Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 176

Talk:Muhammad bin_Qasim#Muhammad_bin_Qasim_and_the_Cursing_of_Ali

– Needs attention.

Filed by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim on 16:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC).

New volunteer requested

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim#Muhammad bin Qasim and the Cursing of Ali (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk · contribs)
• Kautilya3 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added a section on the page "Muhammad bin Qasim", about his role in the army before he invaded Sind. This section is now a subsection of "Early Life" under the title "Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim". This section was objected upon by Kautilya3. I have improved the section painstakingly, by adding many scholarly sources and editing text and title more carefully, but they still continue to act like a WIKILAWYER.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have asked for Wikipedia:Third opinion, but I got no response. I am a new user and therefore I don't know much that I can do to resolve this dispute.

How do you think we can help?

I hope you can protect it.

Summary of dispute by Kautilya3

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

Yes, it would be useful to have a DRN case on this issue because we have been deadlocked for a while. I have explained my position in Talk:Muhammad bin Qasim#Is it DUE?, viz., that this section "gives undue weight to minor aspects of [the article's] subject". So, as per NPOV, it should not be a stand alone section. Rather it should be integrated into the religious policies section that comes later in the article. It should also be considerably pared down. The OP has not agreed. Neither has produced any new WP:HISTRS that demonstrate the need for an increased weightage. He just asserts that it is important and we have to go by his word. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad bin_Qasim#Muhammad_bin_Qasim_and_the_Cursing_of_Ali discussion

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

This is how the disputed text looks like now:-

Proposed content. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Revolt of Al-Ash'ath and Muhammad bin Qasim There were several revolts against Umayyad rule after the events in Karbala. In the times of Al-Walid ibn Abd al-Malik, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf defeated and killed Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, the grandson of the first Rashidun Caliph Abu Bakr, in Hijaz[1]. After he established Umayyad rule over Hijaz, he was sent to Iraq where Abd al Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al Ash'ath, son of the nephew of the first rashidun Caliph Abu Bakr[2] revolted against him. An aged supporter of rebels and a Shia notable of the time, a disciple of the companion of Prophet Jabir ibn Abd Allah al-Ansari and a famous narrator of Hadith[3], Atiyya ibn Sa'd Awfi was arrested by Muhammad bin Qasim on the orders of Al-Hajjaj and demanded that he curse Ali on threat of punishment. It was after Atiyya expressed his support for the revolt[3] of Abdul Rahman. Atiyya refused to curse Ali and was punished[3]. While Maclean doesn't give the details of the punishment, early historians like Ibn Hajar Al-asqalani and Tabari record that he was flogged by 400 lashes and his head and beard shaved for humiliation and that he fled to Khurasan and returned to Iraq after the ruler had been changed.[4][5] . According to Chachnama, he participated in the invasion of Sind as an officer.[3]. Modern historians, like Yohanan Friedmann and André Wink, question the historical authenticity of such claims [6][7]. References: 1. G. R. Hawting, "The First Dynasty of Islam", ch. 4, 5, Routledge (2012)" 2. Hawting, G. R. (1993). "Muḥammad b. al-As̲h̲ʿat̲h̲". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E.; Heinrichs, W. P.; Pellat, Ch. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume VII: Mif–Naz. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 400–401. ISBN 90-04-09419-9. 3. MacLean, Derryl N. (1989), Religion and Society in Arab Sind, p. 126, BRILL, ISBN 90-04-08551-3. 4. History of al-Tabari Vol. 39, pp. 228, under "Those Who Died in the Year 111", State University of New York Press, (1998). 5. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, "Tahdhib al-Tahdhib", Volume 7, pp 226, narrator no. 413. 6. Friedmann, Yohann (1984), "The origins and significance of the Chach Nāma", Islam in Asia: South Asia, Magnes Press/Westview Press, pp. 23–37, ISBN 978-965-223-521-3 7. Andre Wink (2002), Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam 7th-11th Centuries, Brill Academic, ISBN 978-0391041738, pages 192-196. Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

On the wikipedia page, you label that the neutrality of this section is disputed, while here in talk, you dispute it's importance, because you know that it covers all aspects.

As far as importance is concerned, it can be disputed for any topic. Muhammad bin Qasim himself was a teen soldier, whose every move was controlled by al-Hajjaj, sending him a letter every 3rd day while on campaign. There isn't any scholarly book written specifically about him by any historian. So, someone could dispute his importance too. Therefore, we have to rely on the scholarly work about Umayyad history or other topics involving him. There are many scholarly sources discussing al-ash'ath specifically, but none focusing Muhammad bin Qasim.

I have explained the importance of this event in the person's early life, but you refuse to agree because you don't intend to agree no matter what. Your first objection was that I did not cite modern sources, when I cited them you did not stop there.

If it is about undue weight, then edit the label you put there. Neutrality means something else in the common sense, and you want to imply that not undue weight. You are misrepresenting the label, and it is a case of WP:WIKILAWYER.

As far as putting it somewhere down the page, I explained to you that it is about a historical event in his early life, a revolt in Iraq and his role as an Umayyad officer. It was perhaps his first task in Umayyad army. It has to be included where it belongs.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Volunteer note: Hello, I have volunteered to mediate this. This is my first mediation and although I am relatively inexperienced, I believe I can help this discussion move forward. After a quick review of the discussion on the talk page, I believe both parties have an appreciation for policy and approaching the topic academically. Maybe all we need to find a way forward is a fresh perspective. Although you have posted your own argument summaries, you should each please feel free to make an opening statement below as mediation has begun. I ask that we keep the openings short. I will immediately begin compiling my own interpretation of events and the controversies involved that I will post here. I hope to clarify the points of disagreement so as to prevent talking past one another and to move forward in way that is consistent with wikipedia policy and guidelines. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 18:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement by Kautilya3

The filing party is a relatively new user whose interest seems to be, judged from his contrib list, adding Shia-related content to various pages. Muhammad bin Qasim is on my watch list and, when an addition is made to it, I would check if it adheres to Wikipedia policies and relevance to the page, and revert it if it is not. That is what happened in this case, after which the filing party reinstated it multiple times and wrote to me on my talk page asking "why to hide a fact?" Here he said I am WP:WIKILAWYERing.

The initial discussions were about sourcing, PRIMARY vs SECONDARY, and HISTRS. I am a firm believer in HISTRS for historical matters. Only trained historians know how to assess and interpret the historical sources available, and decide what to accept and what to reject. We on Wikipedia are simply incapable of doing that. We are not required to be trained historians and most of us are not.

After the sourcing issues were essentially settled, the discussion moved on to whether it was WP:DUE, which is where the current dispute rests.

Muhammad bin Qasim is a famous personage in history as the one who introduced Islam to South Asia. As the Umayyad commander acting under the authority of Al-Hajjaj (the Umayyad Governor of Iraq or the "viceroy of the east"), Qasim conquered Sind, which is essentially the present-day Pakistan. Many in Pakistan regard him as the "founder of Pakistan". This is what his biography page focuses on. His conquest of Sind as well as its subsequent governance is seen in an overall positive light by the well-informed historians. The Umayyad caliphate was beset with various Shia, pre-Shia or proto-Shia rebellions around this time. Whether Qasim was involved in suppressing these rebellions is not known. I haven't seen any information that he was. However, one of the rebels, Attiya, was apaprently in Qasim's jurisdiction and he was ordered to punish him, which he did. The question is how much WEIGHT to give to this one incident in Qasim's biography page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement by Dr. Hamza Ibrahim

Dear Kim Jong Undo, first of all I would like to thank you for your time, and the effort you put in reading all the discussion we had on the Talk page. I hope your unbiased view would help us reach an agreement.

There is very little scholarly work available about the life of Muhammad bin Qasim, as he is not so important historically, unlike what Kautilya3 has claimed without citing a single source. Islam was introduced to the subcontinent 62 years before he was sent as a teen commander by his uncle. Also Pakistan was founded by Jinnah in the 20th century, and we are talking about a teen soldier from 8th century. Therefore, we have to consult scholarly sources that deal with the events he was involved in. If we are writing his short biography, we can not ignore his first assignment in the army. That assignment is connected to a revolt in the heartland of the Ummayad Empire . This revolt is so important that it is extensively studied in scholarly literature, as cited in Talk. Iraq was in the middle of the Umayyad Empire while Sind was on the border. If you compare the number of sentences focusing his attack on Sind to what I have written in the final draft, you will see which part needs to be shortened.

It is not about religion, or right or wrong. It is about early life history of the person.

