Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 185

Conspiracy theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 122.111.212.235 on 08:49, 31 January 2020 (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 Conspiracy theories_related_to_the_Trump–Ukraine_scandal  Users involved Guy (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The entire article needs to be rewritten, due to its strong POV. This starts with the title, continues with the first overview, and continues on throughout. Pejorative adjectives are used to describe "right-wing conservative" claims per se, such as "baseless," and even "insane." Clauses are added to the views described, such as "this has been discredited" or the like, when this is not true and without giving adequate evidence. Any evidence favoring the right-wing conservative side of the article topic is blocked or claimed merely to be "Fox News talking points," as if this automatically disqualifies it even when the sources referred to are from mainstream media outlets otherwise accepted by the editor managing the article. That editor justifies this apparently total ban on right-wing-conservative claims and sources that might support that (persons, media and general articles, or documents -- even those from official governmental records) on the Talk Page, as being because "Right wing media has excised itself from the continuum of fact-based journalism. If you refuse to acknowledge that, you have no place here. Mainstream is the antonym of bullshit, not of conservative." It should be pointed out that the article is on right vs left controversy. So in effect one whole side is forbidden expression or substantiation, even in generally available government documents. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conspiracy_theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal#Interference_by_Some_Ukrainians_in_the_2016_Election_Appears_Well_Documented_and_is_Currently_Under_Investigation_-_Are_You_Sure_This_is_Just_a_%27Conspiracy_Theory%27%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conspiracy_theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal/Archive_1#Shameless_bias How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe the entire article violates Wikipedia standards for impartiality and NPOV. It is a mockery of its topic, and needs a total rewrite by a different editor or editors capable of doing justice to the topic. I would therefore like to ask for a third opinion on the quality of the article and the justifications presented for it by its chief managing editor, which are given on the Talk Page "Interference ..." subsection (and in the abrupted archived, incomplete "Shameless bias" subsection). Summary of dispute by Guy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Conspiracy theories_related_to_the_Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_scandal discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citizenship Amendment Act protests

– 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 223.225.35.200 on 18:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Citizenship Amendment Act protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dey subrata (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Greetings It is related to the Indian Citizenship Amendment Act protests article. I suggested that one needs to assume good faith towards everyone and large scale violence and damage to public property has happened in the protests so violence also needs to be mentioned as one of methods used in protests. Very politely I put my submission the other person, but the user labelled them as false narrative. I tried to make my points clear repeatedly but the other user did not heed to my request for removal of "resolved tick with false narrative label". The reason given was "Police disclosed no Jamia student were involved in violence during the Jamia student protest, rather local thugs". Nowhere in my initial suggestion or later reply I claimed anything like that. Thank you How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests#Need_of_good_faith How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either you make me understand that, what I tried to discuss on the talk page was a false narrative or you make him see my point, and then the user remove "resolved tick with false narrative label". Summary of dispute by Dey subrata Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Citizenship Amendment Act protests discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Please participate 223.225.35.200 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2020 (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.

One America News OANN

– 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 184.101.147.172 on 19:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute One America News OANN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Conservatives I talk to (talk · contribs) Dispute overview You characterize the network as far right and then the article goes out of it's way to discredit the network. We have found it to be more truthful and credible than anything on the alphabet networks. Is anyone characterizing CNN or MSNBC as far left because they surely are? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [email protected] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Remove the obvious strong bias from the characterization of the network. This stuff discredits wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Conservatives I talk to Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. One America News OANN discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This forum is not for general disputes or disagreement with article content; this is for disputes with specific users whom you must notify of this discussion. Please see the criteria at the top of this page. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state; bias in independent sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, we present the sources and allow readers to decide for themselves. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2020 (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.

Ismail I

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mirhasanov on 08:20, 3 February 2020 (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 Ismail I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mirhasanov (talk · contribs) LouisAragon (talk · contribs) Wikaviani (talk · contribs) HistoryofIran (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am trying to add Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijani Language but it is deleted or reverted by users: LouisAragon and HistoryofIran considering it to be irrelevant. Similar discussion was opened previously [1] and ended up with destructive conversation with provocation of user: Wikaviani. Those are my specific compaints: LouisAragon -doesn't act neutral and not trying to direct discussion to right direction.[2] LouisAragon - Removes my addition Shah Ismael's name in Azerbaijani. [3] LouisAragon - Rejects discussion and more spends time to collect evidences agains me and misinterpret it. [4] , {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Aggressive_User]. This proves that he is not neutral to the topic and acting with other users to falsify evidences. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Tried to talk to this people through Talk tab and send message to them: LouisAragon [5], [6] HistoryofIran [7] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I need your help to provide both sides with someone who has neutral view to the topic which will help us to built healthy constructive discussion. I just want to make sure that we do proper edits and alter the content with proper evidences and references. Summary of dispute by LouisAragon Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Wikaviani Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by HistoryofIran Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ismail I discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bettina Arndt

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Revamped83 on 12:21, 4 February 2020 (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 Bettina Arndt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved CatCafe (talk · contribs) Dan Arndt (talk · contribs) Jack Upland (talk · contribs) Javaman59 (talk · contribs) Cat010101 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Edit warring between multiple parties based on a politically contentious issue. Arndt recently received an Order of Australia, which has angered her ideological opponents. Her recent influx of page edits reflects this war of ideas. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bettina_Arndt How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Article should revert to its original state prior to edit warring on 28 January 2020 (when Order of Australia was awarded). Article edits thereafter need to be moderated by unbiased and uninvolved parties. Summary of dispute by CatCafe Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Dan Arndt Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jack Upland I don't think there is any edit warring now. The exception is the edits of Cat010101 (talk · contribs) which repetitively remove a large slab of text, without discussion — that amounts to vandalism. Apart from that, we are working together to improve the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Javaman59 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Cat010101 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bettina Arndt discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National Register of Citizens

– Closed as failed. 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 Spasiba5 on 11:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on the talk page of the article already. Location of dispute National Register of Citizens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Spasiba5 (talk · contribs) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In this quotation:- On 19 November 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah, declared in the Rajya Sabha of the Indian parliament that the NRC will be implemented throughout the country, but no person of any religion should worry." the but no person of any religion should worry is from the title of the reference cited and in this sentence:- As of 12 January 2020, activists have continued to protest the act on the streets, with a lot of individuals carrying placards criticizing the act as well as the government, despite the PM Narendra Modi saying that people are being misguided about the new law. the despite the PM Narendra Modi saying that people are being misguided about the new law is also from the title of the cited reference, which is why I was trying to re-insert them when it was removed! An IP copied a sentence from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 article from this edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/938662440 which said the same thing, but that has also been removed. When it was acceptable in that article, why should it not be accepted in this article? References How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Tried to talk to this person on the Talk page : Kautilya 3:- Here How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I need your help to add those 2 sentences as it is actually the title of the cited references Summary of dispute by Kautilya 3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Yes, the two green bits the filing party wants to see added are political statements, and they cannot be included unless they are embedded in some analysis in WP:SECONDARY sources. The second green bit also suffers from WP:SYN. There hasn't been much discussion on the issue really, but I am willing to take part in a DRN case if it helps resolve things more quickly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC) First proposal from Spasiba5 Add the matter in green to those sentences as it is already cited in those references (in fact, the title itself says that)!—Spasiba5 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC) National Register of Citizens Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. (National Register of Citizens) First moderator statement Kautilya3, Spasiba5, I am willing to moderate this dispute. Please keep your comments clear and concise, refrain from making any edits to National Register of Citizens that relate to the issues at hand while the dispute resolution process is ongoing, and review WP:DRN Rule A before responding. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion here unless I explicitly give you space to do so. Focus on content and avoid commenting on other editor's behavior. I think that Spasiba5 has adequately laid out the changes that they wish to see to the article and an argument for them in their filing statement. Kautilya3, you have stated that you are opposed to inclusion of the verbatim quotes and have made an argument as to why. Would you be opposed to the inclusion of a paraphrase of the quote as well? Please respond below. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (National Register of Citizens) First clarifying statement from Kautilya3 Yes, I would be opposed to paraphrasing as well, unless we have WP:SECONDARY sources that place such comments in the overall context. The context cannot be created by Wikipedia on its own. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (National Register of Citizens) Second moderator statement Thank you for the extremely timely response, Kautilya3. Spasiba5, do you have a response to Kautilya3's assertion that we lack secondary coverage of the quotes that you have proposed adding? Please respond below. signed, Rosguill talk 19:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC) (National Register of Citizens) First rebuttal from Spasiba5 While there may be secondary sources, I believe that we (Wikipedians) should add the matter in green to those sentences as it is already cited in those references (in fact, the titles itself say that)! How can a sentence not contain what the titles of the cited references itself say? Right now, without what the titles say, it is in breach of WP:SYNTHESIS. If we cite those references, they must contain what the titles say also (the bits in green)!—Spasiba5 (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Spasiba5, from a policy perspective, no we are not required to include content from the titles of cited articles, and forgoing such an inclusion does not comprise improper synthesis. Do you have any other arguments in favor of including the quotes? signed, Rosguill talk 02:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) OK, then can we put what the titles say (the bits in green) within quotation marks?—Spasiba5 (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that Kautilya3 will be opposed to that given their earlier statements (Kautilya3, feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong about that). While attempts to compromise are appreciated, right now the main thing that you should be doing is to try to put together a convincing argument about why your suggested changes should be adopted. signed, Rosguill talk 02:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Those 2 sentences create fear in the mind of its readers, but if we add what the titles say, that is, the bits in green, the meaning will change.—Spasiba5 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Can you observe the difference if we add the bit in green, within quotation marks?:- Sentence 1) On 19 November 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah, declared in the Rajya Sabha of the Indian parliament that the NRC will be implemented throughout the country, "but no person of any religion should worry." Sentence 2) As of 12 January 2020, activists have continued to protest the act on the streets, with a lot of individuals carrying placards criticizing the act as well as the government, despite the, "PM Narendra Modi saying that people are being misguided about the new law."—Spasiba5l (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC) So, other than you preferring the message of this version, do you have any arguments to make in favor of your proposed edits? signed, Rosguill talk 04:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC) No.—Spasiba5 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC) (National Register of Citizens) Third moderator statement As Spasiba5 has elected to not make any policy based case for their preferred version, there's nothing for Kautilya3 to rebut. It's not my role as a dispute moderator to enforce outcomes or engage in arbitration, but it is my opinion at this time that the arguments presented Spasiba5 have no chance of establishing a new consensus at the target article, and I would advise them to drop the matter. signed, Rosguill talk 06:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC) (National Register of Citizens) Responses to third statement by other editors I am glad that the filing party has eventually articulated why they would like to add the new content. But it is not Wikipedia's job to dispel fears in the minds of the populace by making up our own narrative. It is the government's job. If the government is able to do so successfully, then I am sure the secondary source commentary will acknowledge it and we will follow suit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC) (National Register of Citizens) Response to third statement by moderator and other editors We can use other sources to convey the message also if it is allowed! This is one — Spasiba5 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Spasiba5, what exactly is your proposed change using that source? signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC) The title of the article is, "Citizenship Act Protests LIVE Updates: "Amended Law Doesn't Snatch Citizenship": PM Modi On Citizenship Act At Delhi Rally, usu" and I want to add a sentence saying exactly that if Kautila3 allows!—Spasiba5 (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2020 (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.

