientific and academic findings as well as cultural connection to turkish. So I kindly ask you to tell the users, especially Future Perfect at Sunrise, to be more objective and constructive when assessing the arguments of turkish contributors. I do wish my latest comment will be re-posted as well.Thanks Summary of dispute by Future Perfect at Sunrise Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Scythians 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.

User talk:Rajarule

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rajarule on 20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Rajarule (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rajarule (talk · contribs) Sitush (talk · contribs) Bishonen (talk · contribs) Arjayay (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dear colleagues I am having very difficult time to resolve a genuine issue. I apologize if my tone of the language sounds disrespectful in any way on talk page but English is not my first language and I struggle some times. I recently requested for arbitration but looks like the parties involved know each other due to their long involvement on Wikipedia pages and not listening to my legitimate concern by simply stating that all of the research work of colonial times is to be rejected due to political influences of those times. My question is that how can you establish that a particular author had connections with the establishment of that times? Also, most of the references used in the "CHATTAR" article were taken by the authors from ancient books like Vedas. Then why the references were removed by simply tagging them from colonial era? It is great discrimination to label someone to be a funded author just because a person is born in Raj times. I have been stressing that there was great research work done by colonial time researchers and authors and we should not stereo type all of them. I tried my best to have discussion on talk page but my edits are being reverted again and again and know I have been given ban warning. I request the dispute resolution team to help me restore the article into original form so that I can put references from books published after 1947 which was the time when British Raj came to end in India as we all know. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried my best to have discussion on talk page but my edits were reverted again and again and I have been given ban warning. I asked the respected friends to answer few questions but they simply refused to give me answer rather threatened me to ban on Wikipedia pages. I am a new comer, a learner and a keen reader. Such attitude by seasoned editors is discouraging me from giving my input and I am rather scared of them. How do you think we can help? By restoring the article in to its original form, which was there for many years and went through many edits, will help the subject. Students like me can help by giving more references from credible sources. I don’t want to stretch this dispute for longer and seriously wish to contribute positively for the benefit of anyone seeking knowledge like me. Kindly help us in this regard. Summary of dispute by Sitush Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Bishonen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Arjayay Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Rajarule discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Asia Kate Dillon/Archive 1#Primary_sources_are_being_removed_that_should_not_be

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cassolotl on 17:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Asia Kate Dillon/Archive 1#Primary sources are being removed that should not be (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cassolotl (talk · contribs) Antonioatrylia (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Myself and Antonioatrylia are in disagreement. I am editing an article to include references with primary sources for basic facts such as Asia Kate Dillon's birthday, and that Dillon was in a film that is available for viewing online. Antonioatrylia keeps removing these on the basis that they are primary sources and therefore unreliable. I understand that primary sources are acceptable when they "make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person ... will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." Dillon's birthday and Dillon's role in a film are both basic and straightforward facts that are supported by the primary sources without ambiguity. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have provided links and quotes to Wikipedia policy articles that explain that primary sources are acceptable in some circumstances, and explained why I think my edits are covered by this policy. How do you think we can help? I would like someone who understands wikipedia policy on this issue to step in and decide whether or not a tweet by an actor stating their birthday is reliable source for a Wikipedia article about that actor. I would also like someone to decide whether a reference to a publicly viewable video containing the actor in the action and in the credits is considered a reliable source for a filmography. Summary of dispute by Antonioatrylia Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Asia Kate Dillon/Archive 1#Primary_sources_are_being_removed_that_should_not_be discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note There has been considerable discussion on the talk page (though under different sections). The other user has been notified. At the talk page, there seemed to be another editor (or two) interested in the matter. You may want to consider listing them as parties. Please keep discussion to a minimum before a volunteer opens the case. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you. I am reluctant to invite people who've shown no interest in being formally involved in the disagreement, such as User:Funcrunch, but I welcome participation from other interested parties, and have linked to this dispute on the talk page. --Cassolotl (talk) pronouns: they/them 18:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC) You can add me if you want, but my take on the situation is primarily related to user conduct, which I understand is out of scope for DRN. Funcrunch (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC) FYI, interested parties, I have also started a dispute on ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antonioatrylia on Talk:Asia Kate Dillon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassolotl (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (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.

Vladikavkaz

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Edmundo Vargas on 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vladikavkaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Дагиров Умар (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Дагиров УмарThis user deletes official sources. He writes in russian on the discussion page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have posted official sources (with explanations on the "talk page"), but the user Дагиров Умар continues to edit the page without explanation How do you think we can help? Just check the sources. Vladikavkaz is the capital of The Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. The official languages in this Republic: Russian and Ossetian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ossetia-Alania). The user Дагиров Умар continues to edit the page by adding other languages (without having official sources). Summary of dispute by Дагиров Умар Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Vladikavkaz discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Cultural icon#Madonna_as_a_"cultural_icon"

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by HidariMigi on 02:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Cultural icon#Madonna as a "cultural icon" (edit | subject | history | links | "cultural_icon" watch | logs) Users involved HidariMigi (talk · contribs) Chrishonduras (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the article "Cultural Icons" a non-native English speaker added an image of musician Madonna with the caption, "Madonna, a human character, as a global cultural icon." I removed the image, under the explanation that Madonna as a living human being was not a cultural artifact (as the original lede of the article read), and is instead a "pop icon" where her image already appears. Subsequently, the individual returned the image, arguing that Madonna is indeed an icon, using as reference the definition of "cultural icon" which appears in Carlos Torelli's "Globalization, Culture and Branding" -- which says, "Cultural icons are persons or things which are widely regarded as the most compelling representative symbol of the beliefs, values, and lifestyle of a culture." As I contend that Madonna did not fit the definition, I asked what specific culture Madonna "represented" and argued that her inclusion would open the doors to any well-known celebrity who was regarded as an "icon" from being included -- which is effectively the situation with pop icon. Ultimately, we may be at an impasse because of a slight language barrier, but also because the editor is a self-avowed fan of Madonna, and has an emotional attachment to her inclusion. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive discussion at Talk:Cultural icon, which has lead to limited progress. How do you think we can help? Provide mediating, alternative views; or recommended courses of action. Possible merger of Cultural icon with Pop icon, if others believe them to now be the same thing. Summary of dispute by Chrishonduras Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Cultural icon#Madonna_as_a_"cultural_icon" discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor should notify the other editor that this case has been filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC) The other editor in question has been notified. Thanks, HidariMigi (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer question - Do the editors wish to conduct moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: I don't know. Actually, I just ask verify the text that the user wanna remove, that a "person" can be a "cultural icon". We have reliable sources (from academia even) that confirms that a person can be one. Subsequently, Madonna's photo is to illustrate this. Now It became secondary item. But the user argues that in the interlink "cultural artefact" the article says that is "for anything created by humans" (that is just "things"). I explained him, that in social/cultural terms, we will have several point of views and as possible, continues expand by itself from several disciplines like anthropology, ethnology, and sociology, because they are social sciencies and are not exacts (contrary to exact sciences). So, he denies this and for him above any source, that a person is not a "cultural icon". So, with this spirit we are not following the neutral point of view. Maybe this article need to be expand, put in context, etc. And finally, sorry for my English, I'm not native but I assume good faith and is not because, "I'm a Madonna fan", I asked follow Wikipedia's policy. Is our obligation as contributors and writers of Wikipedia to present information with "all its sides and shades", and to be truthful. Therefore, I don’t understand why we have to hide a fact that has reliable sources as well. A user talked and said that its okay. After that, user denies all inclusion. So, please take note and help with the article improvement. Thanks, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Also, I'm oppose to include a list of those "humans" cultural icons, just an example, like we follow with "type" section. Like the user point out, we can writes "how a person becomes a cultural icon (ie. by consistently, over a reasonable period of time, being identified as such by a significantly large group of people)". Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 15:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC) First (and possibly next-to-last) statement by moderator I am provisionally accepting this case for moderated discussion. Please see and follow User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. It appears to me that the issue is a yes-no question, rather than one admitting of compromise. If the question is whether to include Madonna as is currently done, then the answer is either yes or no. Is there any middle ground? If the question is a yes-no question, then a Request for Comments is the way to settle it. Please respond in one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors Madonna's picture became the open for this discussion, and the answer is "yes", include the image per MOS:PERTINENCE and because has a properly reference about that she is a example of a "cultural icon". Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 21:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Since no one has suggested that compromise is possible, there seems to be agreement that the question of whether to display the picture of Madonna is a yes-no question. A Request for Comments will be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors Third and final statement by moderator A Request for Comments has been published on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2017 (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.