On the details of the punishment: I have added them from the paragraph in early scholarly sources cited by Maclean in his "Religion and Society in Arab Sind". Maclean did not add these details because his focus is the history of Arab Sind, not Muhammad bin Qasim. I can remove it if this is the only thing they want to be removed and if you too think that the details of punishment should be removed. I think it is necessary to include the details to show their impact on the psychology of the teen commander. If we don't know the details, we can not picture the event as it was, which will only add confusion about the nature of the punishment.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: After thoroughly reviewing the discussion, I would like to make one point: I have absolutely no subject-matter knowledge of what this discussion is about. However, I remain confident that this discussion can help—my ignorance should only help me maintain impartiality. I am not interested in coming to terms with the subject matter of the discussion—I intend on only facilitating the discussion of how each issue may be civilly resolved.

As I reviewed the talk page, I could not help but notice counter-productive behavior from both parties. That is irrelevant to the discussion here. We are starting fresh.

The issues, as I understand them (please feel free to correct me):

• Compliance with WP:HISTRS.
  • There was an assertion made that primary sources must be validated with secondary sources to be compliant with WP:HISTRS.
  • There was a debate about what qualifies as a primary or a secondary source.
• There were concerns about the validity of Chachnama news
• There was a WP:PROPORTION concern about including the content at all.
  • This concern rested on an assessment of the attention the added information has received in history books.
• There was a concern that excluding the edit presents a one-sided picture contrary to WP:DUE.

Along the way, there were responses from both parties to accomodate the other's concerns, including re-wording, researching, and finding and citing more sources. Without diminishing Kautilya3's efforts at carefully reviewing Ebrahim's work and the relevant policies, I want to recognize the extent to which Ebrahim has tried to accomodate Kautilya3's protests. I also want to recognize the extent to which Kautilya3 has provided constructive feedback and represented wikipedia policy. Both parties have made substantial investments in this section and the future of the article.

On a personal note, thank you for introducing me to WP:WIKILAWYER. I did not know that had a name and I find some of that page rather hilarious.

I believe it would be most constructive to address the issues in the order that they were presented. If anyone would like to do things differently, please let me know. I am open to suggestions. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 19:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS

•  Volunteer note: @Kautilya3: would you please succinctly and specifically state your concern as it pertains to WP:HISTRS with the revision as it now stands? --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 19:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Kautilya3

The present discussion is more about WEIGHT than sourcing. There are only two sentences in the proposed content that are relevant to Muhammad bin Qasim and are worthy of being included in his biography page. I have highlighted them here. Both of them are sourced to McLean, who is perfectly fine as a HISTRS. The filing party, however, wants to add the details of punishment, which are sourced to primary sources (Al-Tabari etc.) These are not HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Dr. Hamza Ebrahim: Ebrahim, would you mind instead starting the discussion at considering weight? My apologies for the delayed response, my pre-occupation with other matters should be over now. I will familiarize myself with the nuances of WP:WEIGHT while you make your reply. Not that I am presuming the proposed content runs afoul of WP:WEIGHT, but since I've heard a bit of Kautilya3's argument on this point—I feel it is only fair to offer you an opportunity to make a brief case for how the proposed content doesn't violate WP:FALSEBALANCE or WP:UNDUE. If you would do so immediately below, that would be great. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 02:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Dr. Hamza Ebrahim: Maybe it would be more constructive if I was more specific. The page is about Muhammad Bin Qasim, yet I find myself agreeing with Kautilya3's[1] of which parts of your proposed content are actually about Muhammad Bin Qasim. Since the page is about Qasim and not Atiyya, all but the sentences highlighted there do not belong on Qasim's page. Eliminating all of the information provided that is not about Qasim, we have: "An aged supporter of rebels and a Shia notable of the time, Atiyya ibn Sa'd Awfi was arrested by Muhammad bin Qasim on the orders of Al-Hajjaj and demanded that he curse Ali on threat of punishment. Atiyya refused to curse Ali and was punished[3]." However, it is very clear that these two sentences are still about Atiyya rather than Qasim. How is it not the case that these sentences belong in Atiyya ibn Sa'd rather than on Qasim's page? --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 02:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

Response by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim

@Kim Jong Undo:

Let's keep one rule in mind, we have to interpret wikipedia guidelines according to common sense WP:UCS. The entire section belongs to Muhammad bin Qasim, it describes the background of the revolt and then his role in it. It does not give unnecessary details, as those are for the separate pages on the revolt. We can not say that the only sentence that carries his name belongs to him.

Now how is that? Let me explain:

Look at the other sections of the page that deal with his job in Sind: does "Muhammad bin Qasim#Umayyad interest in Sindh" belong to him? Does it belong here or on the page Sindh? What about the section on Military strategy that was laid out by al-Hajjaj? Does it belong here or on Hajjaj's page? Using common sense, we know that these section belong here if they are kept brief. A brief introduction of background, a brief description of the role of his mentor al-Hajjaj does belong here, because all he did was had a context, a chain of events.

Now when we look at the role he played in an earlier event, the revolt by the family of the first Rashidun Caliph Abu Bakr (the man who ruled the entire Muslim world), we are obliged to give few details and we don't need to put his name in each sentence. As I have explained in the Talk page, this revolt was a part of a series of revolts that eventually ended the Umayyad dynasty. It was led by Sunni nobles, and backed by Shia nobles.

It was not just a random event. The family of Caliph Abu Bakr has been politically very active in opposition to the Umayyad dynasty. His daughter Aisha played key role in the revolt against Uthman, his son Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr against Uthman and Muawiya, his son Abd-ar Rahman against Muawiya, his grandson Abdullah ibn Zubayr against Yazid and was finally killed by al-Hajjaj.

In order to interpret Wikipedia's rules for this section, it is helpful to see how are they interpreted for the other sections of the same article. Kautliya3 has said that this page is on there watch list, have you looked at the sources cited in the rest of the article? The weight given to minor details and the speculative history described in them? It would be pity to write thousands of words about his attack on Sindh (which most people in Sindh see as an invasion, except a fascist Wahhabi minority who somehow link foundation of Pakistan to this event and not to the earlier annexation by Harith ibn Murrah), but not write a balanced and unambiguous passage about his first assignment.

Now you will understand why I said that there is WP:RGW and WP:WIKILAWYER going on, (only for this section though :) ). If we look at the page the way Kautliya3 is looking at this section, then the page does not belong on Wikipedia because this teen was just passing orders of Hajjaj to troops. He was not an independent commander. And this is how he is treated in Scholarly literature. So from Kautliya3's point of view everything written on the page belongs to a subsection on the page Hajjaj.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Dr. Hamza Ebrahim: Thank you for your thorough response. If I may, I would like to make sure I read your response correctly—you believe the entire paragraph to be important and notable contextual information to understanding Qasim. You also analogize the paragraph to the way other content is treated on the page to prove this point. You provided additional context for why this revolt is important, because it is part of a series of revolts that ended the Umayyad dynasty. I don't believe this was your intention but you then compared the notability of Qasim's attack on Sindh with the notability of his first assignment. Please let me know if I have mischaracterized or misunderstood anything.

I would like to remind everyone of Rule #4 of Staying Cool. I believe it's the most underrated wikipedia help page. I find that I need to constantly remind myself of the limitations of textual communication.

At this point, I think it may be good to remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an exhaustive expose of WP:EVERYTHING. Editors must make decisions about what to include and part of these decisions includes assessments of WP:WEIGHT as well as where that content belongs. I believe that this is a great start to this conversation and I believe the next step is to examine the rules that apply before we determine whether they apply to the proposed content in this particular case. I don't think I'm making a controversial statement when I say that we haven't come to a mutual understanding of the rules involved.

I believe the concern is that your proposed content gives too much attention to an event that is otherwise insignificant to developing an introductory understanding of Qasim. To use your examples of Muhammad bin Qasim#Umayyad interest in Sindh and the section on Military strategy,:those sections are about what Qasim did as a leader and are therefore pertinent to his page. Aside from the sentences highlighted by Kautilya3, the proposed content discusses either Yusuf or Atiyya, not Qasim. In the sentences highlighted, Qasim isn't even the main subject. It seems to me that the significance of the event is analogous to the firing of an employee that would later become an important figure. That firing may have been a pivotal moment in the employee's story but perhaps not in the employer's story—though it may be worth mentioning in the employer's story, depending on the prominence of the fired employee.

I do not know the significance of these revolts or of the punishment of Atiyya, however, since the revolts do not have their own page and are not mentioned on Atiyya's page, since the proposed content is less developed and less prominent on Atiyya's page, and since Atiyya's page pales in comparison to that of Qasim—I am inclined to agree with the determination that even mentioning Atiyya's punishment is giving the incident undue attention. I also, and perhaps this is my failing, fail to see how punishing Atiyya provides contextual information about Qasim. Had Qasim punished a prominent figure such as Martin Luther King Jr., I would be inclined to agree that there is contextual information there, and even then, it may not be necessary to do more than to mention the incident—but Atiyya does not strike me as a historical figure of that level of prominence. In fact, looking at the relative strength of Atiya's article compared to Qasim's, it seems that including Atiyya on Qasim's page risks increasing Atiyya's prominence in a way that is inconsistent with his historical prominence. Such additional prominence is a form original publication. That is fundamentally against wikipedia's purpose.