Josip Runjanin

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Mikola22 on 18:10, 29 January 2020 (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 Josip Runjanin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mikola22 (talk · contribs) Nicoljaus (talk · contribs) Sadko (talk · contribs) Tuvixer (talk · contribs) TU-nor (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I edit article with information about origin of Josip Runjanin. RS is from 2019 and a very valuable and important information. On talk page it was indirectly discussed but realistically I don't see what would be talked about. My information is about origin of Josip Runjanin. There is no reason for this information not to be part of the article. We need help because will surely come to edit war and no one wants to be blocked. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [8] [9] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can advise us what to do and tell us your opinion about that(origin) information. Summary of dispute by Mikola22 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. On talk page is discussed his Serbian origin and this RS is there just for information I quote: there is no »information that Josip Runjanin would ever tell anyone or write that he was Serb. My edit is about his origin and claims of his daughter Wilhelmine Runjanin. Her testimony is and in the book of Andrija Tomašek, 1990, Lijepa naša : pripovijest o hrvatskoj himni. Mikola22 (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Nicoljaus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As I see, most of the sources that studied this issue, define Runjanin's ethnicity as “Serb”. The fact that he is the author of the Croatian anthem is noted separately as a special irony. The author of the book cited by Mikola22, denies the Serbian ethnicity of many famous Serbs, natives of Croatia, along with his other constructions proving incredible Croatian greatness. On the other hand, the author is a well-known (in Croatia) linguist, doctor of sciences, professor. I would mention his objection in the footnote - in my opinion, this is adequate to his authority, but (so far) does not outweigh the amount of other sources. Moreover, we do not have a book, only a review on it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC) And one more difficulty. The author of the review, Leopold Auburger looks like a partisan source. He also fought against the "Serbo-Croatism", and received the "Annual Award for the Promotion of Croatian Culture in the World" in 2009. In other words, for a long time he is like-minded Grčević. Mikola22, do you have any feedback from more neutral scientists?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Well, I've read the article of Grčević: "Erroneous Development of Croatian Studies in Germany". And in it he contrasts himself and Leopold Auburger with all German scholars who are engaged in the wrong "Slavic studies" instead of the correct "Croatian studies". Moreover, Leopold’s reputation is such that he wasn’t even invited to the “German Days of Slavistics”. It looks a little wp:fringe.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC) It's a book review and it's not fantasy of Leopold Auburger, he has been a Corresponding Member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts since 2000. so i think there should be no problem with review. For now I have no feedback from more neutral scientists. I have this from Croatian History Portal "It is of Aromanian origin from fugitives from Serbia, Greek-Eastern religion"Mikola22 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Try to understand the text you are "responding" to.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Could you link to any sources @Nicoliaus:?Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Please try to keep discussion in the discussion area so everyone catches it and participates Nightenbelle (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sadko Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Grčević is not a historian, but a linguist. That’s the first thing. Secondly, he is a lot on the fringe side, for example in this interview he claims that the 19th century Montenegrins were Croats of Serbian Orthodox fate and that linguist Đuro Daničić was sent to Zagreb as an Austrian agent. That's... Interesting. In Vijenac, 516 - 517, published by Matica Hrvatska, Grčević claims that there is no Serbian name in Dubrovnik and that the numerous historical mentions of Serbian language are in fact references to use of cyrillics! He also claims that any mention of Serbian tradition/literature in Dubrovnik is a part of “Greater Serbia” politics. That’s a a solid proof that we are dealing with a nationalistic scholar. Having said that, I claim that Grčević is a partisan source, which can also be seen from the link posted by Nikolijus. His work should not be included or treated equally as other works, in this matter. A footnote maybe could do the trick. He is also used heavily on the notorious Croatian Wikipedia. The source provided by fellow editor is not a direct statement. What happened with the original document, I wonder>? Our source is not even Grčvić's book (published in 2019), nor do we have a quote or page number, what we have is a review by one of his colleagues. This is the story: somebody allegedly spoke with Runjanin’s daughther who lived abroad, that person told or published this information (where?), another author published it in a book in 1990 (the start of Yugoslav wars was drawing near!) and than Grčević used that information in his work in which he denies the ethnicity of several notable Serbs of Croatia. The same narrative can be seen on articles about other persons which are a matter of dispute of Croatia and other nations, like Roger Joseph Boscovich. Somebody, somewhere heard the person stating that they are a proud Croat, and that’s how it goes. What happened to Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 18:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC) "In Vijenac, 516 - 517, published by Matica Hrvatska, Grčević claims that there is no Serbian name in Dubrovnik and that the numerous historical mentions of Serbian language are in fact references to use of cyrillics! He also claims that any mention of Serbian tradition/literature in Dubrovnik is a part of “Greater Serbia” politics. That’s a a solid proof that we are dealing with a nationalistic scholar." Here is information about the Croatian name in Dubrovnik and its surroundings, so please give me information about Serbian mention of Dubrovnik.Mikola22 (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum + unimpressive spam. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Tuvixier Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. First of all, the reason of this "dispute" if user Mikola22, who, like others have pointed out denies the Serbian ethnicity of many famous Serbs from Croatia. So this is something important for this dispute. I for a fact, am a Croat who has lived his whole life in Croatia, and it is, as far as I know, well known that Josip Runjanin, the person who composed the melody of Croatian national anthem, was a Serb. That is what we are thought in schools, what we can hear from in the media, and so on. I am not infuriated but proud that our national anthem was composed by someone who was not a Croat because it shows how Croatia can and has accepted "others" and how it did not mater which ethnicity someone was, something we unfortunately lost, mostly in the last decades. So it is really unusual to see that someone is contesting that Josip Runjanin was a Serb. Well maybe it is not unusual at all, considering the rise of nationalism and revisionism in Croatia. So I really don't see the reason why we should include a revisionist opinion in the article at all. The author says what, that Runjanin was a Orthodox Croat??? Sapienti sat. For the sake of resolving this "dispute" maybe the best solution is to include a footnote which states that Mario Grčević disputes the Serbian ethnicity of other Serbs from Croatia. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC) I apologize if my words upset you, there was absolutely unnecessary generalization in them. Once again, I'm sorry.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC) No need to apologize. I was not upset. No hard feelings. --Tuvixer (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TU-nor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have only edited this article twice in order to remove the (Serb) ethnicity from the lede per WP:ETHNICITY. Apart from that, I have steered clear away from the disruptive edit war. But having been asked here, I can give my view: I think it would be OK to lift the information (that the ethnicity of Josip is contested) from the note into the main text, something like this version. Stating Grčević's quotes as a fact (as in Mikola22's version) is imho unacceptable. --T*U (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Josip Runjanin discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Good Day. My Name is Nightenbelle and I am volunteering to Mediate this case. I have read the dispute on the talk page and reviewed the edit history and the disputed sources (although I could not access source #2 from my internet. I would still like all involved parties to summarize their case. I've also added @Sadko:, @Tuvixer: and @TU-nor: to this because they have been involved as well. @Mikola22: Until this is resolved, I am asking that you please not revert or make any further edits about the national origin. The issue seems to relate to whether or not Josip Runjanin was a serb. Normally WP goes with most of the sources, and the majority of sources are using the term serb. The one source that is not is a recently published book. I would like Mikoloa22 to please explain why he believes this source deserves more weight than all the others. Keep in mind WP:NPOV while doing so please. To the others- would you all consider adding a sentence that the ethnicity of Josip is contested by some historians? And Mikola22 would that compromise work for you until more sources exist that corroborate this one existing source? One of my favorite things about history and historiography- our understanding of it is always evolving. Since WP is an encyclopedia it will never be at the forefront of changes in historiography of a subject, but it can reflect the ongoing issues. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC) Some RS speak of him as a Serb some other source talks about him as a Croat, that's why I said on the talk page that there is no historical record who speaks of him as a Serb. If that fact(that he is a Serb) cannot be changed in the article then we must enter information and from another RS. The article should be neutral but how neutral it is without this significant information. It is a very valuable piece of information from RS about his origin. I guess we can enter in the article fact that he was never personally considered himself as a Serb or as a Croat, this is a fact. That's why I cite my RS and his daughter's claim from various letters (year 1921 etc..). If we can't have his daughter clame in the article and some RS(about Serbian origin) that exist in the article do not mention that facts then which is purpose of the article? To teach us that he is a Serb even though his daughter says that he is a Croat. This is not right. Mikola22 (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC) @Tuvixer: I'm in Croatian school learn that Bunjevci are Croats, that Ruđer Bošković and Ivan Gundulić are Croats. According to English Wikipedia they obviously are not Croats. Therefore leave school out of this. Focus on the facts we know and RS which talk about it. That's why I went from the original historical data. If this is not possible(original research) then we can only quote this Croatian source as RS. That would be a neutral point of view. I assume you are a follower of Yugoslav history and that's OK, but you have to understand that Croatia is an independent state today and we must respect some different conclusions and opinions. We must also realize that most of today's Serbs are of Vlachian origin, also part of the Croats are Vlachs. We didn't teach that in schools but more and more is being talked about because unfortunately Yugoslav history cannot erase that. And Orthodox Albanians, Montenegrins, Bosnians, Macedonians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Croats, Vlachs, Aromanians etc fleeing from the Turks. Where are they today? We must respect and these groups and these peoples. You always have to edit articles with good faith, not with prejudices. Otherwise Bunjevci migrating from the heart of medieval Croatia towards Vojvodina and we have to respect the fact that they are not called Croats, nor is English Wikipedia called them so. Mikola22 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Well, the original documents. I've said it before. What constitute Yugoslav history? Which sources? We do not have any documents on mass killings in Jasenovac concentration camp, allegedly they are burned. And what now? We turn to witnesses in communist era? We have parents of Igor Vukić who passed through Jasenovac without a single hair falling off their heads, were they lucky? Is he a witness? Posted on 18 December here [10] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) If there is anything to clarify? All that has been said is in accordance with historical facts. What I supposed to say, lie? Focus on this source and article. Mikola22 (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Second Statement by Moderator There are several sources linked on the page that do refer to Josip Runjanin as a serb- so that would indicate there is a historical record, even if it is a recent. I don't believe anyone is attempting to force a point of view, they just want to be sure that we don't throw out three RS for 1 new RS. This is why I suggest adding both statements instead of choosing one over the other for now. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)  Comment:It is not recent. I think that one editor is in fact forcing a POV, as seen on other articles. A lot of edit warring was done on the page by Mikola22. It is most disturbing. Even more disturbing is the fact that he is doing the same on other pages, as seen on Svetozar Borojevic, Smiljan, Nicholas I of Montenegro, Nikola Tesla. I find the documented denial of Serbs and Serbian language on the territory of modern-day Croatia in this editor's work on Wikipedia quite disturbing and it’s doing some damage to the project. Plus the whole “original documents mantra” is something which is also completely dubious, but the editor insists on presenting it as an argument, mind you (lol). The idea is to find “documents” and delete source which are talking about Serbs of Croatia and to presented them as some wretched Vlachs. This POV is not per any strong academic works but a nationalistic mantra. Genetic studies have also destroyed this pseudo-thesis. We have a case of muddying the waters here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC) You said you would show historical data about Serbian origin of Svetozar Borojević and Josip Runjanin. You have not yet provided this historical origin information. Why? Because this information does not exist. Then how are they Serbs? You enter Serbian language in articles about Montenegrin persons or tribes. What Serbia has to do with Montenegro? The Montenegrin language was created 10 years ago and by then Montenegrins were Serbs who spoke Serbian?? Some tribes are Albanians I guess they're Serbs too? Excuse me for a few words more but as I said earlier editor Sadko does not edit articles in good faith, but defends some of its truth.Mikola22 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC) There are several sources linked on the page that do refer to Josip Runjanin as a serb- so that would indicate there is a historical record, even if it is a recent. There is no historical record in which he says that he is a Serb. We only have an indirect record of his daughter letters and interview in which she talks about the Croatian origin of her father. This is what we have as historical source. I can suggest that this information be part of the article because it is significant information. I see no reason not to be so. Mikola22 (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Third statement by moderator Mikola22 I'm sorry but there are sources that refer to him as a serb. For instance page 419 of this source So once again, I ask if you will agree to a compromise, or else I'm going to bow out since 4 to 1 is looking pretty WP:Consensus to me. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Nightenbelle I have nothing against that fact(Serb) and we can't change that, but we also need enter a fact from RS based on the original data. This is only possible with adding both statements. Mikola22 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Fourth and fifth statement by Moderator well then it appears all are agreed to add the statement from the other source in the ethnicity section in addition to the existing verbage and statements so I will close this. THank you all for participating. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC) I apparently closed to early. Please continue discussing and let’s keep working towards an acceptable compromise. I apologize. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC) References It seems that none of the involved editors have moved very much from their initial position. I have a couple of proposals that may (or may not) help us towards a compromise. --T*U (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC) First proposal from TU-nor I will first put forward the least controversial and most important proposal: To wikify and extend the reference into something like this: References Would this be acceptable to Mikola22, Nicoljaus, Sadko, Tuvixer (improvements in the translations to English are welcomed, since they are based on Google translate)? --T*U (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The current version with a note added is just fine with me. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 05:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC) His daughter statement is for now the only thing we have about his origin. That should be a major part of the article. Both statements should be in the article. You can't put that fact somewhere on the side and RS who say he is a Serb remain. We have no historical record that he is a Serb, Croat or Aromanian. In Croatian RS that statement exist and it is very valuable information which should be with other RS(Serb). This information also exists in the 1990 book of "Andrija Tomašek, Lijepa naša : pripovijest o hrvatskoj himni." Why this book is from the year 1990, because it was free to write about. You couldn't write about it in Yugoslavia. Now we have new RS from 2019 and as I say very important information which deserves to be part of the article. I guess we will not continue to ignore and hide this information in 2020.Mikola22 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict) I think this is very contrary to the wp:weight rule. I mean, we pay too much attention to the opinion of one, very partisan source. At the same time, Mikola22 gave another, also a Croatian source: [11]. And there already Runjanin is not a “Croat” but Aromanian (it is recognized that his ancestors were Orthodox refugees from Serbia). At the same time, in addition to the three sources that are in the article, there are many more that speak of Serbian origin as an indisputable fact. I did not find at all any traces of an open discussion on this topic, so that someone could write a separate section, as, for example, in this article: Roger Joseph Boscovich.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Sadko, Mikola22: None of you are answereing my question. I am for the moment only asking about the reference that currently says this: References and suggest to chnage it to what I presented just above. --T*U (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I was answering you and no, I do not agree. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Could I then ask you to elaborate on what in your opinion is wrong with my suggestion? --T*U (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC) _:TU-nor If we have a daughter claim about her father's origin in the two sources and and these sources cannot be used as RS who claim that josip Runjanin is Croat then daughter statement through RS(2019 source) about his Croatian origin could be part of the article. It is not possible that this significant information should not be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC) References Moved from Dispute Summary And one more difficulty. The author of the review, Leopold Auburger looks like a partisan source. He also fought against the "Serbo-Croatism", and received the "Annual Award for the Promotion of Croatian Culture in the World" in 2009. In other words, for a long time he is like-minded Grčević. Mikola22, do you have any feedback from more neutral scientists?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Well, I've read the article of Grčević: "Erroneous Development of Croatian Studies in Germany". And in it he contrasts himself and Leopold Auburger with all German scholars who are engaged in the wrong "Slavic studies" instead of the correct "Croatian studies". Moreover, Leopold’s reputation is such that he wasn’t even invited to the “German Days of Slavistics”. It looks a little wp:fringe.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC) It's a book review and it's not fantasy of Leopold Auburger, he has been a Corresponding Member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts since 2000. so i think there should be no problem with review. For now I have no feedback from more neutral scientists. I have this from Croatian History Portal "It is of Aromanian origin from fugitives from Serbia, Greek-Eastern religion"Mikola22 (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC) References Try to understand the text you are "responding" to.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Could you link to any sources @Nicoljaus:?Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC) What statements need sources? Some information is in the article on Leopold Auburger on the Croatian Wikipedia. Part in the article Erroneous Development of Croatian Studies in Germany.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I am asking what source you have to show the author belongs in wp:finge and the wp article you linked is in another language, and unfortunately I only speak English. I've managed to get by with google translator until now- but that one broke the translator. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC) If you do not know Croatian and German, this is a serious problem. Leopold Auburger, as I see, is very little known outside of Croatia. Perhaps the article on L.Auburger in the Croatian Encyclopedia [12] will be google-translated better? He is referred to as the front-man of the fight against “Serbo-Croatism”. In 2006, he lost his position at German universities; since 2000, he is a corresponding member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts. His review on the book of Grčević is the only one I managed to discover: "Ime »Hrvat« u etnogenezi južnih Slavena". As you can see from the article (in English) "Erroneous Development of Croatian Studies in Germany", Grčević and L.Auburger are long-time associates and this laudatory review, proposed by Mikola22 as a source, cannot be considered an authoritative assessment from a third party. I propose not to promote the controversial views of Grčević using Wikipedia, but to wait until these views on Croatian ethnicity of J. Runjanin receive at least some recognition.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Auburger Leopold wrote the book "Hrvatski jezik i serbokroatizam". Leopold Auburger: Hrvatski jezik i serbokroatizam, Rijeka, 2009.". Book review . As far as the book of Mario Grčević is concerned about her public presentation speak reviewers prof. dr. sc. Stjepan Cosić(historian), prof. dr. sc. Dubravka Sesar and prof. dr. sc. Slavica Stojan. Mario Grcevic's book 'The Name' Croat 'in the Ethnogenesis of the Southern Slavs' brings a valuable corpus of humanistic insights that, with their thematic range, provide an excellent basis for the restoration of the dead Croatian Balkanology Prof. dr. sc. Dubravka Sesa points out that Grčević in his book 'pays special attention to the use of Serbian glotonims in the Croatian literary linguistic tradition, as well as to systematic abuse'. She stressed that "the issue of Orthodox Croats in Serbian historiography is perceived as an unacceptable challenge to the unity of Orthodoxy and Serbianness"Mikola22 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Here are a few books of Auburger Leopold from the German National LibraryMikola22 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC) References Statements from the Josip Runjanin daughter According to the testimony of Marshal Karl pl. Blagasski Matasic, to his question about her father's nationality" Wilhelmina, with a startled look, replied "Well my father is a Croat" ("Mein Vater ist doch ein Kroat"). In a letter to Emilio Laszowski, president of the Croatian Writers Club in Osijek, of December 23, 1921, stating that her father, "Although he was Orthodox faith, he brought her up in the Croatian spirit" and so 'until his death he remained what he really was "Croat" Considering her embarrassment that she forgot Croatian, which was her mother tongue, Wilhelmina stated in a 1936 interview that "It is difficult ... because all my ancestors from my father's and mother's side are Croats and we are all spoke Croatian.Mikola22 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Two questions: 1) Verifiable sources for this claims? 2) Why almost all modern secondary and tertiary sources (excluding strongly biased ones) continue to consider Josip Runjanin Serb?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC) This is from book of Andrija Tomašek "Lijepa Naša" Pripovijest o hrvatskoj himni, Zagreb 1990. page 102. Why sources consider him Serbian should be seen in the sources. We can assume that neither of these sources has his daughter's statement as evidence. Mario Grčević says that it is because some notable persons are Orthodox and on the basis of that some historians drawn conclusions about someone's origin. Interestingly formally Bunjevci are Croats but they are not Croats on English Wikipedia(they are a South Slavic ethnic group). For such clame or fact are probably used original records which speak of their origin but this approach(historical data) is not used in this article not even in the article about Croatian Serbs because for them too most historical documents talk about Vlachs(who are not Serbs) but in the article it is not clearly stated.Mikola22 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Wait a minute, but this Tomašek as a matter of fact denied that Runyanin was the author of the anthem: [13]. Obviously, he liked fringe theories, and it is not surprising that none of the normal authors have been paying attention to his "sensational discoveries" for thirty years now.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC) We are not talking about who composed Croatian anthem, we are talking about origin of Josip Runjanin. As far as that claim is concerned it is possible that there are no historical sources which prove who composed Croatian anthem. It should be seen in the book why he claims it and whether he claims it because this is one information for which we do not know is it true.Mikola22 (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC) We are not talking about who composed Croatian anthem -- We are now talking about how reliable your sources are and how much they have wp:weight. So far I have a feeling that this is a pure case of wp:fringe. I mean, a very rare and uncommon opinion of very biased people.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC) So far I have not heard that Roger Joseph Boscovich is a Serb but he is according to Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and English Wikipedia among the 100 most prominent Serbs. Probably some new information have come about his origin in Serbia and Roger Joseph Boscovich is considered to be Serbian. We need to respect and that information. No one talks that this fact is fringe theorie. Tomašek has his own view of who is composer of Croatian anthem but we are interested in the origin information of Josip Runjanin. He cites his daughter's clames and this information is also used by Mario Grčević. Those are original historical data and should be respected as well as RS which use this facts as evidence and conclusion.Mikola22 (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Completely irrelevant and off topic. One alleged statement in German (who was the source of this information?) is NOT "original historical data". Students learn that classification on their first year... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC) This thread is not relevant to the discussion, I'm sorry- but Sadko is correct that what is going on in other articles or with other people does not pertain to this article. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC) 6th statement by Mediator Okay so we had a proposal to include the note in the article by me, that was rejected. We had a proposal to include a note in the references, that has been rejected. Are there any other proposals? Any other suggestions? I understand one or more of the sources have been called into WP:RS question. I also understand the hesitance to ignore the daughter's statements. But at some point- someone will need to agree to a compromise or bend their position. We all understand each other's position. So I don't think each person re-stating for another time will help. On one side, we have a user who believes a source including the daughter should be given more weight than others. On the other side we have users who believe the source of the daughter's quote does not meet WP:RS and neither side is prepared to move from their opinions. At this point- is there any new ideas, new suggestions, or new opinions or is this an impasse? Nightenbelle (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC) The fact is we have no information that Josip Runjanin speaks of himself as a Serb, Croat etc. We have his daughter's statements. Most sources speak about him as a Serb. These sources do not citing daughter's statements but two Croatian sources cite that statements while source from 2019 also draws some conclusions based on these statements. If we cannot enter into the article claim that Josip Runjanin is Croat then the data from RS(2019) and his daughter's claim about Croatian origin I guess it could be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC) I'm sorry, I do not understand what you are saying- could you clarify your statement? Nightenbelle (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Josip Runjanin didn't talk about nationality. The only thing we have is his daughter's claim and this is stated in two Croatian books. If we can't remove RS which consider him as a Serb I guess we could quote RS and her daughter's statement because that's all we have. It is very valuable information or the most important information. We are probably all here to make article more accurate. We do not put information that he is Chinese, we provide information of his daughter. I guess daughter has something to do with her father. Mikola22 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC) References I am afraid that we have reached an impasse (or one could say that we have reached nowhere). I see no willingness to discuss solutions, just endless repetitions of original positions. My suggestion about extending the reference slightly has either been ignored or rejected without even explaining what is wrong with it. Life is too short to use more time here. Anyway, Nightenbelle, thanks for trying! Can you advise about what is the natural next step now? RfC? --T*U (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) I agree, all I'm seeing is an endless repeat of the same three sentences, no progress. Well, now we revert to WP:Consensus and WP:RFC. My recommendation would be a Request for Comment to try and get a few outside eyes, and then all changes will be determined by the majority (Consensus.). It looks to me like you have a 4:1 consensus already to not include the daughter's comments. And if that is the case, if a user continues edits against consensus, he would be warned, then possibly blocked from editing that page, or possibly even blocked from all of Wikipedia. Does everyone else agree this is an impasse? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2020 (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.