Vladikavkaz

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Edmundo Vargas on 10:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Vladikavkaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Edmundo Vargas (talk · contribs) Дагиров Умар (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Vladikavkaz is the capital city of the Republic of North Ossetia–Alania. Official Languages: Russian and Ossetian. Official Name : Vladikavkaz (Russian) Dzæudžyqæu (Ossetian). According to the results of the 2010 Census, city population of Vladikavkaz was 330 148 men. Ingush represent 1% of the population.Ingush language is not official!From 1931 to 1944 and from 1954 to 1990, its name in both Russian and Ossetic languages was Ordzhonikidze (Орджоники́дзе) and from 1944 to 1954 it was officially called Dzawdzhikaw (Дзауджика́у) in Russian and Dzæudžyqæu (Дзæуджыхъæу)in Ossetian. Vladikavkaz resumed its old Russian name, in 1990, shortly before the dissolution of the Soviet Union; the official Ossetic name was reverted to Дзæуджыхъæу (Dzæwĝyqæw). Vladikavkaz has never been the capital of Ingushetia! Vladikavkaz has never been part of Ingushetia!Vladikavkaz has never been called Buro! Have you tried to resolve this previously? Myself and Дагиров Умар have presented our sources to other discussants, but they do not seem to be reading them. Дагиров Умар is not willing to discuss in a constructive manner(Example "And what you say does not matter"(c) Дагиров Умар) How do you think we can help? Remove the Unofficial names of the city (Vladikavkaz). Examples of other capitals of Autonomous Republics : Grozny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny ; Nalchik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalchik ; Cheboksary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheboksary ; Kazan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazan ;Khanty-Mansiysk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khanty-Mansiysk ; Ufa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufa; Kyzyl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyzyl. Summary of dispute by Дагиров Умар Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Vladikavkaz discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Sierra Leone

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fuadorko on 04:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Sierra Leone#Bangla.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fuadorko (talk · contribs) Dbfirs (talk · contribs) RalphEarnshaw (talk · contribs) Gamesmasterg9 (talk · contribs) N0sBro94 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Please read section "Bangla?" in the Sierra Leone talkpage. There is lots of talk on talk page, but no consensus is reached despite overwhelming evidence. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried reasoning that the evidence is good enough according to wikipedia, but they dont listen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sierra_Leone#Bangla.3F They believe it's a myth, but I have provided many sources of evidence in addition to the ones I have linked in this dispute. Such as statements by Government IT Ministers that claim that Sierra Leone has applied for .Bangla domain, which would strongly suggest that Bangla is official in their country. Also, if you google "Sierra Leone Bengali Official Language", you will get dozens, if not hundreds of sources that confirm it to be true, such as Major mainstream newspapers, accredited and top ranked US universities, published books that have ISBN numbers, etc. Since Wikipedia deems these types of sources as reliable according to their page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_VisualEditor/5 ) It should be included in the Sierra Leone Wikipedia page that Bengali is indeed an official language in addition to English. (And also in the Bengali WP page, it should say that Sierra Leone is a country where Bengali is official) How do you think we can help? Enforce the wikipedia rules as stated, it is stated in the talk page, basically that the sources provided are good enough for wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_VisualEditor/5 where it says "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources. Other reliable sources include university textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers." Below are some of the sources that state both English and Bengali as the only official Languages of Sierra Leone: New York University. Vanderbilt University, USA. Sierra Leone Business Law Handbook. Indian Express (mainstream newspaper in India). Dhaka Tribune (Mainstream newspaper in Bangladesh). Al Jazeera News (Mainstream Middle East News Network). The next source has a statement directly from Prime Minister of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina: bdnews24 (#1 Bangladeshi English Newspaper). Mount Holyoke Unviersity. The United Nations. The following sources show that Sierra Leone tried to get the ".bangla" internet domain name (like .com, .ca, etc.) Daily Star (Mainstream Bangladeshi news network). Domain News Africa (Mainstream African English News Network). FB post by Tarana Halim (Bangladeshi Minister of State, Post and Telecommunications Division. There are dozens more sources, but I believe this is more than enough to justify the claim. Summary of dispute by Dbfirs Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My concern is that the reliable sources mentioned above might well have used Wikipedia for their information. Will this end up in Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents? My preference would be to report the known facts in running text, but omit the disputed language from the infobox unless we find a reliable source that is guaranteed to be independent of Wikipedia. Dbfirs 06:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Response from Fuadorko: My objection to this is that you are artificially imposing a higher bar/standard just for Bengali official-ness. Why is it fair that for Bengali, we have to go above and beyong to prove something, when most other things on wikipedia don't have to? Also I don't believe this is a citogenesis incident because the claim that Bengali is official is simply way too widespread in many different sources and types of sources to be considered a citogenic incident. If it was only in a few sources, then maybe it could be a citogenesis incident. But not in this case in my opinion. Since this is so widely reported in many reliable sources, it would be near impossible to prove without doubt that this is a citgenesis incident, if not certainly impossible to prove. Also, there are newspaper articles from before the initial apperance on Wikipedia. (Newspaper article from 2002, appearance on WP in the late 2000s? By then, many newspapers and universities and other sources have also made this claim.) Summary of dispute by RalphEarnshaw Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Gamesmasterg9 I wasn't informed about this new filing, but I'll start by mention that Fuadorku is an egregious sockpuppetteer, and that the other users mentioned here, apart from Dbfirs, are sockpuppets. (User:Fuadorko2.) The claim that Bengali is an official language of Sierra Leone seems to stem from a 2002 article in a Pakistani newspaper, which reported an official announcement by the then-President of Sierra Leone. The claim was subsequently picked up in other newspapers in Bangladesh and India. However, no contemporaneous reports of this announcement have been located in spite of a comprehensive search. Additionally, no reports have been found in Sierra Leone government publications referring to the Bengali language. However, as this claim has remained on Wikipedia for long stretches of time since the early 2000's, it has made its way into numerous blogs, articles, and even publications by less reputable groups, making it something of an urban legend. Given the dramatic nature of the claim (a South Asian language being made official in a West African country with almost no speakers of that language!), I believe the standard of evidence should be higher than usual - an official government source, or primary reporting by a reputed publication on the announcement. Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Talk:Sierra Leone discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note after a previous DRN case was closed premature for lack of extensive discussion, there has been extensive discussion on the talk page. The nominator must notify all parties on their user talk pages. Optionally, there is a template available for this. A volunteer will open the case after all parties have made their opening statements above. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2017 (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.

Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Teishin on 16:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Teishin (talk · contribs) GlynClarke (talk · contribs) MayurQ (talk · contribs) Illuminaati (talk · contribs) Clean Copy (talk · contribs) 68.33.74.235 (talk · contribs) 117.192.211.41 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The views of several editors are in conflict, on multiple dimensions. Editorializing is a problem. One editor has been verbally abusive in the discussion. Achieving a workable agreement seems elusive. Some users object to mixing mythological origin material with scholarly material. Some object to the inclusion or the veracity of of some of the scholarly material. Some object to the exclusion or editorializing of that material. Note that User_talk:68.33.74.235 has been tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of Illuminaati (talk · contribs). Have you tried to resolve this previously? The discussion on the talk page is becoming circular. Multiple times a day someone changes someone else's edits. How do you think we can help? Moderating the discussion with a focus on enforcing editing standards might help. Summary of dispute by GlynClarke Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. -FYI, This section is about racial origins theories. -I am okay with present version. From the previous discussion I also think that everyone Teishin , MayurQ and Clean Copy ( and also Illuminaati seeing his latest comment) were also in agreement with the current version as per discussion on talk page. -The rest of the article already describe the widely prevalent mythology which is okay as the same way of writing is followed in almost all other wiki pages of this nature. However, this topic is specifically about racial originor Origin theories or ethnicity there is no point is comparing mythology with scholarly articles. This section should be restricted to scholarly articles. Also, it seems like MayurQ is also confusing Hindu community division system with racial origins/ethnicity. They are two different things. -Moreover, rest of the article contains content that is there after years of hundreds of such discussions and mutual consensus on evidences; just check that talk page history. Modifying that part is going to raise of huge storm. In Response to @Clean Copy: - any other section of article should NOT modified, cut or removed rest of the article contains content that is there after YEARS of HUNDREDS of such discussions and mutual consensus on evidences; just check that talk page history. Modifying that part is going to raise of huge storm. if anyone has any scholarly articles that indicate Shakya origins from maybe Aryans, Mongoloid etc then such articles are valid to be presented here. . . Summary of dispute by MayurQ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have no issue with current version but i agree with user Clean Copy. MayurQ (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Edit : response to others views. I don't agree with title change to "ethnicity", Shakya is a clan (Sanskrit: kula) aka clan as per Buddhist texts, not an ethnic group. Current title "Origin theories" is better suited for the topic related to scholarly theories of origin of Shakyas. MayurQ (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC) I agree with User Clean Copy. We need to include both Shakyas claim of descent and recent attempts of scholarly sources under Origins sections. MayurQ (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Illuminaati Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Update: making more precise I am okay with current version, but think that the title Ethnicity is more appropriate Agreeing with GlynClarke I am against adding mythology in this section. It should only contain scholarly research articles.@GlynClarke:,@MayurQ:,@Clean Copy:,@Teishin: please share your views so that this can be resolved quickly.Illuminaati (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Clean Copy Content Summarizing the debate: there are both mythological and (indecisive) modern ideas about the origin of the Shakya. The placement, role, and valuation of these is under dispute, in part because the modern suppositions quoted may not be generally accepted by experts, though this lack of support has never been really demonstrated by the participants in the debate. There is also a debate about whether to title the section of the article discussing origin theories "Other origin theories" or simply "origin theories"; this dispute largely arises because the mythological (emic) view appears earlier in the article. I believe the article would be best served by gathering all of these theories under one section, perhaps with the title Origins or Origin theories. This would include the ethnic group's mythological claim to a descent from a sun god and recent attempts to provide a more scientific lineage. The mythological attribution should appear only in this section, not in multiple places in the article. This would make the current discussion about what to title this section moot. (In response to GlynClarke: yes, mythological attributions and modern research into ethnic origins should be cleanly differentiated, and I would be comfortable with two subsections, but it makes sense to me to bring them under a single larger heading. This is not a major issue in my opinion; if they are in two different sections, that's fine, too. Later note: while the emic origin story (descent from a Sun-god)is clearly mythological, the academic research into the origins of a tribe 2,500 years ago, in the complete absence of any contemporary documentation, is necessarily nearly as speculative. Clean Copytalk 12:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC) I am not suggesting any of this be removed.Clean Copytalk 13:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Furthermore, at least one user (Illuminati) seems to labor under the misconception that it is sufficient to point out apparent discrepancies in a theory in order to discredit it on WP, whereas here, Truth bows to authority: we must find respected figures in a field who have given this disparity their attention and found it valid. Tone In addition, there are heated words being exchanged. This is a pity; we can have a rational discussion here and appreciate that each person is bringing a valid standpoint. Clean Copytalk 01:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 68.33.74.235 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 117.192.211.41 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Shakya#Ethnicity discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer notethe discussion on the article talk page has been adequate to begin moderated discussion here. there has been considerable discussion on the talk page. The nominator should inform all involved parties of the DRN on their talk page. Optionally, there's a template available for this. The nominator has mentioned on the DRN talk page that he does not wish to discuss the conduct issue here. I'd like to remind here that if any editor wishes to discuss a conduct issue, he/she should visit WP:ANI and file a case. Also, it should be noted that in such cases, the conduct issue takes precedence and this DRN case will be closed. Editors should refrain from editing the article or taking the matter to any other forum until this DRN is closed. A volunteer will soon open the case. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note@Teishin:Sorry, you have not yet notified GlynClarke,MayurQ and the IPs at all.Also please use the {{subst:drn-notice|name of DRN case}} template specifically.And unless and until this is complete the DR process would not be started.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 17:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC) @Winged Blades of Godric: I'd a look and Teishin seems to have left a message on the User page instead of the user talk page. I really don't know what to make of this. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you. I think I have fixed the notification errors. My apologies. Teishin (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note--And I've opened it.All parties are requested to submit their point of views and opinion summarily in their respective sections(Or decline their participation in this case).All participants are further asked to withhold discussion until every participant provides an opening statement.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 18:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I plan to take this up at tomorrow again.Winged Blades Godric 18:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC) protection note Due to the level of edit war on the article page, the article has been protected for a week. If the DRN ends before that, you can request for a change in protection. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Shakya. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment--It may be duly noted by the participants that we,the editorial community do not asses the verificability and truth value of any statement made by a WP:RS.Any source which comfortably passes WP:RS may not be subject to the discretion of any editor over it's veracity.But this certainly does not rule out excluding something (mentioned in the source) on the article, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT.Winged Blades Godric 16:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC) @Illuminati:--Please address the issue from your point of view/opinion summarily without resorting to unnecessary sarcasms.And maintain WP:CIVIL.As of now,I am having a hard time to understand your position on the issue.Winged Blades Godric 17:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Primarily, this seems to be a dispute of the validity and relative weight of the sources.On this regard, I would like to ask all the participants to conform strictly to the guidelines of WP:RS withpout delving on the zones of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTHESIS irrespective of the virtues and vices of the individual arguments put forward.Winged Blades Godric 17:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Teishin's comment-- My primary concern in opening this dispute was not so much about the content being disputed, it was about the edit warring and the failure to adhere to editorial and civility standards. My opinion is that the existing content about the Scythian origins should be in a section labeled, probably, either "Ethnicity"or "Origins" sans any of the editorializing that had been happening. Perhaps at some later date someone else can find additional scholarly references to include here that support alternative views, but until such references are produced, this is what we have to include in this section and it should be included without editorializing. I agree that the content about the mythological origins is also of interest to our users, but it doesn't belong with the ethnicity content. Other than that, I don't have an opinion about it.Teishin (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment-In accordance with the content posted here, the best option to resolve the axis of dispute will be to open a WP:RFC and ask the community to opine over- 1)Whether the section shall be titled Origin theories or ethnicity ? 2)Whether the ethnic group's mythological claim to a descent belong to this particular section? Furthermore, during the period of the RFC, all the parties are strongly requested to abstain from any edit-earring, even after the current protection goes stale. If any-body has any other dispute or any other problems, please specify within a span of 48 hrs. directly to the moderator or else I'm willing to close it.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 14:46, 22 April 2017 (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.

Talk:Shenandoah, Pennsylvania

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by G0h4n123 on 15:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Shenandoah (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved G0h4n123 (talk · contribs) John from Idegon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Another editor believes the only news source based in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania isn't credible or worthy of inclusion in the borough's wiki page's Local Media site, despite documented evidence of the organization's existence, mission, structure, etc etc etc, from long-established local news source in the northeastern Pennsylvania. In fact, last night, another similar article was published by Allentown, PA's TV station. I haven't posted that in the Talk page yet, but I sincerely believe it'll go in one ear and out the other, so-to-speak, which is what led me to this filing. The site was originally removed by a 3rd party IP address which, prior to deleting the listing, referred to it as a "highly biased news source" and asked readers to do themselves a favor and not read The Shenandoah Sentinel. The edits were not done in good faith, and were thus reverted, which is where John from Idegon jumped in and blatantly ignored any explanation from my side, which began the dispute. (note, it is not my intention to insult/mock/etc in this article. If my words come across as such, I sincerely apologize. That is not my intention.) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Repairing edits made maliciously by a third party to remove the news source's listing or mock it's credibility/existence (one such edit referred to it as a "garbage news source." How do you think we can help? Third party explanation/intervention. Summary of dispute by John from Idegon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Shenandoah, Pennsylvania discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:North American_English_regional_phonology#Midland_as_part_of_Southern