The incident with Atiyya may be important, but is the importance and the value the proposed content brings to Qasim's page worth the risk that the content provides undue publicity? I haven't made up my mind one way or the other, yet. I have only attempted to frame the issue. Though not an exhaustive list, I believe I would find the following persuasive:

• Evidence of Attiya's punishment being routinely mentioned in encyclopedic entries of Qasim.
• Evidence that the incident was a pivotal historical moment, either for Qasim or for the entire region of the world that he conquered and ruled.
• Evidence that Attiya's page is underdeveloped without good reason (though, the fact that it is underdeveloped indicates that not enough editors care or know enough about Attiya to rectify the situation).
• Evidence that Attiya is actually a more notable historical figure than Qasim.
• Some other reason.

My apologies if the above was already discussed and I missed it.

Dr. Ebrahim, you have clearly spent a lot of time on the proposed edit and the final version is an impressive work. This discussion, regardless of result is not a reflection of that. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 19:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)(edited for more consistent indentation 20:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC))

Brief reponse by Kautilya3

The Muhammad bin Qasim page says Muhammad bin Qasim is often referred to as the first Pakistani according to Pakistan Studies curriculum. I am not passing any judgement on whether it is right or wrong, but merely state it as a measure of significance attached to Qasim's conquest of Sind. The Attiya affair is nowhere in comparison. Trying to equate the two is unreasonable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim

I will like to ask both of you to cite the scholarly work not what someone has written somewhere on Wikipedia, as it might be incomplete or not in line with WP:HISTRS. What is important in scholarship is important for Wikipedia.

Yes the Wahhabi jihadist literature in my country Pakistan glorifies Muhammad bin Qasim. Pro- Umayyad Wahhabism backed by petro-dollar is one of the reasons why we have terrorism in Pakistan today, although most of Pakistanis are pro-Abu Bakr Sunnis or pro-Ali Shias. The Pakistani-Wahhabist claims of a superhero bin Qasim are not backed by scholarship. Wikipedia is under development and will improve by the time. However, Wikipedia has to present a complete picture. What may not be impoirtant for Wahhabists, but important for Sunnis or Shias, needs to be included. 90% of Muslim population of the world belongs to these two main branches of Islam.

Kautliya3 has mentioned something about Pakistani school curriculum that is written on Muhammad bin Qasim's wikipedia page, is it a scholarly source as per the standards described by Wikipedia? Why was not it removed from the page? Many such things were added in curriculum in Zia ul Haq's era to produce wahhabi militants for Afghan or Kashmir war. Kids were taught "k for kalashnikov". Therefore Such speculative content in legacy or other sections needs to be removed. Ironically it has not been removed.

You think Atiyah is not important, never mind because:

1. The revolt is important.

2. Resistance of Caliph Abu Bakr's family is important.

3. Cursing of Caliph Ali as state policy is important.

4. Beating of a old man, even if he is not important, beating him for not cursing Ali is important.

5. Abu Bakr and Ali are far more important in the eyes of Pakistanis and in the eye of history of Muslims than Muhammad bin Qasim.

6. Muhammad bin Qasim's first assignment is important.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Dr. Hamza Ebrahim and Kautilya3: It seems we are heading down the wrongroad. If there is currently some sort of bias in Pakistani news or history education and it is documented, then that seems like it could be the content of an interesting contribution to wikipedia. However, that content goes beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's get back to the proposed edit.

Dr. Ebrahim, in considering weight, I think it best to presume your information is verified and true. If we need to have a discussion about sources then we can have it later. Assuming the truth of the proposed content, we need evidence that Atiyya deserves a mention in Qasim's article, to overcome the fact that Atiyya's own article is a 12 year old start level page. I want to respond to what you just wrote that I deleted, Dr. Ebrahim—I do not believe it is enough to state that something is important, e.g., "The revolt is important". I am skeptical of that because, as far as I can tell, the revolt doesn't even have its own wikipedia article. If it was important, what impact did it have on other historical events or persons? In particular, it would have to have an impact on Qasim to be relevant to where you would like to insert this information on wikipedia. Why was the resistance of Caliph Abu Bakr's family important? Why was Muhammad bin Qasim's first assignment is important. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 00:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim

I am open to discuss new wording based on the core points. The core points are Muhammad bin Qasim's involvement in the state imposed cursing of Ali, and it's context, that is the revolts of Caliph Abu Bakr's descendants.

Hereby the wikipedia article that you are looking for, on Abdur Rahman and his revolt:-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Rahman_ibn_Muhammad_ibn_al-Ash%27ath

If the revolt had succeeded and Hajjaj arrested, Muhammad bin Qasim's mission would be called back and he would be arrested too. Great impact!

The issues that have been discussed in length in the talk don't need to be raised again.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Dr. Hamza Ebrahim and Kautilya3: It seems that there is some information about this rebellion on wikipedia. However, there is no mention of Qasim in Ash'ath's article and there are no mentions of Atiyya there either. One thing has become clear to me: if the rebellion is to be mentioned at all, it should be attributed to Ash'ath, since according to his page, he led it and according to Atiyya's page, Atiyya was just a supporter. Even then, the rebellion wasn't successful and its only significance to Qasim is in the hypothetical. It doesn't seem like an incident of much consequence to me. Perhaps, it merits a single sentence in Qasim's article, though I remain unconvinced of the value of doing so. Ultimately, though, this must be decided between the two of you. Kautilya3, does this change anything for you? More specifically, do you have any recommendations for what could change your mind? --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 02:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Kautilya3

Indeed, the rebellion is quite notable, but there is nothing known about Atiyya's role in it. As far as I can tell, the rebellion and its suppression happened before Qasim's time. One stray supporter who had fled to Qasim's jurisdiction (either Fars or Sind, the sources are not clear) was punished by Qasim. This is not a significant event of Qasim's biography. If it were the case that Qasim was engaged in extensive persecution of Shias, then a section devoted to it would have been DUE. (This is something I accepted right off the bat.) But no information has come to light to indicate that Qasim was engaged in persecution of Shias. So, I agree that deleting the whole affair from this page is the right thing to do. It can be covered in Atiyya's page. That is about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim

How funny that the mediator does not seen to have read the disputed text. It is mentioned that the rebellion was led by al-ash'ath. Yes it deserves a mention and it has been mentioned. The next thing is the cursing of Ali and that is mentioned too.

The link that I provided you was also mentioned in the disputed section but you ignored it on purpose.

Now you are basically advocating one side like the absolute truth and opposing the other no matter what they say, and this is not mediating. Trying really hard to find excuses to hide these facts. You claimed to have read the talk on the page as well as the text, but now you need me to remind you of them.

It seems like you guys discussed outside wikipedia before coming to discuss here and start to act like you are unbiased, while refusing to accept the obvious facts. This is not helpful.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Dr. Hamza Ebrahim and Kautilya3: Dr. Ebrahim, I am sorry that I have made you feel this way. Editing is supposed to be fun. I hope I have been respectful, at least. I will review your input on this page and the talk, to see if I have missed a link.

The wikipedia ideals, policies, and guidelines are binding for all editors. If we do not objectively consider them when they are relevant to our edits, we run risk of changing wikipedia into something it was never meant to be. If you have an alternative understanding of WP:WEIGHT or if there is something you know that makes the proposed content compliant with it, please explicitly state it.

I hope I have not lost sight of why we are all here, at this noticeboard. It seemed that the two of you were talking past each other and resorting to slinging accusations regarding each other's motivations. Some of that has continued here and now some of it has been leveraged against me. However, this is not the place to review editor behavior. This noticeboard is for content disputes. We are here to settle the matter of whether the proposed content should continue to be published where it is. As with all content on wikipedia, it must be compliant with policy to remain there.

Unfortunately, the burden falls on the originator of the edit to provide how they determined the proposed content meets WP:WEIGHT considerations, which is probably why you feel attacked. In truth, you have an opportunity to prove the merits of the proposed content as it relates to WP:WEIGHT. My approach seems similar to Kautilya3's because I understand the policy similarly, however, I am open to alternative interpretations, but I am not a mind reader. My current understanding has lead me to the current inquiry, which I found was not addressed in the talk page and which you have so far avoided here. I would also like to clarify where my current understanding of policy has lead me: I have never intended to refute facts. And I think if you look back, you will find that I have always presumed the truth of all of your assertions. I have only intended to challenge your judgement of the importance of the proposed content, with the aim of understanding what this judgement is grounded in. To be clear: I am open to learning how you understand WP:WEIGHT and how it should be applied.