Salish Kootenai College

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 204.62.203.56 on 19:55, 5 February 2020 (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 Salish Kootenai College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Salish Kootenai College (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Can you please remove the content on our page about the lawsuit. Here is the statement. "Some former employees sued the College in 2017 under the Federal False Claims Act, saying that the administration had falsified student records in order to continue receiving public grant funding from the United States Department of Human Services and the United States Department of Indian Health Services.[3]" This lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have tried editing the page but have been rejected by the moderators. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Kootenai_College How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please remove the statement about the lawsuit. If need be i can get you in contact with our college attorney. Martin S. King, Esq. Worden Thane P.C. Missoula, Montana (406)721-3400 wordenthane.com Summary of dispute by Salish Kootenai College Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Salish Kootenai College discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ashina tribe

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Beshogur on 08:43, 23 January 2020 (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 Ashina tribe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Beshogur (talk · contribs) Hunan201p (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello, There is an info about the origins of Ashina being Saka or Wusun although this information is false and it mentions only about the etymological origin. Plus I explained the Wusun thing. Thanks he did not change that. Later, I changed it to this version by rewriting it. Although @Hunan201p: did always revert my edits, saying things like "You can not edit", etc. I opened a discussion on the talk page, although no one did even answer it. As you can see, I provided the sources which were used, no one indicated that the origin of Ashina were "Saka" or "Wusun", but etymological origin. User Hunan201p said the sources were valid, etc. Although I did not discuss about the sources but about the written thing on the article. Also same user did several times removal of valid info on the infobox, where he later stopped reverting it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Ashina_tribe#Article_rewritten How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? My proposal is. Please see my rewritten version, and change it as it was like here. Also he put the same text on Göktürks, although both are different thing, not exactly same. Summary of dispute by Hunan201p Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ashina tribe discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - I am changing the topic of this request from Ashina, which is a disambiguation page, to Ashina tribe, the Central Asian tribe that is the subject of this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Since the filing editor has provided a rewrite of the article, a Request for Comments is probably the appropriate way to resolve this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2020 (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.