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Wolfdog on 17:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:North American English regional phonology#Midland as part of Southern (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Wolfdog (talk · contribs) LakeKayak (talk · contribs) Emykp (talk · contribs) Klaxonfan (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello. Some editors feel (myself included) that, on the page North American English regional phonology, certain dialects of English should be grouped under the section "Southeastern United States" or "Southeastern super-region", following discoveries of the Atlas of North American English (ANAE), perhaps the most respected publication in the field. Other editors, however, disagree. Myself and others clearly see that this disagreement is based more on a "just don't like it" personal feeling than on any actual sources. The one source provided by the opposition is a YouTube video of a talk by the primary author of the ANAE itself, in which he simply doesn't mention the Southeastern super-region. They are making the logical leap that his lack of discussing the super-region in this one particular video is somehow evidence that he no longer believes in the existence of the super-region. This is an absurd leap. Meanwhile, Labov's ANAE clearly spells out the existence of the super-region; we have presented this writing to the other editors, but they don't seem to care to read through them. One editor has solicited several other editors in the hopes of "winning" the discussion by a majority vote, despite any real evidence being presented for their side. Myself and another continue to address the fallacies in their argumentation, but the discussion is becoming more and more circular. Respectfully, I worry that my opponents are simply not listening to reason. Just got an article called "One hundred years of sound change in Philadelphia: Linear incrementation, reversal, and reanalysis" out of my files, in which Labov again refers to the Southeastern super-region, this time as recently as 2013. Further evidence that it remains a valid concept. Wolfdog (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteers, how should this proceed? Should I be responding to the other users' summaries? They seem to be bringing up arguments that I've countered in the past, in some cases strawman arguments. I appreciate everyone's civility. Now, what's the next step we should take? Wolfdog (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? Myself and LakeKayak have presented our sources to other discussants, but they do not seem to be reading them. How do you think we can help? Please help us determine, is this really a fair discussion? Am I right in my assessment that one side is using a very credible source while the other is appealing only to personal feelings? Summary of dispute by LakeKayak Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The debate came down to whether or not "Southeast super-region" should be used. The term was used in the Atlas of North American English referring to the Midland and Southern American dialect regions with a few other dialects. Two users seem to have attempted to use a video lecture from Labov as evidence that the "Southeast super-region" is not an appropriate term and the concept of super-regions should not be used. Here are the exact words from one of the users. "Being from the mid-Atlantic region myself, I think it's stupid to have this super regions stuff." While I don't have a problem with the word "stupid", I think to call a concept "stupid" is to say "it just doesn't work for me". This violates the policy WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. On the other hand, Wolfdog and I have been trying to argue that the term "Southeast super-region" is not an original concept. If it were a concept that we created on Wikipedia, then I could understand how using the concept would violate WP:ORIGINAL. However, as it was a concept coined by a well-respected scholar in the field, I fail to see why it is not safe to use this concept.LakeKayak (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Emykp Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm going by some of the videos that were posted by a user named "BreakDanceSimon" This University interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m17s by Labov, who states that it's North, Midland and South." He does so here as well, in the same interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m51s In another interview with David Parkman, with over 1.5 million views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0--f89Qds&feature=youtu.be&t=16s Labov goes on to say there are 15 dialects in the US. but then breaks it down like this for super regions - "While there is however a distinction between the North, the Midland in between, and the South" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0--f89Qds&feature=youtu.be&t=1m3s - Labov goes on to say iowa is and area (which is part of midlands) that is missing some of the marked features of the north, northeast or south. All these videos are from the 2013. These interviews were given after ANAE, which was released in 2006. I think all of these add up that Midland is separate from a north, or south type system. Just my take. I'd also like to add one last thing to this. Wolfdog and LakeKayak seem to team up with these type of discussions sometimes, as seen on the mid-Atlantic talk page in regards to a move, which was declined (and asked three times within a year. two by Wolfdog, and once by LakeKayek, (a newer wikipedia user like me) with major backing from Wolfdog on the third, as noted by Wikipedia administrator Mike Cline). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mid-Atlantic_accent#Requested_move_21_February_2017 If I'm going to be accused of personal feelings, then I feel like I should point this out. As if maybe their teaming up for certain things in regards to this stuff, for favors with each each other for agreements on specific talk pages. Emykp (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Klaxonfan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Lake acutally redited and said parts of the mid-Atlantic are not part of super-region (where I'm originally from). I didn't think it was. I shouldn't of used stupid, but it was off to me that it was categorized that way. Growing up, I'd literally 'never' heard anyone say the local dialect sounded more like the southeast. Turns out it isn't part of the region. Regards to midland, Labov seems to categorize North, Midland and South as different categories in his lecture video. And that Midland is quite distinct from the South. Interview was given in 2013. Also, I was told this on and mIRC chat in en-wikipedia-help by a longtime editor when i asked a bout using a video as a source... can a youtube video be linked as a source if it comes from a credible channel? <+CosmicStorms> If it's relevant, yes. if and author said something in a book in 2006, and had a speech given at a university in 2013 that contradicted what he said earlier about a specific subject related to the wikiedpia article, could that override what he said earlier in the book source, since the interview is much more recent? could a talk discussion be possibly debated to change this if this were the case? i'm talking about and interview with the exact same author of the book from a university youtube channel <+CosmicStorms> It could. <+CosmicStorms> That is, it could about the override. thanks cosmic. i wasnt sure if youtube was considered a credible source or not, regardless of who was speaking in the video or if it came from a credible channel. I came off as a little agresive in the talk discussion, probably because the video seemed to be discredited, despite the fact that Lake and I had and earlier edit clash in regards to using a video as a source (which he won on New York City English page) and then both seem to dismiss the video outright. Not saying their wrong, but the video really does seem to categories North, South and Midland in different categories. There were a couple others such breakdancesimon and JordanAMSmith (original topic creator for all of this) that seemed to have a problem with grouping midland in with the southeast. Klaxonfan (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Breakdancesimon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have a similar opinion of what Emykp and Klaxonfan are stating. William Labov makes it so that these three "North, Midland and South" are in different categories. Labov states this in multiple videos. Seeing as how there are over 15 dialects in US english according to Labov, as he stated here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0--f89Qds&feature=youtu.be&t=16s , he has to be talking about Super regions when he says "North, midland in between, and south" He also clearly states that Iowa, which is part of the midland region, is missing the marked features of Northern or southern in that video that Emykp shared. I don't see how they could be in the same super-region of a NOrth, Northeast, or Southeast, because of this. It's worth remembering just because someone wrote something over 10 years ago, doesn't mean there aren't small corrections made here and there that and author may make over a period of time. Many authors do change opinions in regards to certain small things if new evidence does come to pass. This happens all the time. The videos that we shared are 7+ years newer than the book. Since it is the same author of the ANAE book that is being interviewed here, it should be looked into seriously. Also, I originally removed this from the Midland part: "/aɪ/ can be monophthongized before /l/, /m/, /n/, or /r/" under "A hierarchy of regions by phonology" because William Labov quite clearly states in this discussion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCJh8nFXBUE&feature=youtu.be&t=1h1m33s that this isn't the case - which is another case in which Labov possibly changed his opinion over a period of time. This edit I made in regards to this was re-added, despite the fact that there was to be a talk discussion about this before it was decided whether to re-add or delete this part. Why redo edits if there is a talk going on about that? Breakdancesimon (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by JordanAMSmith Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Restated position: I was the one who originally started this discussion. I was wondering about the validity of grouping Midland and Southern dialects together under the same "super-region" of the Southeast. This is because in earlier dialect studies (pre-Atlas of North American English) this grouping was not made. I also meant to discuss further how we should treat certain dialects that pose issues for classification, namely Western PA, the Texas Panhandle, and Savannah. Since discussing this with @Wolfdog: and rereading over the ANAE (Specifically chapter 11) I have come to decide that the grouping of Midland and Southern together as the "Southeastern Super-Region" is completely valid. The ANAE is the most up-to-date and comprehensive broad dialect study available, and William Labov is by far the most well-known and respected expert on the topic. In ANAE chapter 11 he provides a clear, well-defined phonological justification for the grouping. In discussion with Wolfdog I believe we have also worked out the issue with Western PA. Part of the problem here is that some users have brought up videos from Labov in 2013 (ANAE is 2005), stating the existence of a distinct Midland, South, and North. However, this is not contradictory with the ANAE: Labov is not denying the existence of the three dialect regions in the ANAE but rather grouping two together. Furthermore, Wolfdog has brought attention to another Labov paper from 2013, Labov, Rosenfelder, and Fruewald (2013) where he clearly mentions the Southeastern Super-Region again, indicating that Labov did not abandon the idea of the super-region between the publication of the ANAE and the creation of the lecture videos. JordanAMSmith (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Talk:North American_English_regional_phonology#Midland_as_part_of_Southern discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note There has been considerable discussion on the talk page. The filer should inform all parties about the DRN at their talk pages. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Did so. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Shouldn't Breakdancesimon and JordanAMSmith (who originally created the topic) be part of this as well? Klaxonfan (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Alright, I notified them. Wolfdog (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - As a previous volunteer has noted, the discussion on the article talk page has been adequate to begin moderated discussion here. However, the filing editor should notify the other editors. A template is optionally available for the purpose. Also, two other editors, as mentioned, should be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC) Done.LakeKayak (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing editor has not yet provided the required notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Hello. Again, I've already done this. All the players involved have been pinged on the disputed article's talk page. Wolfdog (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: OK, I see I missed two. I should have invited everyone now. It's hard to keep track of everyone! Wolfdog (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Comment. @Breakdancesimon: Labov has been reported to change his perspective. However, when he does change it, he usually has some form of a lead-in. One example is in the ANAE where he says as follows: "Traditionally, it was considered that /oh/ class words with vocalized /r/ were homonymous with the corresponding words without /r/. LYS (1972) reported that the distinction between source and sauce persisted: that even though native speakers thought they were the same, there was a significant tendency to pronounce the source class with a higher and backer vowel."Chapter 17. That's why at least I am weary to say that he simply changed his perspective.LakeKayak (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Comment. Is it possible that we find middle ground on this? Would it be possible to drop the super region discussion and list them each categorically by dialect? West, Canada, New York, Inland North, midland, mid-altantic/etcetc? Labov said their were 15 dialects in the US in that video. How a bout we list them this way instead of grouping them into super regions? Here's a map that wolfdog made that would list these as their own regional dialects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_English#/media/File:North_American_English_dialect_regions.jpg. That map could be used to number them on the main article page. We could still list what Labov states within each of the 15 dialect regions. Any takers? This conversation started months ago,and it's still very divided. Not to be pushy, but I'm kinda ready to move on from this. I really don't want to be talking a bout this a week from now. Sorry if I come off as pushy, but that's how I feel. Klaxonfan (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC) Question. How exactly is this middle ground?LakeKayak (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC) @Klaxonfan: I've already made the case that as a hierarchically structured encyclopedia (i.e. with sections, subsections, etc.), Wikipedia is conducive to organizing dialects that way (not to mention it is both convenient and well-documented), especially if there is hard evidence from dialectologists to do so, which there is. Isn't that the whole dispute? Some of us like the hierarchical organization and some don't? Also, that old map of mine you bring up you will notice I longer use on Wikipedia pages. I would delete it if I knew how. I've created a better one since, which is now on this page. As for the "15 dialects", he says there are actually "about 15 dialects". Dialects are not set in stone... they're approximate. You're opening up a whole new can of worms by now setting the number. Wolfdog (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC) It's middle ground because I wanted to use wolfdog's (the filer on this page) map as the basis to reorganize the page. Also, since both of you seem to do big edits (something I usually don't do) I'd let you guys decide on how it should be reorganized. Wolfdog seemed to say Labov is the one that came up with the super region stuff. I know on first hand after reading numerous books on US english, that no-one else I read list things as super regions. So this is absolutely not a homogeneous listing. They basically just talk about the regional dialects, such as New York, Inland North, Midland, the West and so on without grouping them into super regions. We don't have to number them a specific way. We could categorize them alphabetically or some other way. Or however you think would be the best without turning it into super regions. Would you be open to listing them how they were listed for 8 years of this article page's existence? Early example for this here ---> ( June 3rd, 2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_English_regional_phonology&oldid=216737692. And a later example here with laregly the same grouping ---> (June 4th, 2016) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_English_regional_phonology&oldid=723680115. Again, this conversation started months back, with much division in opinion in regards to this. I'd also like to get this resolved in the next 3-4 days if possible. I'm trying to call for some sort of middle ground if possible? Klaxonfan (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC) There are problems with both versions. For one, "New Jersey English" is not a dialect. I ought to know. I live in New Jersey. For another, the former version has a section "Northeastern dialects" and the latter has a section "Middle Atlantic", both of which are original concepts. While the initial post for this discussion was posted in September 2016, the second post wasn't posted until February and the third was posted a few days ago. From there, the discussion became lively. This discussion in a sense is only 11 days old and not 6 months.LakeKayak (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC) As LakeKayak implies, we reorganized this page to turn it from a less well-sourced article (with vague lumpings like "Northeastern dialects") to a more well-sourced article (with specific, well-researched categories like "Southeastern super-region" based on an easily verifiable and widely respected study in the field). Klaxonfan, what sources do you have to either (A) discredit Labov and the ANAE, or (B) support some better alternative way to organize dialects (maybe offered by some other linguist)? Using Labov's videos does nothing to discredit Labov's own writings. Rather than contradicting his writings, his videos smoothly align to his writings and/or just go into more depth in some particular topic. If he suddenly discovered that the Southeastern super-region was no longer a valid concept, wouldn't he be openly declaring that in his videos? Wouldn't he be announcing, "The discoveries of the ANAE have been shown to be inaccurate or obsolete?" Wouldn't this be making quite a stir within his academic community? Yet nothing of the sort has happened. A publication from ten years ago in the linguistics community is still very up-to-date. Consider how very long it takes to accumulate nationwide dialect research. It took the ANAE about a decade just to gather information before going to publication (from the 1990s into the 2000s). It would be quite a shocking, groundbreaking revelation if it turned out the Southeastern designation no longer remained within just over ten years of its discovery. That would imply that accents have altered to their core in dozens of major American cities simultaneously, all within the span of a single decade, and, just as surprising, no one has noticed this or published anything about it. Again: Can you find any definitive example of a scholar who either (A) argues against Labov, or (B) presents a better alternative look at dialects? I feel that you must admit that, so far, you have been unable to do either. Wolfdog (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Recuse and note I recently had interactions with LakeKayak which makes me uneligible to volunteer for thhis dispute. Is any other volunteer available? Please keep discussion at a minimum here before a volunteer has opened the discussion. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC) Comment. I DO NOT appreciate that LakeKayek is making changes on the North American regional Phonolhy page in regards to this topic wothout it being resolved. Is this not against the rules? We are not yet in agreement, and he's are already making changes to the article page which he prefers. If possible, I'd like and admin to look into this. *@Breakdancesimon: *@Emykp: Please give your views on this. He is changing things to his viewpoint that he is arguing for without any resolve on this page. This is very disrespectful. If you have noticed, all the disagreeing parties have waited it out before making edits in regards to this on the article page. Klaxonfan (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Yes, it is disrespectful. I'm still of the opinion that Midland should be in it's own category, as you mentioned in the post above. Midland was it's own category on the article page for over 8 years. And I think this aligns with what William Labov was stating in those videos, which he categorized Midland outside of both the North and South. Also, I worry that Lake and Wolfdog have some sort of pact going on in terms of reaching agreement, as I shown above in a comment in regards to how they reacted on the mid-atlantic page. The request move was asked three times within a year, despite it being on the same front talk page where it was asked each time. The admin specifically told them to please stop doing this Emykp (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC) @Emykp: I was never informed by an admin to "stop from doing this" as you say. The admin only said "Three RMs in slightly over a year suggests that this one should be left alone unless overwhelming evidence to the contrary surfaces."LakeKayak (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC) @Emykp: This "pact" is no more real than any pact you and Klaxonfan have. Just like you two, we sometimes cleave together when we have aligning POVs. No need to imply some conspiracy. I have both agreed and disagreed with LakeKayak in the past. I, like LakeKayak, have asked admins about RMs in the past and we are operating completely legitimately. However, you are resorting to an ad hominem attack about our past as editors, bringing up some completely unrelated topic. We both would like to see the page Mid-Atlantic accent moved and have advocated for this on multiple occasions; yes, this is true and it's no secret. But it also has nothing to do with this particular discussion. As for you and Klaxonfan, as I have now said countless times, you are making strange and non-sequitur logical leaps from this video. For the umpteenth time, I AGREE that "he categorized Midland outside of both the North and South". No one is categorizing the Midland INSIDE OF the South. How many times does this have to be said?? The issue is whether or not the Southeastern super-region is valid. Just because Labov doesn't mention it in some videos doesn't mean it's no longer valid. @LakeKayak: If the other editors want us to temporarily stop editing, we should honor that and hold off for now. Wolfdog (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC) I believe that LakeKayak should be dis-included in this debate now that he has edited the Wikipedia article page without clearing this up on the dispute page. And as I have already shown in the videos, I believe that the midland accent should not be put in any region with the North or south super regions. Labov categorized specifically a North, Midland and South in multiple videos. All over seven years after the book. I said this over a week ago and still believe in this, Breakdancesimon (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC) @Breakdancesimon: Don't jump the gun. We've only just given LakeKayak one warning. Your desire to disinclude him is too hasty; if edit-warring were occurring, that would be a whole other matter. Moving on... Why are we repeating the same arguments over and over again? You say "Labov categorized specifically a North, Midland and South in multiple videos." YES, we are all agreeing with you that the North, Midland, and South are distinct, and yet, NO, this is not mutually exclusive with what myself, LakeKayak, JordanAMSmith, and AJD are saying: that the Midland and South (and Mid-Atlantic) all fall under Labov's Southeastern super-region: an area of /oʊ/ fronting and no completed cot-caught merger. Do you deny this? You can seem to find no evidence to disprove this except to say that the videos are "All over seven years after the book" (i.e. the ANAE). First off: Labov has also published writings in 2013 (also seven years after the book), in which -- lo and behold -- he continues to use the Southeastern super-region as a valid concept. And second off: so what if the videos are newer that the ANAE? Dialect information that is a decade old is hardly obsolete, unless you can provide explicitly stated proof that it is obsolete. Show me where it is written (or even spoken) that the Southeastern super-region is no longer a valid categorization. Wolfdog (talk) 19:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Wolfdog, yes, it is a problem when we have a dispute page and people automatically start editing the said wikipedia article page without finishing the conversation on the dispute page. It shows complete disrespect. It should be 'common sense' to not edit a wikipedia page in regards to a speicifc topic if you hava an ongoing dispute page going on about said topic. As klaxon stated, all disapproving parties have waited until the dispute was settled before editing. NOTHING was changed onm the main page in terms of how I, along with Klaxon and Simon would like the page to redone into. I still stand by my beliefs that Labov in those videos that he wanted North, Midland and South is separate categorizes as Simon stated above. He did state that specifically in multiple videos. I also don't like your tone in regards to how you'bve spoken to me on this, in regards to us both having different opinions. I get attacked by you for having different viewpoints in regards to this, which I do not appreciate. You told me on the talk page that you were both "surprised and dissapointed" that I backed Klaxonfan. And you accused us on this page of being "personal" about this topic. You come off as someone that isn't willing to let other viewpoints be allowed from your own without resorting to such comments. Which is why I brough up the Mid-altantic talk discussion. And yes, on the mid-atlantic page, there was a conversation just a few months before the new one was brought up - a big conversation, that disagreed on moving the page. All three "moves" were on the same front talk page. The second one just a little above that last one, that was a few months earlier. It's disrespectful to have 3 conversations about that very same topic in a year period. It's like you aren't willing to accept the outcome until the viewpoint aligns with your own. And that to keep on trying multiple times a year is the disired outcome until your opinion sticks. I do find this highly disrespectful to all the others that ended up disagreeing with the moving, only to have mutliple talks of moving a year until your viewpoint comes to pass. An wikipedia dminstrator even stepped in and said that this topic was being brought up too much in the span of a year. I've noticed that about this dispute as well. Before you started charging me with getting "personal" or disappointed and surprised" in my views, I looked upon your opinion highly. Emykp (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC) This conversation seems to be going nowhere. I tried to find common ground. But it doesn't seem like that is working at all. I don't know what to state other than the topic is still deeply divided. I'd still like to if possible, to just list the individual accents instead of using any super region discussion. I take it wolfdog doesn't like this idea? It was like this for over 8 years on the article page. That's how it was categorized in most books that I've read on US related accents. Though I will admit most of these were from the 90s. Though one can make the argument that ANAE is over 10 years old now. I'd definitely would prefer to find some middle ground if possible on all sides so we can work together on this. And get this settled quickly if possible. Let's please stop shouting at one another, and of course not make edits that align with your views when we have a dispute page for this very discussion. It is demoralizing when we've had this long discussion a bout this, and someone makes edits when this dispute is still going on. I'll admit I was very upset when I seen this was happening. Simon and Emykp probably felt the same way. But at this point, let's please find middle ground. Thank you. Klaxonfan (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) I am sorry. I think I now can see how I stepped out of line. At the time, I only thought to reach an agreement with JordanAMSmith's concerns. Because regardless of this end result, it seemed like JordanAMSmith's point still needed to be handled. And on the talk page, I got no response against. However, I should have held off.LakeKayak (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Reminder The notice says to please keep discussion at this noticeboard to a minimum until a volunteer moderator takes control of the discussion. You already know that extended back-and-forth discussion has not worked at the article talk page, in that it has been inconclusive, so please wait for a volunteer moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Do not edit the page in question while we are waiting for a volunteer moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Do not edit the page in question while we are waiting for a volunteer moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Question Are the editors interested in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC) To be honest, JordanAMSmith, the original initiator of the discussion (not to be confused with the nominator of this dispute resolution discussion, which was me), has been able to come to a consensus with myself and others for the original problem being puzzled over. We're now on common ground and so, in one sense, the dispute is over. However, Klaxonfan and Emykp seem to want to continue the discussion. They can correct me if I'm wrong on that. What they say continues to be in dispute to what us others are arguing and so long as we talk with them, we seem to be talking in circles. If they want to continue talking, yes, I'd like a moderated discussion if only to hear an external and more neutral third-party perspective. Is that what a moderated discussion implies? Wolfdog (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC) I, along with Klaxon and Emykp still believe in what were saying. So no common ground was ever found. It;s still a deeply divided topic. Breakdancesimon (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC) First statement by moderator Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules and follow the rules. I will be the moderator if there is interest in having moderated discussion. Will each editor who wishes to engage in moderated discussion please make a one-paragraph statement of what they think the issues are? Any editor who does not wish to engage in moderated discussion may make a statement to that effect, or may say nothing, and silence will be considered to be acquiescence. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC) Maybe I'm confused, as I've never engaged talk on the dispute resolution board before. Didn't each user that wishes to engage in this already make a statement above in around 2000 characters or less in their "summary of dispute?" Can we go by those statements? It seems like most people here haven't changed their minds. Common ground was unfortunately not found. Breakdancesimon (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC) Robert McClenon: Like Breakdancesimon, I'm also confused. Do you want us to reiterate what we've already said above in our summaries but in one paragraph? Wolfdog (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC) First statements by editors The issue brought up by the editor who opened the original discussion has been resolved, but users are still debating whether North American English regional phonology should include a section grouping dialects under a "Southeastern super-region" (at the moment under the "Southeastern United States" section of that article). This super-region was documented, probably for the first time, in the 2006 Atlas of North American English by William Labov et al, the most respected publication on American dialects in the 2000s. Other editors have inferred that Labov's silence on the concept in some 2013 YouTube videos means he no longer considers the concept valid, but I have shown this to be untrue, since Labov uses the concept in writings of the exact same year. A second concern is that some editors wish to see the entire North American English regional phonology page split from four overall content sections (with the "Southeastern" section the most disliked without evidence) into some fifteen. I, however, think that this is excessive, that it does not take advantage of Wikipedia's reader-friendly layout of ordering by sections and sub-sections, and that it will result only in narrowly highlighting differences between various dialects, rather than a more thorough and comprehensive view of both differences and similarities (i.e. it would favor a "splitter" view, instead of providing a compromise of both the "lumper" and "splitter" views). Moderation is needed because we keep making the same arguments in circles, leading to no outcome/consensus. Wolfdog (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC) References Alright. Here I go. This debate has come down to over whether or not the concept of dialect "super-regions" should be used. The concept was used in the Atlas of North American English as a convenient way to analyze dialects. Exact reason against the use of this concept is rather unclear.LakeKayak (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Some of the statements above are lengthy and tedious. Yes, restate your position in one paragraph if you want moderated discussion. What is important is to state something so that I know that you want moderated discussion, since some editors are satisfied and some are not. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC) Second statements by editors Third statement by moderator Okay. It appears that there are questions about how to organize the presentation of dialects. At present the dialects do appear to be organized into four regions or super-regions, and subdivided into regions or sub-regions. It appears that there is some objection to the Southeastern super-region. If there is objection to the concept of a Southeastern super-region, what is its basis? What changes, if any, do editors want made to the listing and organization of regions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC) There don't appear to have been any comments by the editors. Does that mean that they are satisfied, and this case can be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Third statements by editors The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Crewcamel on 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Crewcamel (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We had an RFC to resolve a dispute. RFC: Do speculative candidates violate WP:CRYSTAL and should they be removed? When ignoring answers with no explanation vote stands at 4 no's and 8 yes's No one can agree what the consensus is. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Held an RFC. Waited a month. Tallied the votes. No ones seems very interested. How do you think we can help? Decide what the consensus is yourself Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020 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.