If you are entirely dissatisfied with how I have approached this, you have the right to ask for another volunteer and I will withdraw from this discussion altogether.--KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 16:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Response by Dr. Hamza Ebrahim

Dear Kim Jong Undo!

The primary importance in the proposed scholarly credible text is given to the revolt of al-Ash'ath and the state policy of cursing Ali. Intentionally, you divert focus on other things even after I told you what were the core points. As far as Atiyya ibn Sa'd is concerned, he was a member of the intellectual elite of the first century of Muslim history, the group which is referred to as the narrators of Hadith. The Muslim civilisation is based on the hadith narrated by these individuals. He is also the one who pioneered the Arba'een Pilgrimage along with his mentor Jabir ibn Abd Allah. This is a 1400 year old tradition of visiting Karbala. So he is not important for pro umayyad wahhabis but he is respected among Sunnis and Shias. However since you came with a korean name, I assumed that you might be mediating without any knowledge of his importance and I did not stress his historical importance. But your insistence on Kautilya3's excuses, your attempts to repeat the same discussion that is already available on the Talk page and your refusal to admit the importance of the revolt and cursing of Ali made me doubt your impartiality.

I think I will like to wait for a neutral mediator.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: @Dr. Hamza Ebrahim and Kautilya3: Thank you for humoring me gentlemen! It's been fun. I have learned a lot in the process. I will withdraw from this dispute immediately. I wish you both the best. --KIM JONG UNDO | CONTACT 18:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much Kim Jong Undo. It was a very good effort. I have learnt much from how you frame your arguments. It is a pity they didn't work in this situation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your time!

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

• Do, any of you seriously think that any new volunteer will be willing enough to drag themselves to read these text-walls? ∯WBG^converse 08:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Winged Blades of Godric, Perhaps their purpose was to make the discussion so lengthy and the water so muddy that no genuine mediator would dare to sort it all out.

Dr. Hamza Ebrahim (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - I will leave this case open for a few days to see if another volunteer is willing to moderate. However, I am not optimistic, and do not think that there will be another moderator. It is difficult enough to get volunteer editors to moderate any dispute, let alone one that has had a moderator where there was already a mismatch between the case and the volunteer. The length of the statements being made by the editors is a problem. (It may illustrate editors who are trying too hard to "win" the content dispute.) If no one volunteers to pick up this case within 72 hours, I will close it as failed. I will remind the editors that any dispute about anywhere in modern Pakistan (at any time in history, before or after 1947) is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the India-Pakistan-Afghanistan ruling. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the editor feel better, but do not clarify the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:G. Edward_Griffin#%22False_Theories%22

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Wikitam331 on 13:45, 17 June 2019 (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:G. Edward Griffin#%22False Theories%22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Wikitam331 (talk · contribs) Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs) Hob Gadling (talk · contribs) Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We are discussing whether or not the word "false" should be removed from the lead section sentence, "He is the author of The Creature from Jekyll Island (1994), which promotes false theories about the motives behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System." Have you tried to resolve this previously? A survey. How do you think we can help? Determine a clear consensus for the result of the discussion. Summary of dispute by Nomoskedasticity Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. To answer Robert McLenon's question: it's yes/no re whether to include "false". This is non-negotiable if we are to be a fact-based encyclopedia. If we remove "false", we aid and abet the impression that Griffin's ludicrous ideas are simply "theories" (in contrast to false theories), meriting consideration alongside competing theories. The consequence of Wikitam continuing to peddle this crap really ought to be a topic ban. In any event, there's no point in DR here -- in the fact-based world, the issue is not in dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. We need not call them "theories". But if we do, the word "false" is needed to counter the inappropriate boast of "theory". "Baseless speculation" or "wild fantasies" may be a better wording. But I agree this is not a matter for dispute resolution. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Moderaters should not waste their volunteer time on this case. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 05:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Talk:G. Edward_Griffin#%22False_Theories%22 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 discussion on the article talk page. The other editors have been notified. Is this a dispute that can be resolved by moderated discussion resulting in compromise, or is this a yes-no question about the word "false"? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2019 (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:Waskom, Texas

– 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. Filed by WhisperToMe on 08:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Waskom, Texas (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved WhisperToMe (talk · contribs) Mkativerata (talk · contribs) John from Idegon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There was a vote from the Waskom, Texas city council to ban abortion, even though abortion is allowed nationwide as per a Supreme Court ruling; this was covered in national newspapers. As of writing it is too early to tell how often/whether coverage of the same event will continue at national, statewide, and local levels. The question is whether this vote is a significant enough detail to include in the history of the town. One editor argues that as per WP:NOTNEWS it is not significant enough, while myself and another editor disagree. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I notified WikiProjects Texas and Politics, but not enough attention has come to the issue How do you think we can help? Help clarify whether/which events are significant enough to include in a topic on a small town which has a small population and ordinarily rarely gets national media coverage Summary of dispute by Mkativerata Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by John from Idegon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Waskom, Texas discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There are two problems, one of which can be solved, and the other of which can be ignored or addressed. The first issue is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors. The second is that this appears to be a yes-no question, so that moderated discussion may not be likely to led to compromise. This noticeboard is primarily for moderated discussion leading to compromise. If this is a yes-no question, a Request for Comments may be more effective. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC) The filing editor has notified me and the other editor, by pinging us on the talk page of the article. It is a yes-no question, and in this case one side is clearly correct. So I agree there is likely to be little scope for "moderated discussion". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC) Ok! In that case I'll try an RFC. RFC has been filed. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2019 (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.