Jack Posobiec

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by CatcherStorm on 21:19, 28 January 2020 (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 Jack Posobiec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved CatcherStorm (talk · contribs) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs) Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk · contribs) Masem (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are two separate disputes I am lodging here - one regarding proposed changes, the other regarding editor conduct. Regarding proposed changes: The proposed list of changes can be read at Talk:Jack_Posobiec#Bold_edit_rationale_and_further_discussion_to_fix_NPOV; however; the most active current discussion regarding the neutrality of the article in general is located at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jack_Posobiec. Regarding editor conduct: Here is the edit history of the page. When I restructured the list section into prose, I was immediately reverted by Grayfell and accused of "whitewashing" - something that this user seems to have done in the past before, which violates WP:AGF. Furthermore, even though the article has been the subject of NPOV disputes and quite obviously still is, editors continue to remove the POV dispute tag from the article. Volunteer Marek frequently cites WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a Wikipedia essay, as rationale for removing the NPOV template. Seems to imply that he thinks whoever has an issue with the tone of this article (I'm not the only one) is only putting it there because they are fans of Posobiec and are editing to make him look better. The NPOV template was put there because it is blatantly under dispute. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jack_Posobiec#Bold_edit_rationale_and_further_discussion_to_fix_NPOV User_talk:CatcherStorm#List_to_prose Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Jack_Posobiec How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? As long as this article continues to read like a borderline attack page, there will be editors who will repeatedly press the issue. The NPOV dispute tag should be re-added to the top of the article. Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Raquel Baranow Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jack Posobiec discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Expelled: No_Intelligence_Allowed

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Johnbplett on 10:05, 1 February 2020 (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 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Johnbplett (talk · contribs) Johnuniq (talk · contribs) Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) Seraphimblade (talk · contribs) Grayfell (talk · contribs) Theroadislong (talk · contribs) Hob Gadling (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Greetings, There is a sad situation that I have encountered regarding editors using Wikipedia to promote ideas by force. Obviously some topics are heated because beliefs are involved. Specifically when concepts like Evolution, ID, Creation, and other views on how life started are involved people can get defensive or offensive. There are numerous pages on Wikipedia controlled by groups of editors promoting and defending their views in the pages they control. It stands to reason that all such pages are fundamentally not adhering to Wikipedias neutral point of view.. When editing an article under the control of any of these groups, their narrative is forced, and the content is directed in a specific direction by the controlling editors. So if I were to make an edit that the controlling faction feels undermines their point of view, I will be shut down no matter how much information is presented. This is a situation that seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. In good faith, I removed two words from an article that is clearly not essential but is promotional of a specific group narrative. This caused an "edit war" as I was up against a group of editors who immediately accused me of having a motive to promote ideas from opposing "group" so to speak, and they got heated and personal. I am requesting that this situation be looked at closer, not to get my edits approved, or to somehow promote one school of thinking above another, but to call a point of order. If the information on Wikipedia is limited to what the controlling editors of an article view as credible, in line with their specific narrative, then the information is not neutral, and does not accurately represent the subject. These groups have made it impossible to get a comprehensive and broad view of certain subjects. They are also trying to force ideas into camps and segregate information. Please help. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [14] [15] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 1. By enforcing the rule of having a neutral point of view across the board when there is more than one mainstream thinking on a subject. 2. Review the privileges of all editors across the board who are "controlling" pages on Wikipedia to "promote" ideas instead of presenting information from a neutral point of view. 3. Remove segregation. I do not belong to any of the camps I was accused of trying to promote. Summary of dispute by Johnuniq Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ian.thomson Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Forum shopping by a civil POV-pusher for the fringe view of Intelligent Design, trying to use an article about a movie to make arguments about Evolution and ID. If there are any passing admins not involved in articles relating to fringe or pseudoscience, would you please DS topic ban him? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Seraphimblade Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Grayfell Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Theroadislong Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Expelled: No_Intelligence_Allowed discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Xiao Zhan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 185.32.23.5 on 17:01, 31 January 2020 (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 Xiao Zhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Eieishwezinxz (talk · contribs) 203.81.71.88 (talk · contribs) various IPs starting with 110.168 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Various IPs keeps changing an award from nominated to win. Attempts have been made to discuss the issue on the talk page and sources have been provided to support the point. But these IPs keep ignoring the discussion and change the content without providing a source or reason. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? An attempt to explain the issue has been made on the talk pages: [16] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A ban is maybe needed to stop these IPs from changing sourced content. Summary of dispute by Eieishwezinxz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 203.81.71.88 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by various IPs starting with 110.168 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Xiao Zhan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Knowledge_Academy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by S9urav on 11:26, 8 February 2020 (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 The Knowledge Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved S9urav (talk · contribs) Arjayay (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am new in Wikipedia and i had knowledge about the training institute. I check 6 articles and choose one article to start my journey on Wikipedia. the article name was 'the knowledge academy'. List of other articles where I have chosen: 1) New Horizons Computer Learning Centers 2) Coursera 3) Uadacity 4) Edx 5) Alison (company) 6) Theknowledgeacademy I have seen that the knowledge academy have very less content compare to others. So I make find the section which i will add into to 'theknowledgeacademy' pages which help to be article more informative to users. I didn't know much about how we can edit content in the wikipedia. so first time was add the information which has not good source. Because this is my frist edit. someone remove that then i know we need to add proper source to add any information. Then i was closly watch the other article which i have mention above. and find the section which are not in the theknowledgeacademy article. I was choosen the same section which other article have and also find the good source for this. but Arjayay user said that was the promotional content. I didn't understand about that if the other article also has the same section that what is the problem. I think if we can't add the section in one article why we can add in another article. So I ask the question to Arjayay on his talk page: 1) New Horizons Computer Learning Centers article have awards section. so why no one remove that section? 2) Coursera article has Business model section under product and services section. I believe that was I another level of promotion. 3) Uadacity article have free courses, Enrollment, Certification, Awards, Spin-off company section is they not promotional. 4) Edx and futurelearn have Functionality, courses section. 5) Alison have Business model, Courses, Accreditation, Reception section. but he didn't answer my questions and said my most of edit was on one article. so if my first article not approved why I will edit another article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arjayay#The_Knowledge_Academy How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I just want to know if we can the same section in the one article then why we can't edit the same section in another article. If I can't add the awards and other section in the knowledge academy. if others also have the same. I think rule will be the same. Summary of dispute by Arjayay Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The Knowledge_Academy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of Steven Universe episodes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Occono on 22:45, 9 February 2020 (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 List of Steven Universe episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Occono (talk · contribs) Alex_21 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On Talk:List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes, a discussion was started by User:Ndncndln about changing the name of a writer who now goes by a different name. After a rather heated discussion between User:Ndncndln, User:Ajd who supported the change, and User:Alex_21 who opposes it, the latter closed the discussion, on the grounds of it becoming a personal attack. I was not participant to this discussion or a follow up discussion at however I added the information to the article in this edit, with a citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes&oldid=939979856 This was reverted by User:Alex_21 who referred me to discuss the issue at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Changing_the_names_of_transgender_staff_members We discussed this and I believe the discussion will not be productive. He refers to WP:TV policy without a specific reference for the policy he is enforcing. I believe this may be relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Cast_and_characters_information "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." I added their new common name with a source, and included information about the credited name as well, but he says this violates policy for exact recording of information. The list of episodes is not a [[17]] of episode credits, it is an encyclopedia ofd all germane information, and a record of a person's work who has the right to not want to be misnamed. (The source I provided for the edit may prove to not meet the measure needed, but I am more concerned with confirming the policy here if I DID have a reliable source to cite. In any case, the source itself was never addressed by Alex_21.) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Changing_the_names_of_transgender_staff_members, User_talk:Alex_21#Inappropriate_handling_of_disagreement How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Providing a firm definition of the policy for crediting the current name of people in "list of" pages or any other film/tv credits, not just for Transgender people but as a general firm policy, and resolving the discussion in question about the name change here. The source I provided for the edit may prove to not meet the measure needed, but I am more concerned with confirming the policy here if I DID have a reliable source to cite. In any case, the source itself was never addressed by Alex_21. Summary of dispute by Alex_21 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of Steven Universe episodes discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Why is there a discussion here when there's already one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Changing the names of transgender staff members? Also, as was already pointed out, the source was a random Master's thesis, not applicable at all to the topic at hand. My further responses will be to the previously linked discussion rather than here; I need not discuss the same thing twice, especially when the end result of both discussions is for the same resolution: clarity. -- /Alex/21 22:51, 9 February 2020 (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.