User talk:MrOllie#Why.3F

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:MrOllie#Why.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Doronenko (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I made a small refinement on the page Electric fence about a lethal electric fence EZOH used in socialist Czechoslovakia as a part of Iron Curtain till 1965. So 1. I added the abbreviation – EZOH 2. I added an authoritative reference to it. This link contains a PDF-file made by the archive of Czech Ministry of the Interior (so government organization, highly reliable source). The language of this document is Czech. This information can help anyone who is interested in the Iron Curtain topic. Then the user MrOllie just reverted my commit without any clarification and without any notification. I asked him about the reason of this strange revert but he just ignored me. I don't want to start any Edit warring so can anyone help me? Seems MrOllie is not inclined to discuss his actions. Thanks in advance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I asked him on his Talk page and he just ignored it. How do you think we can help? Someone neutral should ask this user what was the reason of his revert and then we need to resolve it. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:MrOllie#Why.3F discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Crewcamel on 05:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Crewcamel (talk · contribs) Awesome335 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The talk page on this article is very long and difficult to read comfortably. To help this problem i added another archive to the page and put already-resolved and stale discussions inside it. Editors are reverting my edits and and im receiving warnings telling me to stop being disruptive (from anti-vandal editors) I do not feel like im breaking the rules, in fact im even going out of my way to ensure that i dont break the rules. I learned how to create an archive just to help this talk page because it looks like vomit. (the actual article is slightly better). The talk page has its own ArchiveBot. Judging by the look of the page though it's clear to me that it isnt moving fast enough. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Removed dead discussions and put them in an archive called "archive 3" Removed resolved discussions as well Explained why i was making the changes. How do you think we can help? Tell everyone if the talk page is too long and filled with dead discussions Decide if i was right to remove excess discussions (and putting them in an archive) due to the bot taking too long. Summary of dispute by Awesome335 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Judaism and sexuality

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Deisenbe on 15:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Judaism and sexuality (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Deisenbe (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are many different varities of Judaism. See Jewish religious movements. The User:Debresser is a rabbi of one variety of Judaism, Haredi Judaism. Its position, and his, is that Judaism is totally defined by texts from centuries ago. What Jews do or think about Judaism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is to him irrelevant. He is totally inflexible and will not compromise on anything. Every edit I make he reverts. His variety of Judaism is that of a minority of Jews; the WP article gives 550,000 Haredi, though precise figures do not exist. The largest variety of Judaism since the nineteeenth century is Reform Judaism; the WP article reports 2,200,000 Reform Jews, though again exact figures do not exist. Debresser's position is that Reform Judaism is not Judaism at all, so Reform (or other varities) positions on Judaism and sexuality do not need to be discussed in the article, nor should they. I am personally not affiliated with any variety of Judaism, though I am much closer to Reform than Haredi. It's obvious on the Talk page that his claim (indirect) to have the only variety of Judaism, and his inflexibility pissed me off. But that's a side issue. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on the talk page How do you think we can help? Should I request formal dispute resolution? Call to dismiss by Debresser At WP:ANI I had posted a thread about Deisenbe's prejudice against religious Jews, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Borderline_personal_attacks. This post here is in the same vein, and I find it unacceptable to discuss a post with expressions of this nature on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Debresser Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Judaism and Sexuality discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Acceptance I will be taking this case. As a preemptive measure, I want to remind everyone to please keep personal attacks off of this discussion. ProgrammingGeek talktome 15:51, 1 May 2017 (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.