Prince Edward Island

– 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. Filed by Sookie7 on 14:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Prince Edward Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sookie7 (talk · contribs) Simonm223 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There has been an ongoing dispute among several editors on this page as to the correct term to use in English (Persian or Farsi). According to the main Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language) and The Academy of Persian Language and Literature, "Persian" should be used in English, not Farsi. This dispute has an affect on all pages where Persian/Farsi is used and should be resolved in General. Editor Simonm223 has not engaged on the talk page, but has reverted my changes two times. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have referenced several reliable sources including the Wikipedia main page and The Academy of Persian Language and Literature. I have seen no engagement or acknowledgement of the sources. How do you think we can help? A definitive decision needs to be made regarding the proper usage. The authoratative source should be used, and not the opinion of editors. Summary of dispute by Simonm223 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This isn't a dispute. This user tried to edit-war in a statement that goes against the cited source because of their WP:OR, up to and including hitting the WP:3RR brightline. They were not just reverted by me but by other editors with PEI on their watchlist. This user needs to pay more attention to WP:RS and not insert their opinion over reliably sourced information. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I will not be commenting on this further here; it's a waste of my time and that of whatever mediator decides to take it on. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ivanvector Curiously I was not named as a party to this dispute, nor were Doug Weller, Meters, bonadea, nor Moxy, all of whom have tried to address Sookie7's concerns (and those of Xoltron from a month or so earlier in the same section). As I stated on the talk page under the section where Simonm223 did respond, the source used for this statistic (the 2016 Canada Census) explicitly categorizes this metric as speakers of "Persian (Farsi)", brackets included. Neither Persian nor Farsi, but both. The Census authority, Statistics Canada, does not elaborate on their definition of "Persian (Farsi)", but that is the statistic we have. Respondents to the census were not given "Persian" and "Farsi" as separate choices, the available choice was "Persian (Farsi)", and that's the option that 175 respondents chose. We must repeat the statistic as the source presented it, without further unpublished analysis. Sookie7 (and Xoltron before) wish to remove the word "Farsi" from the statistic because it's a native word for the Persian language and thus improper English. Their argument is irrelevant as I've explained above, but to the point anyway: Doug Weller has listed the OED definition of Farsi (demonstrating that it is in fact an accepted, proper English term, if dated), and as Meters further explained, this is a formal term used in Canadian government publications. The choice of title for our Persian language article isn't relevant here, besides the fact that the article explains in the first sentence that Persian is also known as Farsi. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Doug Weller I agree with Simonm223 and Ivanvector - and Moxy who edited after I started this post. If we have a source, we cannot decides ourselves that we like some of a label it uses but not all of the label. I've seen this before with census data, editors trying to interpret the classifications into their preferred terms. The authoritative source for the census is the census, not some other body. Wikipedia articles are not sources and in any case Persian language#Persian language name in English seems pretty pov]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Moxy Not sure why such a problem.... all we should be doing is regurgitating the sources and in this case both terms are used so all should be satisfied as both terms appear as they do in the source. --Moxy 🍁 15:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bonadea Thank you for pinging me to the discussion, Ivanvector. I agree with the summaries presented by Simonm223, Ivanvector, Doug Weller, and Moxy. To address a comment below, the Academy of the Persian Language and Literature is not an authority on the English language. The issue here is whether "Farsi" is a word in English, and/or whether it is the appropriate term here; the answer to both questions is yes, as shown above. --bonadea contributions talk 20:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Meters I'll also add my thanks to Ivanvector for being pinged to the discussion. When this issue was first (as far as I know) raised almost four months ago, the complaint was simply that "Farsi" was not an English word. I undid the edit with an edit summary showing that the preeminent source on what is a Canadian English word (the Canadian Oxford Dictionary) does define it as an English word, and that "Farsi" is actually used in the source that we cite [2]. Prince Edward Island is a Canadian province and the cited source is a Canadian government document so the use of a Canadian dictionary seems most appropriate in this case, I believe it was Moxy who later updated the article wording from "Farsi" to "Persian (Farsi)", the actual wording used in the cited source. This direct usage of the source's wording seems optimal to me. It's a compromise, and rather than Wikipedia taking a stand on which term is appropriate in this article we are simple quoting the source. The OP wants a decision on the use of Farsi "on all pages where Persian/Farsi is used" but this is is not the appropriate venue for such a discussion, and involving just the most recent two editors from one article is not the way to make such a decision. Meters (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Prince Edward Island discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Is this an issue for which moderated discussion can be conducted leading to compromise, or a yes-no question that is better resolved by a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC) I believe this is a yes/no question. If the source is incorrect, should we continue to propagate incorrect information in Wikipedia? The other editors who have commented are dismissive of The Academy of the Persian Language and Literature as being an authority on this issue. If someone answers a census in an incorrect way, I think we should at least highlight the mistake. If someone answered "Espanol", would we report that in English as "Espanol" or "Spanish"? This just leads to increased confusion as many persons are using the word Farsi in English instead of Persian. Sookie7 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC) What you need to understand is not all countries use the same words. Like the difference between "Us" and "I" both are used to denote ones self....yet in North America "Us" usually means more then one person. You have to understand in Canada as seen here in the press a specific term of art is used... in the case of Statistics Canada they use both as we do here that seems like the most viable way to present the term(s) this way all varieties of English readers understand.--Moxy 🍁 20:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Bonadea, The Academy of the Persian Language and Literature is an authority on their own language. I don't think it appropriate for you to tell Persians what to call their own language. That's for them to decide. It seems that Simonm223 is not happy with this dispute and has deleted information related to this dispute on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language. He has also inserted a comment " Irrelevant trivia. A bunch of American propaganda outlets plus two media outlets in Europe, one of which (we should note) is not an English one, aren't expert opinions in etymology" I don't think this is productive this, and it's derogatory. I request that editor Simonm223 stop making edits regarding this topic as he is no longer neutral. Sookie7 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Unfortunately, one of the editors that has commented on this dispute has engaged in wikihounding, and I will now have to withdraw from this dispute, as I no longer feel comfortable with this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment It also seems that Ivanvector is pinging only editors that agree with his point of view in order to stack the vote. Sookie7 (talk) 23:32, 24 June 2019 (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:William Lane_Craig

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Squatch347 on 16:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:William Lane Craig (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Squatch347 (talk · contribs)
• Theroadislong (talk · contribs)
• ජපස (talk · contribs)
• GretLomborg (talk · contribs)
• Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs)
• Hob Gadling (talk · contribs)
• PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

These disputes started initially with the removal of a long standing quote on the William Lane Craig page. This was a quote and topic that had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years. It became a hotbed issue for a number of editors and resulted in changes being made to the page absent discussion on Talk or consensus. In the last few days it has attracted a number of new editors who have begun removing whole sections of the page absent any discussion on the talk page or clear wiki policy supporting the change.

I have little confidence given the emotion and POV level on the talk page that a rational discussion of these edits will occur. I think a return to status quo ante (say 20 may or so) would be a good place to start discussion on proposed changes.

I should highlight that there is no current "no changes allowed' type arguments here, the request has been for discussion on talk prior to removal of long-standing and repeatedly agreed to content.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have proposed three different suggested text changes to the relevant sections and proposed criteria for the removal of some content as recommended by editors. I have supported removal of several sections for streamlining and published relevant secondary sources when asked. Finally, I've been prompt and courteous in responding to requested changes on the talk page and not escalated discussion with personal attacks, but rather ignored several personal attacks and derogatory comments.

How do you think we can help?

I believe an emphasis on collaborative editing and a reminder of the wiki policies around biographies by Admins would help calm down the topic a bit. The debate appears to focus more on individual editors' attitudes toward the biography's subject than objective editing, so some monitoring of those edits would help as well.

Update: As Robert McClenon prepares to evaluate this case I'd like to update this requested assistance section to be more in line with where, I think, the discussion has evolved to and what the primary matters of contention are. I would propose this [3] as my summary of the issue at hand (specifically the second paragraph onward). The difference seems to be that some editors feel that any discussion of any topic, even in included in a WP:RS, that isn't fully confined to their conception of philosophy should not be included. The question comes down to, if a topic is published by a reputable source, should we be the arbiters of whether it is "vetted" or not?

Secondarily, I think mediation can help us work through the points proposed by [User:GretLomborg|GretLomborg] as points of consensus [4]:

1. William Lane Craig is a philosopher and a theologian, he is not a scientist.
2. Philosophy and theology are not pseudoscience.
3. The ideas of philosophers or theologians do not require the recognition of scientists to be covered in their biographies, even when they reference or comment upon scientific theories.
4. The article William Lane Craig is not a science article.
5. The overriding goal of a biography article should be to accurately describe its subject, his life, and his work. Following that goal is what is best for the encyclopedia and its readers.
6. The article William Lane Craig is a biography.
7. It is right and proper to directly attribute William Lane Craig's thoughts to himself in his biography.
8. As a biography of a philosopher and theologian, the article William Lane Craig should cover his thought. Examining the list of featured and good articles from the Philosophers [Biography] Task Force, this is common practice (e.g. Søren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology, Bertrand_Russell#Views, and Karl_Popper#Philosophy).
9. None of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas should lack coverage, or have their coverage minimized, in his biography because an editor disagrees with them or believes them to be mistaken. That conflicts with the overriding goal of a biography to "accurately describe its subject, their life, and their work." In a biography we describe their ideas (and reactions to them) from a neutral point of view, even when we think their ideas are wrong.
10. The standard of inclusion of William Lane Craig's philosophical or theological ideas in the article should be: can the idea or position be attributed to him based on WP:RS, keeping in mind WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARYCARE. Sources from philosophy and theology are acceptable and sufficient. At one point, though perhaps not now, the William Lane Craig article was in dire need of further secondary sourcing, which I wholeheartedly support.
11. It's right and proper to reference criticism and critique of William Lane Craig in his biography if it can be reliably sourced and is not given improper emphasis.

Squatch347 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Theroadislong

The article has been in a VERY poor state for some time, with far too much unsourced or primary sourced POV trumpery. All attempts to remove this have been reverted. This [5] would be a good place to start again as suggested by User:ජපස. Theroadislong (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ජපස

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

I reject this dispute resolution as the summary is not written neutrally. If the proposer would rewrite it WP:Writing for the enemy, I will consider undergoing dispute resolution. jps (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GretLomborg

I got involved with this article when I noticed nearly every sentence in a basic biographical section was being challenged as "". Many of those facts were already sourced and easily verified in nearby references (sometimes ones even attached to the same sentence). I thought that was odd, so I spent a little time adding relatively easily found references for things like degrees held, etc. I've since been watching the page, and have seen this dispute unfold. My involvement has been limited to some clarifying comments on the talk page, and some reversions of a couple large deletions (one of nearly the entire article content).