Behavioural genetics

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Randykitty on 09:29, 9 February 2020 (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 Behavioural genetics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Randykitty (talk · contribs) Crossroads (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This article passed GA, but in my informed opinion is unbalanced. I have explained the issue extensively on the talk page. After the article passed GA, I put a maintenance tag on it explaining that the article needed balance. This tag has been in place since around May 2018. The article has barely been edited during this time, so the tag remained in place. Recently, a new editor appeared, Crossroads, who argues that since the article has passed GA, the maintenance tag should be removed. I think I have followed the spirit and letter of WP:GAR, which recommends in cases like to this to "(t)ag serious problems that you cannot fix ... if the templates will help other editors find the problems". The issue has been extensively discussed on the talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Behavioural_genetics#Animal_research How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? An informed opinion on whether or not it is allowed to tag a GA article for further improvement would be welcome. Summary of dispute by Crossroads This article has passed GA nomination and then GA reassessment, and three editors (including myself) have recently objected to this tagging as incompatible with GA status. Yet, all the while Randykitty has continued to insist that the article should never have passed GA and to revert their tag back. In February 2017, Randykitty objected on the article talk page to the prospect of the article being GA, [18] although saying I don't feel like contributing significantly to this page. On 11 February 2017, the article passed GA. [19] (Comparison of article between then and now. [20]) On 5 March 2017, Randykitty tagged the article for undue weight. [21] From March to May 2018, the article underwent GA reassessment and was kept as GA, [22] even though Randykitty brought up the same issue they always have. (Comparison of article between then and now. [23]) On 30 May 2018, Aircorn removed Randykitty's tag citing the GA reassessment, [24] but Randykitty reverted [25] and replaced it with an expert needed tag. [26] On 17 January 2020, Aircorn again removed Randykitty's tag citing the GA reassessment, [27] but was again reverted by Randykitty. [28] On 7 February 2020, I, a previously uninvolved editor, removed the tag. [29] Randykitty re-added it yet again. [30] The matter went to the talk page. [31] There, another uninvolved editor, Lee Vilenski, stated: If the tag is valid, we should be heading to WP:GAR. If not then be removed. On the basis of that discussion, I re-removed the tag, and Randykitty took the matter here. I can't escape the impression that Randykitty is trying to unilaterally override everyone else's input and add a badge of shame to spite the article being GA. Despite wasting their own and others' time on this tag, they by their own admission have no interest in actually fixing the issue they allege. How many uninvolved editors it will take for them to drop the stick? Although the tagging is the primary dispute here, I think their claim that the article is so unbalanced is quite dubious. I won't get into it to save space, but some evidence showing that the primary topic of "behavioral genetics" is humans can be found in the discussions linked above. They themselves even admitted back in 2017 that "animal behavior genetics" was generally not called that and instead fell under neuroscience: [32] Crossroads -talk- 18:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC) Addendum: While it is true that WP:GAR allows for the tagging of a GA, that does not make doing so a right. GAR obviously is counterbalanced by such things as WP:IDHT and WP:ONUS. And note that GAR is about GA reassessment. The article has already been reassessed and kept. As I showed above, the article has added content on the alleged issues since the tagging. Crossroads -talk- 03:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Behavioural genetics discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I'm not going to go into too much detail here. Just this: Crossroads brings up the fact that most animal BG is not called that, but neuroscience. However, the same goes for human BG. Very few articles on the genetic analysis of behavior (whether animal of human) explicitly say that they are concerned with "behavior genetics". Fact is, if you look at the contents of the major journals in the field, then Genes, Brain and Behavior overwhelmingly publishes animal work, whereas Behavior Genetics, despite the fact that it is the journal of the Behavior Genetics Association, whose annual meetings since the traumatic 1995 meeting in Richmond have been near exclusively human oriented, still publishes a good chunk of animal work, too (the latest issue: 2 out of 6 articles -not counting the editorial, which highlighted a lot of animal work, too). It is, therefore, pertinently incorrect to say that when people speak of "behavior genetics", they exclusively think of human behavior genetics. There's more to say about the unbalance in this article, but I'll leave it at this. --Randykitty (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC) My involvement has been through the GAR process. The way I see it this is about consensus. Community GAR consensus sits somewhere between talk page consensus and an RFC. The consensus was summarised by an experienced RFC closer and it was agreed that the issue had been addressed. Randykitty needs to open a RFC asking for a new consensus (or another GAR I suppose, or at the very least listen to the current consensus on the talk page). It sucks sometimes, but we have to swallow our pride here and just go with what the community agrees. FWIW the reason there is such a big gap in my reverts is that I removed the tag when I did the technical stuff closing the GAR and just recently I have been going through the cleanup listings and came to this article again. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Crossroads above makes reference to IDHT. Perhaps. However, I have provided clear evidence that, from its early beginnings until today, animal work is an important part of behavioural genetics. I don't think that can or should be brushed away, just because somebody has the preconceived opinion that "behavioural genetics" exclusively refers to human work. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2020 (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.

Conformicide

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SolarFlash on 02:42, 13 February 2020 (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 Conformicide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MetalDiablo666 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:MetalDiablo666 is repeatedly attempting to add unsourced information about a future event. He was first notified [33] that reliable sources are required and that edits speculating about future events are generally discouraged. He then initiated discussion on my talk page which implored me to stop reverting him [34] and proposed a handful of highly questionable sources, all of which were subsequently shown to him to be unreliable. He then reverted again, this time stating in the edit summary that it "is confirmed", though again no attempt was made by him to add any reliable source. I made a couple of follow-up posts in the talk page discussion [35] and [36] which seem to have been completely disregarded. The discussion seems to have ended at this point, with no further response from MetalDiablo666. I attempted to find a reliable source to confirm what MetalDiablo666 was attempting to add, but was unsuccessful. I then attempted to remove the unsourced addition again [37], explaining via edit summary that I attempted to verify the claim and cound not, and that sources would definitely be required. He then once again re-added the unsourced material [38], again claiming in the edit summary that "it is confirmed" despite not adding a source, while also claiming that he's not edit warring. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [39] [40] [41] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'm hopeful that if an uninvolved third party reverts him under WP:RS, he'll likely figure it out. Page protection may be necessary, but I'm hopeful this can be resolved without any type of sanctions. Summary of dispute by MetalDiablo666 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Conformicide discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legality of bestiality by country or territory

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Ocolon on 10:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Legality of bestiality by country or territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ocolon (talk · contribs)
• Shiloh6555 (talk · contribs)
• Delderd (talk · contribs)
• Senegambianamestudy (talk · contribs)
• Terrorist96 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is about whether sex between humans and animals without the use of force is legal in Germany.

In Germany, everything is legal unless it is explicitly prohibited. The only German prohibition concerning sex with animals says: "Es ist verboten, […] ein Tier für eigene sexuelle Handlungen zu nutzen oder für sexuelle Handlungen Dritter abzurichten oder zur Verfügung zu stellen und dadurch zu artwidrigem Verhalten zu zwingen." (§ 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG) Note: zwingen = to force.

Some Wikipedians claim that the restriction to forced behaviour within that law either does not apply to the whole sentence or that it is just meant as a comment to say that all sex would always be forced.

But we do not have to resort to such speculation, since the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has explained what the law means. The primary source is available for everyone to read [42] [43]. Multiple secondary sources have also been provided [44] [45] [46] [47]. According to the court, the criterion of force is an additional criterion that applies to the whole thing and limits the scope of the law. Furthermore, the court explained that force means physical force or something equivalent.

Two Wikipedians choose to ignore the court's explanation, one of them even claiming that the Federal Constitutional Court is not allowed to explain what a law means.

The above is what I see as the relevant part of the discussion.

Besides you will find talk about the Federal Constitutional Court having dismissed a complaint against the law. This is true, undisputed and not relevant for the discussed question. The dismissal is only interesting in so far as it was in context of this dismissal, that the court explained how the law is to be interpreted correctly.

You will also be presented newspaper articles reporting about said dismissal and/or writing that bestiality in Germany would stay illegal, failing to communicate the restriction to forced behaviour. Superficial coverage is unfortunate, but happens.

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

Extensive discussion at Talk:Legality of bestiality by country or territory#I_corrected_inaccuracies_in_the_Germany_Bestiality_law, I provided additional sources for the constitutional court's explanation and quoted the relevant parts, more talk at Wikipedia talk:Dispute_resolution noticeboard#DR:_Legality_of_bestiality_by_country

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally you could make Wikipedians agree on the correct legal situation in Germany as clarified by the constitutional court, i.e. bestiality only being illegal when forced.

The second best option would be to make at least Wikipedia report the correct situation again.

The worst still acceptable outcome would be to represent the legal situation as being disputed in Wikipedia and Wikipedia not being able to determine the correct situation.

Summary of dispute by Shiloh6555

I have edited my previous overview summary due to its length. I also wanted to cut to the chase as it were.

Firstly Ocolon incorrectly stated in his edit, that the 2013 law only prohibited "forced" sexual acts with animals. However the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture's own webpage proves otherwise. I refer all to section 6, Further amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. There it clearly states, "Zoophilia will likewise be banned on the grounds of animal welfare." Animal Welfare So the reliability of assertions clearly cannot just be taken at face value.

Ocolon also asserts that in 2015, The Federal constitutional court "clarified" the existing 2013 zoophilia law to read as, only "forced" sex was illegal. However what Ocolon, or I think or believes is irrelevant. Its up to each editor to provide reputable and unbiased news sources that back claims as to the legal status. We can't rely on "personal interpretation or opinions. "My interpretation is correct, and yours is wrong." Shouldn't be the basis on which to decide on what edit should prevail. All I can do is provide links to some well known, reputable news sources that back my particular assertion. Ocolon must do the same, and it'll be up to others. To come to a consensus on what edit should, at least for now, be accepted.