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Terrorist96 on 18:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory#Spirit cooking and leaked FBI document (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Terrorist96 (talk · contribs) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) Eggishorn (talk · contribs) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs) Slatersteven (talk · contribs) Objective3000 (talk · contribs) MjolnirPants (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute on whether or not to include the origin of theories mentioned in the article. The article mentions conspiracy theorist claims of things such as satanic ritual abuse, pedophile symbols used in company logos, and handkerchief codes. However, the article fails to mention the origin or the reason behind these claims, except for the handkerchief codes claim. It explains that the handkerchief code claim arose from "a widely-cited email mentioning a handkerchief with a "pizza-related map" however excludes any explanation for the satanic ritual abuse claim and pedophile symbols claim. This leaves a reader wondering whence the claims arose and any explanation of their origin is being opposed on the talk page. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Participated in good faith discussion on the talk page to understand users' objections to including the explanations. Rebuttals ranged from asserting the source as unreliable (though could link to no RSN consensus indicating as such), and avoiding giving the claim any explanation so as to avoid lending it legitimacy. Though no WP policy could be cited for objections raised despite repeated requests. How do you think we can help? Please determine if statements included in reliable sources like the NYT can be included in the article. And if not, what specific WP policy supports their exclusion. Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Eggishorn It is my understanding that DR is for cases where a genuine question of policy applicability exists, not a content issue that has been extensively discussed on the article talk page. All the information that Terrorist96 seeks is already available there and in talk page archives. It has yet to be established that there is a need for proceedings here. Especially as every other editor to comment has rejected T96's attempted changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There's extensive discussion of this matter on the article talk page, and there's no need to move this to another, longer, more complicated venue. An editor has proposed a change; other editors have objected, and the editor proposing the change doesn't appear to have a consensus (or anything resembling it) to make their proposed change. As far as I'm concerned, that's as far as we need to go. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Slatersteven I will address what the OP said, and not it's procedural validity. I do not think things are as clear cut as the OP suggests, his initial testament read like he wanted the article to say that pizzagate was based upon evidence from an FBI document (for example), and this is what people responded to. He subsequently explained that is not what he meant, and that he just wanted to mention that they had used an FBI document as a starting point. This may have been a poor choice of words on his part, but may have led to some users thinking he may not have been wholly honest about what he wanted or why. However some of the subsequent reasons for exclusion given by other edds read more like "I don't like it" then policy based, or an attempt at honest consensus building. But having said that the material does not (I think) improve one jot our understanding of how pizzagate came about, as it does not explain how they got from X to Y, only that they tried to claim that X is the same as Y (because it looks very similar). Thus I find that reasone for inclusion questionable. I tried to arrange a compromise (which the OP accepted but others rejected for the above (spurious) reasons) not because I felt it should be there but to try and arrive at a compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Objective3000 I don’t think this is the proper venue. But, since we’ve been brought here: Many people believe that pedophilia is among the most heinous of crimes. Here we have a conspiracy theory where numerous people are falsely accused, not only of personal pedophilia, but of operating a child-trafficking ring. Further, a major political party, its candidate for President, and its leaders are named as principles. Harassment and death threats have spread to other restaurants as far as NY and Texas. Bands that have played at the restaurant and even an artist whose murals are displayed there have been objects of harassment. And, of course, there was gunfire. This is partly why WP:BLP exists. This is clearly a fringe conspiracy debunked by all news RS. We must be very careful in such an article lest we lend any credence to the conspiracy theory. Mentioning an FBI report (which hasn’t even been authenticated) may give the reader some basis for belief in the theory. Mention is also WP:UNDUE since it is unauthenticated. I think the filer wishes to examine how the theorists came to their conclusions. We don’t even know if they believed what they claimed. We don’t know who they were. This is a rumor that grew on 4chan’s far-right messages boards, YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, and other social media and conspiracy sites. The theories have even gone so far to claim Assange was assassinated by the CIA to protect the accused and WikiLinks is now government controlled. Basically, this theory is a collection of the ramblings of anonymous folk on social media. Yes, we need an article basically describing the accusations. We should not add to their theories our own or others’ theories of their thinking processes or motivations. This piles conspiracy atop conspiracy. Delving layers deep into each of the many claims of a thoroughly debunked theory is WP:UNDUE, and presents WP:BLP issues. Objective3000 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants This is straight up forum shopping. This proposal has been shot down by every editor to have commented on it, for valid policy-based reasons. The only editor in support of this is the OP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: there's considerable discussion on the talk page for a dispute here. Filer is required to notify all concerned parties about the dispute on their talk pages individually. Optionally, the template {{DRN-notice}} could be used for this purpose. All participants must file a statement above within 48 hours of notification in at most one paragraph. Failure to do so will be taken as an indication that the editor does not wish to participate in this discussion. Participation is completely voluntary though. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Thanks. I pinged them all on the article's talk page, but I'll post on each individual's talk page as well.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party has notified the other parties on their talk pages. It should be noted that participation here is voluntary. It should also be noted that this topic is subject to ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions. Also, no reliable source has attached any value to any version of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so the only question is how to report on debunked statements and the fallacious backstories behind them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Yes, thank you for seeing the distinction. My intent is to solely include information on the origins of the theories so as to explain why they were claimed to begin with. I have no intention of arguing in favor or against the theories themselves.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Other views IMO this has no merit, the article cannot use bad sources to try to explain or normalize a conspiracy theory. TheValeyard (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Can you please link to RSN consensus that says The New York Times, Snopes, and The Inquisitor are "bad" sources? Thanks. Also please note that the handkerchief code claim is explained using the same NYT article I am trying to use.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Just a suggestion. You would do better here if you put up-front the changes you wanted and didn’t exaggerate comments by other editors. No one in the discussion has suggested that the New York Times and Snopes are bad sources. Inquisitor is an aggregator and not an RS. Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) @Terrorist96: I understand this to be a good faith attempt to resolve something you wish to dispute, but your comments/questions are moving in the direction of forum shopping. Please read this policy and consider how best to move on from here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)  Note to participants: All participants are requested to refrain from any discussion until all parties have filed their opening statement above and a volunteer has opened the dispute. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Acceptance and condition  Note to participants: I'd be taking this case up. Please read through these rules and recommendations which is a pre condition for my acceptance. If any party has any objection to any rule listed there, please state so within 24 hours after which I'll start the proceedings. Also, it must be noted that some editors have not yet filed their opening summary. If they do so within this 24 hours, they'll be considered a part of the dispute else I'll consider them not willing to participate. Participation is completely voluntary. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC) Objections raised by any party First statement by moderator There have been allegations of forum shopping. Has this matter been raised at any forum (whether conduct or content) before? Note that talk page discussion is a perquisite for a case at DRN and talk page discussion isn't considered forum shopping. Please reply below with a 'yes' or'no' providing a link to any other discussion that took place or is taking place at another forum. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Participants reply No. Only Pizzagate talk page and here; nowhere else. Thus, forum shopping seems to be an invalid objection.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC) No.Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Clarification Is the dispute primarily about the sources of the origins or on how to include the origins of the conspiracy theories? Please reply in one sentence below using a '*' to bullet your point. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Participants reply Not sure it is about sources of the origins so much as if this is even really how the theory originated, as I said inclusion of (say) the FBI document tells us nothing about how they cam to the conclusion Logo A looked like Logo B (and why they did not think logo C did). Much of this (such as the logos came about)looks like proponents tried to fish for more "evidence" and looked for anything that they could cram into it).Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The filer appears to want to explain the reasoning behind the conspiracy theory when there is no “reasoning”; only invented, absurd connections to back their claim that a major U.S. political party and its candidate for President were running a child-trafficking ring during an election. Objective3000 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The dispute seems to be on including the origins whatsoever, despite being covered in NYT and Snopes.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The dispute is about the level of detail we should delve into with this CS. Specifically, whether the article benefits from the addition of narrative about the earliest formation of the CS. Since this is not a widely held belief (it is confined almost exclusively to far-right circles, and even then, only those who are conspiracy-minded to begin with), and is not extensively covered in RSes, there's no need to go into detail. Meanwhile, the implication of us describing the origin implies a level of legitimacy to it which damages the article, even if peppered with negative adjectives, as proposed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC) More clarification  Volunteer note: @MjolnirPants: Can you be more specific and concise please? You seem to be talking about a bigger issue in general for which an RFC is a better alternative. Can you please refactor your comment above to be precise and to the point. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The first sentence directly answered the posed question. The next two contextualize that answer. I thought this was supposed to be a moderated discussion, not a moderated Q&A. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I'd rather have it in an organized Q and A form than having to moderate a non chronological discussion. You're free to use the threaded discussion section below for ' moderate discussion'. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The dispute  Volunteer note: The dispute is primarily on the origins of the conspiracy theories and how to report on them. Thus, actually discussing the level of detail to report in the conspiracy theories. Participants are reminded that I'm just a volunteer and my decisions are not binding but are mere suggestions. They're also reminded that sometimes compromise is necessary to reach a consensus. Moving on, please share your opinion guided by the relevant policies on why/why not the origins should be reported. Any participant who comes in late and has not replied to the previous discussion may do so as well if they think they have a distinct point to make. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Why/Why not should the origin be reported A short paragraph will help. Policies cited should support the point you make and not just weakly relate to the issue. Any references can be included using the template {{reflist-talk}} immediately following your paragraph. Unless and until someone can make a case that describing -in this level of detail- the origins of the theory provide some benefit to the article, then there's no policy-based reason for inclusion. It has been pointed out numerous times that there's nothing wrong with the article the way it stands. The filer has not disagreed with that at any point. Instead, the filer keeps trying to frame this in terms of the majority of editors trying to exclude reliably sourced information as if that exclusion is part of a POV push. In truth, the majority of editors have been entirely unconvinced by the filer that this information belongs. Those editors have also raised numerous questions about the sourcing and implications of this proposed addition, concerns which go unaddressed by anything but sarcasm. Right now, there's an argument to exclude this material (presented in my answer to the volunteer's last question), and no argument to include other than "I want to include it". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The origin of the theories should be reported because: they are noted in WP:RS (see: NYT mentioning the FBI document as the basis of the pedophile symbols claim, Snopes mentioning spirit cooking as the basis of the satanic ritual abuse claim and they would make the article more in-line with WP:NPOV by explaining the sides. Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought the purpose of a Wikipedia article was to explain the subject of said article. The sentiment that I'm perceiving by those objecting is that yes, we should have an article about Pizzagate because it is WP:Notable, but we should avoid explaining the subject itself because it is WP:FRINGE. Instead, the article is primarily devoted to debunking the theory and people's reactions/responses to it, which is fine. Such information should be in the article as it is pertinent. But just one paragraph of the entire article is devoted to the actual theory itself. And that one paragraph does a cursory mention of the theory and claims without any explanation (except for the handkerchief code claim, which somehow merits explanation, but the other claims don't). Because of this, I think that WP:DUE also supports its inclusion because it is the main subject of the article.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The filer points to WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. But, fringe states: The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight.. We are not here to promulgate and in any manner lend credence to fringe theories. There simply are no “significant-minority positions”. We do not need to explain in detail the reasoning behind flat-Earth beliefs. (Hey, it looks flat to me.) The Earth is not flat. This conspiracy theory is supported by zero RS and the supporters are anonymous folk on social media. Not only do we not know who they are, we don’t even know if they actually believe their own statements. Anonymous, clearly nonsensical, conspiracy theories unsupported by any RS add undue weight, and could cause, and have already caused, damage to a very large number of living people WP:BLP. The article already contains a great deal of detail. Adding more nonsensical rumors is not useful to an encyclopedia. I see no purpose in additional detail other than to suggest in the minds of the reader that "where there's smoke there's fire." Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the addon, but I had thought of bringing up WP:FRINGE earlier, but didn’t for a reason. Fringe speaks to theories that actually have historical and/or academic proponents. Flat-Earth, creationism, homeopathy, all manner of medical theories, etc. all have famous proponents. There is value in the understanding of the progression from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Einstein. But, WP:FRINGE warns about undue weight. In this situation, there is zero historical or academic support. This is beyond fringe. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC) The problem it seems to me is that does not "discus the origin" of the theory, it merely lists what they misrepresented. This (to my mind) adds nothing to out understanding of how and why they cam to their conclusions. As such I think it may well violate fringe as it is clear that is just what this theory is, no one but a few (anonymous) online "investigators" think that this is real (and there is a suggestion even they did not). Thus all we need to do is report what RS have said about their conclusions, not what they misrepresented. Also BLP means we have to be very careful about wording, and whilst the text I suggested was I think it might still give a tad to much weight to what is (after all) not even a verified document. We need to make clear these are unproven and indeed prooven to be wr5ong allegations, not repeat slander, even if we try to waesle word it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC) References Final statement  Note to participants: Thank you for the time spent in this DRN. The question whether the origins should be included is dependent on WP:FRINGE. Accordingly, the origins can be reported if reliable sources are available and it does not violate WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BLPFRINGE. However, Wikipedia functions on consensus and here the consensus seems to be against the inclusion. So, the origins shall not be included or should be trimmed down/expanded to a significant portion which is acceptable by consensus. If normal talk page discussions fail to discuss all majority view points, an RFC is the best way forward. Hence, in my humble opinion, the origins should not be included as per community consensus but, if the filer/any participant is still not satisfied, an RFC could be held and the respected projects notified to obtain the consensus of the community at large. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Objections/Comments If you're satisfied with the current resolution, please state so. Otherwise, point out your objections in a clear concise statement. If no comments are received in 24 hours, the case will be deemed to have been resolved. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I don't believe: "the consensus seems to be against the inclusion." is entirely accurate. I recognize the need for diplomatic language by DRN volunteers and I particularly commend @Yashovardhan: for their even-handedness here. That said, it is clear that there is a consensus aside from one hold-out, the OP. So the resolution:"the origins shall not be included or should be trimmed down/expanded to a significant portion which is acceptable by consensus..." is an invitation for further time wasting. Despite the efforts of the moderating volunteer, it leaves the article back in the same place it started. The second clause in the resolution should be dropped. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I understand what Eggishorn is saying, we must also AGF and hope that the OP will understand what is being said and will now drop the matter. I am happy to abide by the suggested solution here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I'm fine with the mod's summary, as well. No matter what they say, this discussion is either going to be over (the way it's supposed to work), or it's just going to keep going (the way it's not supposed to work). For what it's worth, I suspect the filer will abide by the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I will note that WP:NPOV states: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." With that being said, I have no further desire to continue litigating this. But I still fail to understand the logic of deeming the handkerchief code claim worthy of explanation, but other claims not worthy, as no one has attempted to explain such inconsistency.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Threaded reply Since when was this an NPOV issue? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Since I mentioned it in my reasoning for why the claim should be included, and since our volunteer noted that this falls under compliance with WP:FRINGE, which is under the NPOV umbrella. But please continue to ignore your cognitive dissonance of retaining the explanation of the handkerchief code claim, but not other claims.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC) So remove the explanation of the handkerchief code. Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I don't want to... I support its inclusion. The question is why none of you guys want to remove it based on the same spurious reasoning.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I don’t remember any such discussion. Objective3000 (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Well then that seems like a personal problem to me, as it's mentioned several times on the talk page and on this page too.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC) I do not believe I have ever suggested that I’m against removing anything about handkerchiefs. Objective3000 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC) If this is an NPOV problem in your view, then implicit in that is that the article is not presenting a fair interpretation of the CS. Since the article dismisses it as pure BS, the only logical conclusion is that you are asserting that this CS is not pure BS. If that's the case, then we should be dealing with this elsewhere and in a different manner. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Nice try. I already made clear that I don't take a position on the theory itself, as that's not my job as an editor. My job is to report what RS say. So by your reasoning, if I conclude that this is a NPOV issue, which our volunteer agrees with, it means I think the theory is "not pure BS", then by the transitive property, our volunteer should think that as well. Keep the personal attacks to yourself and remember to AGF. Accusing me of believing in the theory is a personal attack.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC) You can call it a slaughter of the innocents if you want: it's the only logical conclusion of your insistence that this is a POV issue. Your preferred content is to explicate the so-called reasoning behind the CS, and you're insisting that it's non neutral to exclude it. Personally, I do have an position on the theory itself: the position that aligns with what every single reliable source says. If you can't get behind that position, well, you know where the door is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC) And the RS note the origins. Just stop. We're going in circles.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC) This discussion is not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Next steps? Ok, since some of you are satisfied and others don't seem so, do you want me to pursue this discussion or close this DRN case? Will dropping the second clause "the origins shall be removed or..." Be acceptable to all? Yashovardhan (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Reply I'm fine with closing it. Personal attacks are strictly forbidden It's evident that there's no negotiating or compromising with such obstructionists who fling accusations your way based on faulty reasoning. Don't forget, @Yashovardhan Dhanania: you and I have been accused of believing in the conspiracy theory based off the simple fact that we see this as an NPOV issue. Terrorist96 (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Close. Objective3000 (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Close, if agreement is not possible (it seems it is not) then other avenues will have to be traveled down.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Warning @Terrorist96: This is your only warning, if you engage in personal attacks again, you'll be blocked from editing. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC) (DRN volunteer) @MjolnirPants: Terrorist96 has raised concern over your conduct pertaining to the statements made here and here. You are hereby warned not to engage in personal attacks or you may be blocked. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Threaded discussion Participants may continue threaded discussion here. This section won't however be considered by the DRN volunteer while meditating the dispute. Uncivil comments and personal attacks will be collapsed or removed without notice. Engaging in uncivil discussion will lead to warnings and may even lead to blocks/bans. Please refrain from discussing elsewhere. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (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.