The article's subject appears to work extensively in atheism/theism debates, and that's a recipe for conflict as we're seeing now. It appears that some editors object to the subject's ideas [6], and are attempting to excise as much article content as they possibly can, sometimes using spurious Wikipedia policy arguments to do so, or by claiming that sources don't support it without making a serious attempt at verification. I think that, despite whatever anyone thinks of the article's subject or his ideas, they should be summarized and represented neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely in his own biography article.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
After doing some research, it appears that one of the most disruptive editors in this dispute User:ජපස/jps has previously been topic-banned from a topic that he probably considers similar to the one of this article (see [7] [8]). He is being uncivil and aggressive by being snarky and sarcastic with other editors whom he opposes and not assuming good faith (see [9] [10] [11]). His behavior on this article may be a reprise of his previous problematic behavior. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: As of now [12], pretty much every sentence of the intro, biography, and career sections has one or more supporting cites to either a secondary source or a WP:BLPSELFPUB-acceptable source. This includes sections other editors wanted to WP:TNT. Other sections that were proposed to be WP:TNT'd appear to have always had support via secondary sources in WP:GENREFs (e.g. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's page on the Cosmological Argument), and I suspect that most if not all of the gaps can be filled in with secondary citations to academic book reviews in theology or philosophy journals, though some of those may only be available in print. I appeal to all the editors involved to make a good-faith efforts to find secondary sources and add inline citations. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Update 2: tl;dr: This dispute has been very fast moving, and I think we're past the WP:TNT stage. However I think it's still necessary to emphasize that in the biography of a philosopher/theologian, the subject's ideas should be summarized neutrally, encyclopedically, and completely. Even if every fiber of an editor's body is opposed to those ideas and their whole field of study, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_opponent and WP:OPPONENT mean they should still be included, and WP:BIASEDSOURCES means theological and Christian sources are acceptable, at least to outline the subject's views and reactions to them within that part of his academic community. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bill the Cat 7

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

Overall, I agree with Squatch347. The problem would half solved if we just removed the accusation of genocide. One person unjustifiably accusing another person of supporting genocide because they got their panties in a bunch is irrelevant, not noteworthy, and it just doesn't belong in a BLP. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling

It is easy to find out that the claim that the topic "had three prior talk page discussions with consensus over the last few years" is simply not true. There was never a consensus, there were always the same two sides, with various representatives, and the discussion just stopped in each case without anybody changing their stance. There are some users, like the filing editor, who want to keep every inappropriate part of the article that makes the person Craig look good and his opponents look bad, and who achieved that in every case by sheer persistence and by misrepresentation, instead of valid reasoning. For some reason, all except two of the recent editors who were anti-Came-quote (Theroadislong and ජපස) have not have not been notified here: User:AzureCitizen, User:Guettarda, User:FreeKnowledgeCreator and me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by PaleoNeonate

I am not used to DRN but have promised to look at the article so am offering my assessment. Apologetics are currently presented unduly like if they were mainstream scientific breakthroughs. There is no need to expand on what the Kalam argument is, for instance, to say that the author is a notable proponent. Another obvious problem is that most is editor commentary on the author's primary sources, rather than summaries of third party reviews of his work. —PaleoNeonate – 22:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Note by Drmies

This article, after the most recent revert by GrettLomborg, is in a terrible condition. jps's cleanup made sense to me. However, if jps wants this to be resolved, he should probably refrain from posting unacceptable personal attacks like this one. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:William Lane_Craig 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 discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought the template notified them. I have updated everyone now. Squatch347 (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has notified some but not all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - I will try in the next 24 hours to open this case for moderated discussion, but first:
  • • Stop editing the article.
    • Stop the personal attacks.
    • Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, although I have not yet started moderated discussion.
    • Stop editing the article.
    • Stop the personal attacks.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

I will try to moderate this discussion, at least for a little while. The article has been fully protected for a week. Leave it alone. After the full protection expires, leave it alone anyway. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules, and comply with the rules. Be civil and concise. Both civility and conciseness have been in short supply on this article. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements are not useful. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors.

Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think should be done to improve the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

My proposal for article improvement would involve two major areas of focus. 1) Review of the section currently called "Apologetics" to reflect areas of Apologetic positions and philosophical works. The goal of this would be to make the page more consistent with other philosophers' pages. See Alvin Plantinga or Daniel Dennett for example. In that effort each major section should be made concise, covering primarily a brief summary of the position, its notable points, and notable publications on the topic. 2) Referencing notability, a table of public debates and notable talks should be included. This is the main source of Craig's non-professional notability and warrants reference. The table should include; participants, topics, locations, notes. - Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Note: I copied Squatch347's sig up here to maintain readable attribution, as the latter half of his comment was rearranged to be at the bottom. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The article can be improved by looking for third-party independent sources which discuss Craig's ideas and only including an explanation of the ideas about which third-party independent sources have commented. Furthermore, when an idea of Craig's is in the purview of a particular epistemic community (say, science, for example), the only third-party independent sources which should count are those which are produced by members of that community (say, scientists, for example). If there are no sources which comment upon a particular idea of Craig's from the relevant epistemic community, we should not include the idea in the article. jps (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the article can be improved by fleshing out the "Apologetics" section (once more-neutrally labeled "Research" prior to this dispute) to give an appropriately complete account of the subject's thought and work. That is what's best for the readers of the encyclopedia and the article. Other content goals may take priority on other parts of Wikipedia, but not in a biography. The subject is clearly notable as a philosopher and theologian ([13] [14] for a few examples), and per WP:NNC, it's inappropriate force the article content of his biography to be subject to further notability evaluation. Furthermore, it's inappropriate to require some other field (e.g. physics) to validate the subject's thoughts and views in order to include them in his biography: if they can be verifiably attributed to him, they should be permitted to be included, regardless or whether they are correct or incorrect in the judgement of some editor. They're his thoughts, and one reads his biography to learn about them. I think this is the core issue, there are smaller implementation details that I won't get into now. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A small note to the other editors here and the moderator. I will be offline as part of the national guard until 30 June. No issue with continuing resolution without me in the meantime of course, but I didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them if questions or concerns came up. Sorry for the delay. Squatch347 (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator

Okay. I had meant to ask each editor to give specifics about what they want changed in the article, and so I will do that now. However, here is a summary of what the editors have said:

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research.

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.

3. Look for independent third-party sources.

4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.)

Will each editor please comment on those four points briefly?

Comments about what should not be included are not helpful unless they request to omit something in particular that is in the article.

Will each editor please list one or two specific changes that they think should be made to the article?

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibhly renaming it as Research.

Rework? Yes. Rename it "research"? No. That's a POV-push. jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.

I see no purpose to this. WP:NOT#CV.

3. Look for independent third-party sources.

The most important thing we can do. These sources should be organized by their levels of independence and they should be from the relevant epistemic communities if they are talking about Craig's specific ideas.

4. Compare Craig's article to that on Plantinga. (Plantinga, like Craig, and unlike Dennett, is best known as a Christian philosopher.)

No. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good game to play.

jps (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research

NO.

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks.

NO.

3. Look for independent third-party sources.

YES the article still needs to be dramatically hacked back to what can be sourced from independent reliable secondary sources. On 12th June, out of the 124 sources, 71 were primary sources to his own book or website, this is not acceptable.

4. NO WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Theroadislong (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research

   If "apologetics" is challenged, possibly that "views" may suit. Research suggests serious (possibly scientific) research and would be misleading.

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks

   Per WP:NOTCV, instead of a table, if some have particular notability they should be mentioned.

3. Look for independent third-party sources

   Absolutely, work about that already started.

4. Compare to the Platinga article

   The other article may itself need work, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS indeed applies. However, WP:BLP and MOS:BLP are more useful. —PaleoNeonate – 15:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Rework the Apologetics section, possibly renaming it as Research

   Yes rework, but from a starting point closer to the pre-dispute version ([15]) than current version.

   I personally think the section should be named something along the lines of "Philosophy and Theology." "Research" is ok (it's not an activity limited to science and science-like activities), but I don't prefer it.

2. Provide a table of Craig's public debates and talks

   That seems like too much detail to me.

3. Look for independent third-party sources

   Yes, but in compliance with WP:NNC and understanding that WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.

4. Compare to the Platinga article

   Yes, and perhaps others. WP:Some stuff exists for a reason.

- GretLomborg (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator

One editor proposed four points of work. Those four points have been rejected, so we will not go there. I would like to thank User:GretLomborg. Proposing four changes that other editors don't want was useful. Now we have narrowed the field of changes.

Now, will each editor please identify one or two proposed changes that should be made to the article? List changes that have not already been discussed and that other editors can agree with or disagree with.

Third Statements by Editors

Note to moderator: the previous proposals were made by User:Squatch347, not me. I tried to fix a sig problem with his comments, which may be the source of the confusion. I also think the second round was closed before one side of the dispute could comment (as User:Squatch347 is on vacation and I didn't see the updates until now).

Here are some news proposals:

1. Re-integrate recently-removed content back into the article from the pre-dispute version [16], so that any issues with it can be discussed in this process. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit," (the matters here aren't "contentious matters related to living people", e.g. "John Doe is a racist axe-murderer"). If we can't do that, I think this process will have difficulties resolving the dispute.
2. Since it's universally agreed that the article would benefit from more secondary sources. Editors in this dispute should find secondary-source support for at least one sentence in the article that needs it. I've been doing this, and it isn't too hard. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

New proposal:

1. WP:TNT the article and start writing only using third-party independent sources. Sources written by Craig and his acolytes can be worked in later.

jps (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator

First, I apologize for having misread the authorship of certain comments.

Second, since some of the suggestions were made by an editor who is on temporary military duty, I will put this dispute on hold until the end of the month.