1-bvr-1864-14 apnews.com nytimes www.bbc.com theguardian.com/world/ www.thelocal.de .bundesverfassungsgericht.(Press release) Harvard-University-Summary-BvR-1864-14-2015.pdf Shiloh6555 (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Delderd

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

Ocolon is using original research, interpreting the law (“to use an animal for their own sexual acts or to train or make available for the sexual acts of third parties and thereby force them to behave in a manner contrary to the species") their own way when all of the reports on the ruling, including the associated press, say that they threw out the challenge and kept bestiality illegal. There are no actual reports explicitly stating that “consensual bestiality” is now legal in Germany. --Delderd (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

in addition to the ap, here are other news reports saying Germany kept the ban on bestiality.

time

bbc•

Thelocal.de

meanwhile, none of ocolon’s sources actually state that the courts ruled that “consensual bestiality” was legal. Delderd (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Even though Ocolon got Rosguill to reverse their decision because they said they had sources (though Rosguill also said they were still "skeptical that these sources comprise enough secondary coverage to support your proposed interpretation") WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS still applies here with "[having] to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That hasn't happened here, all of the mainstream media's reporting on the case have said that the courts ruled that bestiality was still illegal. --Delderd (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Senegambianamestudy

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

As far as I can see, a big problem that has derailed the issue and led to reverts is that @Shiloh6555:, the OP of that tread does not seem to understand that we don't accept WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, We don't also go by what they think the sources should say but what reliable sources actually say. Another confusion as far as I can see is, they seem to think that Wikipedia is here to report the truth, rather than what verifiable and RS sources say. They also resulted to deleting source/content and reverting others which washn't helping. Nothing else to add, as I've stated everything I needed to in that tread. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Terrorist96

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

I don't have much more to add than what I've mentioned on the talk page. Terrorist96 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Legality of bestiality by country or territory discussion

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

No Ocolon, hasn't provided a single major news source that backs his claims. It's been over 4 years now, yet no news sources have reported anything about how the Federal constitutional court clarified the law to mean that only "forced" sex was prohibited. There isn't a single shred of verifiable evidence for Ocolon's clams. this. Personal interpretations isn't fact. His link to the "JaraForum" is a perfect example. The authors "opinion" is just that, his interpretation. "The Federal Constitutional Court further emphasized that the law does not generally prohibit sexual acts with animals" That statement. has no basis in fact, and is just the authors own interpretation. (Forum and blogs is not an acceptable source.) But regardless, Ocelon or other has to show some well known (major) news sources that support is claims that the 2013 law only prohibited "forced" sex, thus consensual sex was legal. Which would be the total opposite of the parliament's intent. The widely accepted, majority consensus is that the 2013 law banned outlawed sex with with animals.

The law was unsuccessfully challenged in 2015. Again no news sources in the last 4 years have reported that consensual beastily is still legal, as it was since 1969. So again, until Ocelon can provide a reputable news agency that backs his assertions. My edit, should continue to be the accepted one.

In closing, the courts own press release summed up the complaint and why it was rejected. "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals." it doesn't get any clearer than that. So again, until Ocelon can provide a reputable news agency that backs his assertions. My edit, should continue to be the accepted one. Shiloh6555 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Shiloh6555, the TAZ is a major nation-wide distributed newspaper in Germany as you would know, if you had any connection to Germany. Furthermore, Legal Tribune Online is a major news source for legal matters. The link to JuraForum may not have the same weight as these major publications, but you make it sound as if this was some bulletin board post, which is incorrect. It is a news article and it itself names www.juragentur.de, a news agency specializing in legal matters, as their source. This is not just someone's opinion.

Please don't say there would not be "a single shred of verifiable evidence" for the claim. This makes you look insincere, since I have provided six sources [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] (actually, one of these was provided by yourself) and even quoted the relevant parts in five cases:

Jedoch greift der Tatbestand des § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.

Jedoch greift der Tatbestand nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.

Der Tatbestand greife jedoch nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.

Die Richter klärten die Kläger also auf, dass gar nicht jeder Sex mit Tieren verboten ist, sondern nur der erzwungene.

Werden Tiere hingegen nicht zu den sexuellen Handlungen gezwungen, sondern ist davon auszugehen, dass sie sich der Situation jederzeit entziehen können, keine Schmerzen erleiden und nicht zu "artwidrigem Verhalten" genötigt werden, so ist Zoophilie laut Gesetzesformulierung nicht strafbar.

All of these say that the ban only applies to forced sex. This can't be mistaken by anyone who understands German, it is not a personal interpretation of mine.

You come back repeatedly to the point that the law in question has been challenged unsuccessfully. Please stop this – it is a needless distraction, because we all agree on this. I suspect that your focus on this one point clouds your judgement of the real question: what exactly is forbidden?

However, I do agree that the press release you speak of is indeed a relevant source! However, the relevant part for the Wikipedia article is not in the headline of the press release. The relevant part is where the court explains that:

Zwar greift § 3 Satz 1 Nr. 13 TierSchG in die sexuelle Selbstbestimmung der Beschwerdeführer ein. Jedoch greift der Tatbestand nur, wenn das Tier zu einem artwidrigen Verhalten gezwungen wird.

The very same press release that you use to defend your opinion literally says that the ban only applies, if the animal is forced. I do not understand how you can miss this important fact except that you do not understand the language. How can you say that I have no credible source, if your own favorite source says exactly what I say? The very same press release also says this:

die Bedeutung etwa des Begriffs des „Zwingens“ ergibt sich im Zusammenhang des Gesetzes in Abgrenzung zu einem bloßen „Abverlangen“ und setzt ein Verhalten voraus, welches mit der Anwendung von körperlicher Gewalt vergleichbar ist.

explaining further what forcing means: something on par with physical force, but not just demanding the behaviour from the animal. This is not some weird interpretation of mine. Your own source literally says this.

---

Finally I want to point out something about the TAZ webpage I linked to in one of the sources ([54]), because it may give you an idea why other newspapers fail to report that the law only applies to forced behaviour. At the top, the TAZ webpage contains an article like you will find many, saying that a complaint against the bestiality law has been unsuccessful and that bestiality would stay prohibited. That's exactly the kind of article you use to back up your stance. Dozens of these articles appeared after the court rejected the appeal (again, there is no dispute about the rejection). However, the editors of the TAZ website added an official comment by their legal reporter below said article later on the same day. This comment includes the full text of the printed newspaper article they would publish on the following morning. This printed newspaper article reads quite differently. Where the online article's heading was "Sex mit Tieren bleibt verboten", the printed newspaper article of the following day received the heading "Kein Zwangs-Sex mit Tieren". The online article's heading didn't mention the restriction of force yet, but the heading of the printed article from the following day includes it. Furthermore, the printed article is very explicit that the law really applies to forced sex only and what that means:

Jedenfalls sei es nur verboten, das Tier zu etwas zu "zwingen". Erforderlich sei dabei, so die Richter, körperliche Gewalt oder ähnliches. Die Richter klärten die Kläger also auf, dass gar nicht jeder Sex mit Tieren verboten ist, sondern nur der erzwungene.

Why do the quick TAZ online article and their printed article from the next day differ so much? Well, their online article is based on a short note by the biggest German news agency dpa (not my theory, the article says this). And their printed article was authored later by a reporter for legal matters Christian Rath (not my theory, the official comment says this) who had both the knowledge of the dpa release, but also the time to investigate the issue himself, read what the court actually wrote etc.

So from what's documented on the TAZ page (you can get around the pop-up by saying that you don't want to pay "GERADE NICHT") we learn that the newspaper changed its story within half a day from something that would seemingly back up your position to what I am saying.

This may give you an explanation why you will find many other newspaper articles that seemingly back up your stance. Like any note by the biggest German news agency dpa, this superficial note about an unseccessful complaint against the law spread world-wide. Based on it, any newspaper in the world that doesn't task a reporter to investigate the issue further itself like the TAZ did, ended up with an equally superficial article.

I hope this helps you understand why you will find many article that fail to mention that the ban is limited to forced sex. My position, however, is not based on claiming that a dpa note was superficial. You don't have to agree with this. My stance is based on reliable sources, secondary ones and in particular also the court's own publication, which you yourself brought into the discussion and which literally says what I say, and what you would also see if you read past the heading and would understand the language. – Ocolon (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Shiloh6555, in your description of the dispute you ask about zoophiles' response. I do not think that they are an unbiased source. But there is actually a zoophiles' association in Germany and, since you asked, they also say about the legal situation in Germany in broken English that the Federal Constitutional Court

… made clear that anchored in the Animal Welfare Act prohibition grab only if the animal is forced to species-contrary behavior. Thus, the sex with animals is not in principle prohibited.

Here is one more source lawblog.de by the way, which says:

Vielmehr sind sexuelle Kontakte mit Tieren, bei denen kein Zwang ausgeübt wird, nach wie vor erlaubt. Und das auch dann, wenn die Handlung „artwidrig“ ist.