Talk:Raheja Developers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 171.50.165.152 on 08:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Raheja Developers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sitush; Leoaugust; Tokyogirl (talk · contribs) Dispute overview hi This is further with reference to Wikipedia page of Raheja developers in India, I would like to inform you that the New York City wiki office has refused to take any responsibility of the content or deletion of my page and had asked to approach Wikipedia India. When I approached the President, Wikipedia India chapter, he too refused saying that he also does not have any control over the content or the server of the same. And refused out rightly to help in deletion of the page. Since then I have been running from pillar to post to find out who is responsible for this page. There are 2-3 wikipedia editors Sitush, tokyogirl and Leo August who have conflict of interest with Raheja Developers and are deliberately trying to malign and tarnish the image of the company. I have written proof in the email from leoaugust asking Rs. 40 lacs (4 million) who is trying to blackmail our company if the same is not paid.he is using your platform to do so. Request you to allow me send you the details of the proof confirming the same. Now can anyone please help me with finding the right contact in India for this page so that I am heard and my problem is addressed. I am requesting both the headquarters ( New York) and the India Chapter to provide me with the contact details of the person or forum with name, number and email id so that I approach them and resolve this issue for once and for all. I have been repeatedly requesting you all to delete my page and my trademark from there but in vain. Nobody is bothered to direct me to the right person. None of my mails get replied except the ones that says we are not responsible for any content up there. This doesn't work that way. I am once again summarizing what I want point wise: 1.Right contact with name, number and email ID 2.Deleting my trademark which is being used without our approval 3.Deleting my Wikipedia page completely Awaiting right guidance with right contact on my request from Wikipedia. Regards. Dimple Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have tried approaching the administrator through various mails, tweets and discussions on the talk page. My talk page is also kind of locked. i no more have access to the same.i approached India and the New york office but no body is helping in deletion of my page compeletly. the trademark used on the page is without my approval. the posts are negative and the references that are given are the website of the blackmailer who is a wikipedia editor. How do you think we can help? since i never want my trademark or my comapny name is misused by any such person quoted above, who have malafide intentions against us, I want complete deletion of my wikipedia page so that there is no more harassment, mental torture and physical stress. Summary of dispute by Sitush; Leoaugust; Tokyogirl Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Raheja Developers discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020#RFC_Jeremy_Gable_as_a_candidate.3F

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Crewcamel on 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Crewcamel (talk · contribs) Prcc27 (talk · contribs) Earthcent (talk · contribs) IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk · contribs) Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview TLDR: Im asking someone to step in and remove Jeremy Gable as a candidate and/or create a criteria for who's allowed on the page. Jeremy Gable (a small time playwright) is being included as a candidate in this article. I do not believe he has earned the respect necessary to be included. In accordance with WP:DUE i believe it is important that we refrain from granting him (and others) undue weight that they have not earned. A lot of editors disagree, they think we should include anyone with a wiki page who hints at a presidential run. If we followed that advice, we'd have to add Katy Perry, Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga among others. Please note that in March the article had ALL of these "candidates" and no one said anything because they didnt want to break the rules. MY POINT is that we need to draw a line somewhere for what merits inclusion. And "anyone who has a wiki" is not that line. If we don't the reliability of the page will be tarnished. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started an RFC about Jeremy Gable at the recommendation of some guy who was a moderator or something. Removed Jeremy Gable myself, got reverted. Questioned whether or not hes a natural born citizen or not. (hes born in england) How do you think we can help? 1. Step in and remove Jeremy Gable as a candidate and/or 2. Recommend a better criteria for who's allowed on the page. Summary of dispute by Prcc27 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Earthcent Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by IOnlyKnowFiveWords Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Vote 4 DJH2036 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020#RFC_Jeremy_Gable_as_a_candidate.3F 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.