Third, there have been suggestions that the article be stubbified and rewritten from scratch. If a consensus of the editors agree, I will close this dispute with a resolution to stubbify the article.

Fourth, if there is a non-consensus, where at least two editors holding one opinion and at least two editors holding another opinion is a non-consensus, then we will either have to fail this dispute or formulate an RFC, and I would prefer an RFC.

Fifth, within the next week (not 48 hours, due to military leave hold), any editor may propose any change that can be put into an RFC, or can make any recommendations for changes to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth by Editors

Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying.

I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me.

As for RfC propsals, here are mine:

• Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)?

- GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I just noticed this page. I would oppose WP:TNT. I don't see that the article is too puffy. It points out that he's been accused of defending genocide, for example. However, I do think that more of the critical reaction to his views could be worked in; it is not hard to find since he debates bazillions of people who criticize him. I think it would be good if such material could be worked into the actual discussion of his views, rather than being in a "reception" section. I also think that Craig comes off in the article as purely an apologist, when in fact he has done work on theology that is not apologetic in nature (e.g., his work on the doctrine of the Trinity), and he has made general contributions to philosophy of time and the topic of Platonism that aren't specifically religious. All that gets lost in the current article, and that gives the reader a wrong idea about the scope of his work. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The article as it is currently written is a marked improvement over what it was. I believe, but am not certain, that GretLomborg and Squatch347 would like to move it back towards the direction of being an exposition of Craig's treatises rather than an attempt to tease out which of his ideas have received third-party reception. As you point out, it should not be hard to find critical reaction to Craig, but the problem has been that although I have tried, it does not look like there is much desire on the part of the other editors to gather third-party sources (and, indeed, there has been some pushback as to whether this is really the most important thing we can do right now). WP:TNT is offered by me as an alternative, but I would much rather engage with source gathering, TBH. I can tolerate WP:TNT. I will not abide by whitewashing. jps (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with jps. Returning to the old hagiography is not what we should do. TNT or adding third-party sources. Any new non-apologetic stuff should be sourced to other people too. If such sources do not exist, if it is not important enough for anybody else, then it is obviously not important enough to include here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

What, specifically, was "hagiography" in the previous version? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe my assessment at the top could be useful to understand, —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't hagiography; most of what was there was accurate. It should not use primary sources, but I think everyone obviously agrees with that, since that's basic WP policy. But Craig is mentioned 90 times in the Stanford Encyclopedia article on the cosmological argument, so we can say as much about his view as we like with that as a source. Some of the stuff from the earlier version was unsourced, such as his view on inflation, and unless sources can be found that should come out of course. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Calling the pre-dispute version a hagiography is an extreme exaggeration, and such exaggerations are very counterproductive. Also, I do not think these statement sections are meant to be discussion forums. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree to accumulating more third party sources. Jps had already presented some, I added a few more today and intend to add a few more tomorrow. —PaleoNeonate – 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: I believe that this is the section that was set aside for back-and-forth discussion, so I'm going to reply to you here.

I want to be clear that I'm absolutely agreeing that we should not be relying on primary sources. We should instead rely on the best expert discussion we can find, and that's not popular-level stuff. The experts on his scholarly work are other experts who have summarized and commented on it. There's no reason we cannot use those sources. JSTOR alone has over 500 search results for his name. Scores and scores of book reviews will provide professional summaries of those books. Scores of critical articles will provide reactions to his work. There's no need for OR on Craig or Synth of Craig's work. But we do have to summarize the best possible sources, and those are scholarly sources, which are overwhelmingly abundant in this case. Popular-level material is much, much less reliable.

As for detail, I don't really understand how there could be too much detail about the subject of the article. I mean, if relevant info is in RS, why shouldn't we use it? The more well-documented info the better, it seems to me. But I'm open to hearing why this is not the right approach. Can you say what you're worried about with "too much detail" assuming that the detail is in RS? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right about this section, thanks. The moderator may of course move my comment (and even restructure it if needed). —PaleoNeonate – 02:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding: it's mostly a question of accessibility and weight (with tertiary sources also a good guide there). WP:VNOTSUFF is also relevant, as well as WP:NOTCV. A third party reader with high-school or college level education should be able to have a good idea of the main topic in a few minutes; the sources and/or linked subarticles are extra-material if they need more. If we also consider avoidance of WP:FALSEBALANCE where relevant, there's no need to have extended pro/con material all along... —PaleoNeonate – 02:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: is there somewhere in RS that his views (all of his views? some of them?) are called pseudoscience? Because, if not, it's really not helpful for editors to keep saying or implying that, and it seems to me like a violation of WP:BLP.

I agree that we don't want everything on his CV, and that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. But his work has received a tremendous amount of attention from scholars in philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and theology. I believe that we should include all details of his work that have been discussed at the highest levels within his field. There's no reason we can't summarize those sources at an appropriate level for the general reader. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator

The rules say that back-and-forth discussion is not permitted, because it hasn't worked before this dispute was brought here. Read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules again. However, continue the back-and-forth discussion above. Since there is a desire for back-and-forth, do it in the area provided, and the Q-and-A can continue separately.

Below, restate whether and why or why not the article should be stubbified and then rebuilt.

Also below, provide any proposed changes that should be the subject of an RFC.

There is agreement to find more third-party sources. If you can do it, that will help. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors

Repeated from above:

Note to moderator: I think it's highly likely that the user who opened this dispute, User:Squatch347, would disagree with the proposal to WP:TNT. Since it's understandable that he may not return to Wikipedia immediately the day after his military leave ends, I think we should wait until he comments (or at least give him more time) before proceeding with any vote tallying.

I strongly disagree with any proposal to stubify or WP:TNT the article. In the course of making efforts to improve the sourcing of the article, I've been convinced that the pre-dispute version most likely accurately represents Craig's views and the actual level of WP:PUFFERY was minimal to non-existent, so the article is repairable and such drastic action is not called for. I say that as someone who was totally unaware of Craig prior to April and found the pre-dispute version useful to get a sense of him and what his views are. The proposal to WP:TNT is strongly contradictory to the needs of the readers of this encyclopedia, like me.

As for RfC propsals, here are mine:

• Is the purpose of a biography of a philosopher and theologian to accurately represent his views as they exist in the epistemic communities in which he is active (philosophy and theology)? If he is known for referencing scientific theories in his philosophy (e.g. claiming the Big Bang model supports the idea that the universe had a beginning; a quantum vacuum is not nothing as in ex nihilo, because philosophically the system of quantum mechanics is a something), should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)?

- GretLomborg (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I oppose TNT or stubify for the following main reason: it won't solve any of the problems. There is a fundamental disagreement about the purpose of the article, and, corresponding to this, a disagreement about appropriate sources. There's obviously a range of options with respect to how much detail we will go into in summarizing Craig's views. There is also a range of options with respect to how much reaction (including critical reaction) we should summarize. Third party reliable sources can and should be found for both of those projects, but we need to decide what sources are appropriate, and how much detail we want. Those problems will immediately afflict the attempt to rebuild the page. Here's my view on these issues. First, it makes sense to focus on the subject of the article, i.e., Craig, rather than his critics. I think we should go into his views in whatever detail is possible with available high-quality sourcing. Second, it also makes sense to include (more briefly) a summary of reactions, including critical reactions, at the end of our summaries of each of his views. Third, I would propose that we focus attention on academic sources that comment on his work. There are plenty of these, and they are going to be the highest quality sources. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no opinion about TNT, other than that technically it would allow to establish a new plan from scratch, possibly through extensive work and consensus. It seems that we were now told that we could reply to eachother before the next round? If so: should those views be suppressed unless commented on by someone outside his epistemic community (e.g. a scientist)? Probably not suppressed, but whenever claims of someone notable touch pseudoscience it is unevitable to find relevant (and appropriate) criticism or commentary, in which case WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE also apply. So not popular discussions, or publications aimed at a general audience, but scholarly work in journals, acdemic presses, and venues that are edited by academics. The danger here is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH using primary sources, where tertiary sources like other encyclopedias or third party reviews can be very useful to establish what should have weight, etc. should go into his views in whatever detail is possible too much details may return to the point where the article did appear to need WP:TNT. But here again, possibly that analysis of other tertiary sources will help for guidance (WP:TERTIARY). I listed a few secondary and tertiary sources at the article's talk page recently. There probably are more, those are in material I'm familiar with and have easy access to. If the epistemic community is philosophy, there may be more relevant encyclopedias of philosophy for reference. This is probably also true for theology. On the other hand, arguments like Kalam venture into wild territory... Philosophy is like math: symbols can be used to describe anything the mind could conceive; whenever something interacts with known reality (outside of the mind), some become hypotheses that may be tested or questioned. This is also a theologian who insisted on meeting key people in their field like Krauss, in attempt to gain extra legitimacy. —PaleoNeonate – 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Siniša Mali

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Runner369 on 23:19, 23 June 2019 (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 Siniša Mali (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Runner369 (talk · contribs) PajaBG (talk · contribs) Primefac (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I made the complete overhaul of the article, reorganised information better and updating the most recent information in the case of PhD thesis plagiarism case. However, I was quite surprised that experienced editor PajaBG undo my version without any explanation. All references and statements in my version had a valid source, and the biggest part of the article was dedicated to the allegations and controversy. This gives everyone freedom to add counter-arguments and to question every claim that was presented in the article. Finally, my version is not intending to idealise anyone. Have you tried to resolve this previously? No other steps were taken since I did not receive any feedback from the editor How do you think we can help? Well, it would be much better if non-biased editor supervise the whole process of editing this ambiguous article. Summary of dispute by PajaBG Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Primefac Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Siniša Mali discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hi @Runner369:, and thanks for your comments here and contributions so far. I've had a look at the discussion page and haven't unfortunately seen much discussion happen yet about the changes that you made. On Wikipedia, we operate under a set of rules and guidelines on how to contribute, to help make it a place where we have accurate, balanced and verifiable information. One of our most important principles is consensus, where changes that we make to articles on Wikipedia sometimes need to be discussed and agreed to among editors, before they are made. In situations where very large changes are made to an article all at once, its not uncommon for other editors ask these changes to be discussed first, for a number of reasons. My recommendation to you would be to hop back to the article talk page, break down the changes that you want to make to the article and your reasons for doing so, and then work with the other editors to come up with version that works. If after discussing it with the other editors, you can't come to an agreement on how to proceed, our volunteers here would be happy to help you all come to a consensus on the topic. Hope this helps! Steven Crossin 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other parties of this filing. If the filing party is willing to take the advice of the volunteer above and discuss on the article talk page, that notice is not necessary. This case will be closed unless proper notice is given (and the volunteer above has recommended further discussion on the talk page anyway). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2019 (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:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

– 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. Filed by Sapedder on 02:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sapedder (talk · contribs) DBigXray (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The primary concern is the removal of unattributed, unencyclopedic language in the lead of the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale article, an opinion presented as a fact. This non-neutral lead statement was reproduced from the body of the article, which is also unattributed, for reasons that remain unexplained. I would like these wp:weasel words ("He symbolized terrorism" etc.) removed from the lead, and tagged and attributed in the body, if it is deemed encyclopedic enough to even be in the article. Also the removal of clearly unsourced, poorly-written POV repeatedly reinstated by this editor ("practised hate thorough" [sic]). A secondary but important concern would be the addition of a perspective of a prominent politician during the height of the events on the article, backed by wp:mainstream sources, being blocked from any sort of mention by the editor as well as any perspective deemed to be that of a "supporter or fanboy." This discussion is also on the talk page. Link to edit in question: [[17]] Have you tried to resolve this previously? Extensive talk page discussion based on the nature of the edits and presenting a case for the edits in question, waiting for reply for more than a week, stepping away from wiki to cool off and de-escalate. Several points have consistently gone unaddressed in the intervening time and the editor appears to have simply disengaged and moved on. How do you think we can help? Ruling strictly on the quality of the edit in regards to wp:weasel, wp:terrorist, wp:npov, wp:notability, etc. The case is presented on the article talk page. This is strictly based on the Wikipedia MOS as opposed to being about adding or removing contentious info that requires knowledge on this particular figure. Ideologically-removed editors would in fact be preferred to avoid bias for or against the article subject and ruling strictly on the professionalism of the edits. Summary of dispute by DBigXray The talk page discussion is still ongoing. I realize my reply to the talk page comment was delayed due to real life comittments for which I have apologized and replied on the talk page. I am not inclined to participate here on DRN as I feel the DRN is not needed at this point of time. We should exhaust the talk page discussion first. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC) Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale 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 discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. The template does not do this for you. Notification is not optional. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Saw notes, rectified. Sapedder (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Delays due to real-life commitments are understandable, but with all due respect I believe a DRN or other outside intervention is necessary as I feel we are talking at cross-purposes in the talk section at this point, and are unlikely to make any headway in any direction on our own. Sapedder (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Participation at DRN is voluntary. Collaborative editing is not voluntary. (Editing is voluntary, but it must be collaborative.) Is the issue about the edits a yes-no question that can be resolved by a Request for Comments, or is this an area where facilitated compromise is desired? If an editor chooses not to participate in dispute resolution due to outside time commitments, they do not need to edit the article. The editors can continue discussion at the talk page until they are ready to request a moderator. Is this a yes-no issue, or is compromise in order? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2019 (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.

Adolf Hitler

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Cadar on 08:22, 26 June 2019 (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 Adolf Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ninja Diannaa (talk · contribs) Cadar (talk · contribs) FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk · contribs) Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Briefly, an editor changed the use of the correct name "National Socialist German Worker's Party" started by the man in the first line of the first paragraph of the lead and in the infobox to "Nazi Party", saying "Let's not be coy about it - he was a Nazi". I reverted and added "Nazi" party in brackets to (a) reach compromise and (b) retain the accuracy of the correct name; it was immediately reverted. I changed it again and requested it was taken to talk page for consensus; it was reverted without recourse to talk page. I changed it AGAIN and again requested consensus before change, then, it being 2:30 AM, I had to sleep. I got up this morning and discovered it had been changed back yet again, with a casual mention as an afterthought on the talk page. No discussion except from me. No consensus. My comments and reasons for defending the changes I made are on the talk page; no need to go into them here. I am removing the page from my watchlist and want nothing further to do with it - I've wasted more than enough time on this idiocy already - but this needs resolution. Apparently the concept of "consensus" is not within the purview of some editors. I leave it in the hands of administrators. A brief check of my contributions will show I am NOT a trouble causer, nor are the vast majority of my edits reverted. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None. No further interest in resolution. How do you think we can help? Make a call on which is the correct term; implement it; finalise the discussion - such as it is - on the talk page with cogent reasons for the decision. Summary of dispute by Ninja Diannaa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by FreeKnowledgeCreator Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ealdgyth Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Adolf Hitler 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 discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not listed all of the editors, and has not notified the editors. This is likely to be a dispute of an A-B nature that is better answered by a Request for Comments than by compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC) I'll chime in on this one here (DRN volunteer). Common name is the governing rule here - the question specifically being whether to describe Adolf Hitler's party as the full "National Socialist German Workers" or simply the "Nazi Party". Having a look at other senior members of the party and how their political parties are described is not uniform either. That said, I've spent some time pouring over these other Wikipedia articles and the overwhelming description of the political party is the "Nazi Party". NSDAP and National Socialist German Workers' Party also redirects there, so it makes sense to describe it as such - by it's commonly used name. Best regards, Steven Crossin 07:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has still not notified the other editors, and has not listed some of them. This is not important if the filing party plans to take the advice of the other volunteer and agree to the use of the commonly used name, which is Nazi Party. In this particular case, using the common name does not cause any form of Godwin's Law to kick in, and besides, this is not the Usenet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2019 (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:Cryonics

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Theodorus75 on 07:15, 27 June 2019 (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:Cryonics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Theodorus75 (talk · contribs) David Gerard (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Someone is saying "cryonics is quackery" and not offering adequate evidence. Some of us just want to indicate some folks think it *might* not be quackery, but he keeps persistently reverting changes. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Asking other people if it's reasonable to present the opposing view in a Wikipedia article. How do you think we can help? Ask him politely to let us make some small changes on the article, please say something on the talk page Summary of dispute by David Gerard Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Cryonics discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hi, and thanks for your comments here. This one is pretty cut and dry I'm afraid. The principle that applies is the application of due weight to content in Wikipedia articles. From what I've read, you have wanted to insert a link to a letter that some scientists signed about their view on cryonics. However, one source with a selection of scientists signatures expressing their opinion is insufficient to change the wording of the article which states the majority of the scientific community views cryonics with skepticism. The article presents a significant amount of third party sources to that effect, and the addition you made does not meet Wikipedia's standards on being a reliable, third party source (in this case, it's a signed letter expressing a view) and for that reason, does not on its own merit changing the text of the article to express the view of the scientfiic community on the matter has changed. I would suggest you discuss any further changes you want to make with more sources, but please be careful - subject areas like this are subject to possible sanctions if you continue to make edits without discussing them. Hope this helps. Steven Crossin 07:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Thank you Crossin :) really appreciate that info. Very helpful re: due weight etc, noted. But the point is actually much bigger... so will continue on Talk page as it suggests at the top here - Theodorus75 (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2019 (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.