I suppose the blog format makes this source inacceptable according to Wikipedia's standard. Note, however, that the website has been awarded the most prestigous Grimme Online Award for its quality online journalism on legal matters [55]. – Ocolon (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Volunteer Note - Is a volunteer available to mediate this dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It has been a while since I have volunteered at DRN, but I'm hoping to become more active again. I could take a crack at it if you'd like. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion of Dispute

• Moderator's Opening Statement - I'll take this case and see if I can help the involved editors find a clear consensus. I'll start by addressing User:Ocolon's statements for how we could resolve it, because there seems to be a misunderstanding of DRN's purpose there. We can't "make Wikipedians" do anything; we don't set policy here any more than other project pages do. We can't "make Wikipedia" do anything either - Wikipedia evolves around the community's consensus, and that's what we're here to find. It would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to represent the situation as "disputed" unless outside, independent sources also represent the situation as "disputed" (doing so would violate WP:NOR and WP:V). As I understand things, the locus of the dispute seems to be over the exact usage of "forced" in the legal context. Ocolon contends that "forced" only includes physical force and does not include training animals to willingly do things they normally would not. The others contend that that is not the case, and that "forced" does not only refer to physical force. The translation of the German word seems to imply physical force, but the preponderance of sources provided by User:Shiloh6555 seem to suggest otherwise. User:Ocolon, you have provided sources about the translation of the word - just so I can understand your position clearly, do you think that all of the sources Shiloh linked (including a fair number of reputable news sources) are also misinterpreting the law? If so, what sources do you have that say so? (Also, as a side note, it might be worth it for the involved editors to consider having a discussion at WP:RSN - while the reliability of the various sources doesn't seem to be a main point of contention here, it does seem to have come up in the talk page discussion at least a few times.) Sleddog116 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• Statement by Ocolon – Thanks for the clarification of what DRN can (not) do. As for your question, I actually think that some sources Shiloh6555 provided are correct and can be a basis for finding a consensus. Only some of his/her sources are misrepresenting the current situation. Here is what I can say about each of the eight sources provided by Shiloh6555 above:

1. BMEL – The source does not describe the current legal situation. It says: "Beyond this, further amendments to the Animal Welfare Act are planned: […] Zoophilia will likewise be banned on the grounds of animal welfare." So this is an announcement for future actions that have not been passed into law in such a general form as suggested here. The BMEL – a ministry, part of the executive branch – may suggest laws, but it is the legislative branch who passes them and can always change them before doing so; it is the judicial branch who interprets and applies them in verdicts.
2. HRR-Strafrecht: 1-bvr-1864-14 – I accept this source 100%. It quotes a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court with some added comment. Within it, the law is explained clearly.
3. AP News – This source uses somewhat ambiguous wording like sexual assault that could make it difficult for us to find a consensus. I understand sexual assault as a sexual act physically or similarly forced upon the victim. If that's what the source means, then the source is correct.
4. NY Times – The source translates the law fully in its third paragraph. However, the source is from 2013, predating the Federal Constitutional Court's 2015/2016 clarification of the law. Based on the 2015/2016 explanation (see sources 2. and 8.) that the NY Times authors could not possibly know in 2013, the source misinterpreted the law in its first paragraph.
5. BBC – The source is correct, but is even older and predates the final voting and enactment of the law. It says so itself.
6. The Guardian – Interesting article, but it also predates the law and says so itself. I think we should not use sources that are older than what they are supposed to prove.
7. The Local – The article does not represent the current situation correctly. Since the article also predates the voting on and enactment of the law and says so itself, it is no valid source for the current situation.
8. Federal Constitutional Court (press release) – I accept this source 100%. It contains a clear explanation of the current situation.
9. Case Summary BvR 1864 14 2015 at Harvard – This summary misrepresents the situation. The proof is in Havard's own full translation of the Federal Constitutional Court's writings of the case at [56] which states: "Although § 3 clause 1 Nr. 13 APL does infringe upon the sexual self-determination of the complainants, the offense in § 3 clause 1 Nr. 13 APL only applies if the animal is coerced to a species-inappropriate behavior" and "Per the reasoning of the law, the 'coercion' is possible through both force and other means […]. A reading of the law per § 3 APL and with respect to the aim of the law shows that these other means must refer to acts which are comparable to that of the coercion through physical force." The summary failed to incorporate this for our dispute essential detail. Maybe this detail was not relevant for what the summary was for.

Please let me know in case this did not answer your question sufficiently, so that I can add what's missing. – Ocolon (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Ocolon, thank you for your clarification of your feelings towards the sources. You say that some of Shiloh's sources "are misrepresenting the current situation," but that is not for us on Wikipedia to decide. We can only report what the sources say - it's not our job to discern whether they are interpreting the current situation correctly. If the preponderance of sources are reporting the situation one particular way, then that is what we give the most weight to, especially when they are secondary sources like the Associated Press and the BBC. You say "I understand sexual assault as ..." and that falls under the same issue. What you understand it as is not important; what secondary sources report it as is important. I don't say that to be dismissive, but merely to frame clearly what WP:NOR means. Having said that, the currency of sources does indeed matter to at least some degree. User:Shiloh6555, are any of the sources you listed (and/or are there other sources you haven't listed) that are newer than 2013? Sleddog116 (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Statement by Shiloh6555 – The only issue here, is to determine the official legal status in Germany as of 2020. In this situation, all any editor can do.Is to provide citations to well known, reputable news reports to back up claims. It's abundantly clear that the 2013 law was a complete ban on sex with animals. The fact that Germany was in the process of amending the Animal Welfare Act, to include a complete prohibition on bestiality was widely reported. The Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture's own website clearly shows the amendment would make all sex with animals illegal.

The only documented challenge to the 2013 bestiality law, was in 2015. It came in the form of a "Constitutional complaint." By two people who asserted they were sexually attracted to animals, and that the 2013 law. Violated their constitutional right to sexual-self determination. However, that complaint was dismissed by the Constitutional court. "The constitutional complaint is not admitted for decision." The courts own press release states, "Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the criminal offense of sexual acts with animals.

Yet Ocolon asserts that in the above mentioned constitutional complaint. The court had "clarified" the law to read as only "forced" sexual acts was illegal. But this would've completely changed the original intent of the 2013 law. As the court would've said that consensual sex was still legal in Germany. But if this was in fact true, Surely it wouldn't made the headlines. So Ocolon should be to cite news sources that can confirm this assertion. Official statements from Parliament, the government and/or the court itself, that back Oclon's assertion. Using personal opinions and interpretations by other individuals posted on forum's or blog sites doesn't help us here.

Sleddog116 Yes, all the news sources I've cited regarding the 2015 court challenge are from 2016. But because the law was unsuccessfully challenged in 2015. Its up to Ocolon to provide links to more recent developments (after 2015) that back up his/her claims.

Just for the record. Denmark also revised their bestiality law in 2015. "Finland and Romania are now the only EU countries where bestiality, or zoophilia, is legal." www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/ And "The only EU nations where bestiality remains legal are now Finland, Romania and Hungary. www.icenews.is Shiloh6555 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Krazytea on 16:45, 10 February 2020 (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 Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Krazytea (talk · contribs) Akira CA (talk · contribs) Admanny (talk · contribs) Hayman30 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hello, I am wondering if there are editors with a background in political geography that can provide comment. In the recent Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data table there has been a bit of an edit war and mass confusion around how to list China in the list of countries affected by the virus. Things like China, Mainland China, China (mainland), or China with the footnote have been used. There seems to be little clarity of the matter with it almost changing daily based on people's assumption and/or biases of China and the territories. The terms seem to be used to avoid confusion with the listing of Hong Kong and Macau. There is no other precedent for using these terms on Wikipedia and clean and true listings such as List of sovereign states and List of countries and dependencies by population all seem to have no issue and correctly label China as the name of that state and not "Mainland China". In this table though, constant edit warring and changes have occurred. If others with some background can provide some further insight here or at Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data, that would be very much appreciated. Since the edits of this template the Mainland China term has spread to other pages, so this is now very much a larger issue of how to name the state of China, minus the territories of Hong Kong of Macau, when these states and territories are in lists of countries and territories. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Lengthy discussions at Template talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data, with no resolution. Discussion may be in Archive 1 by the time third parties examine. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am hoping that the dispute can be resolved so that a common terminology for mainland China to be used in lists of countries and territories so that there will be no ambiguous disputes in the future. Honestly, a set of formal naming terminology should be determined and maintained, I am not married to one term or another, though the proper name of China seems best to me. Other editors seem to prefer mainland China. Looking for a determination here. Summary of dispute by Akira CA Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Admanny Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hayman30 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Template:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus data discussion First statement by Moderator Good Day, My name is Nightenbelle and I will volunteer to mediate this dispute. I have reviewed the talk page and the summary provided so far, but I have noticed that the tagged editors have not contributed here. Would Akira CA, Admanny and Hayman30 please add a short summary from your perspective and your concerns in this dispute? Krazytea I just realized that only 1 of the three editors you tagged was notified on their talk page. Please notify all the editors within the next 24 hours, or I will have to close this dispute. I'm sorry, I didn't notice that before I volunteered, or I would have closed it already.Nightenbelle (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Done! Krazytea(talk) 20:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Akira CA Thank you for helping resolve the dispute. Krazytea prefers China with a footnote in the template while I and several editors prefer mainland China. My concern is the presence of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, which makes using China vague as the territory/claimed territory overlapped (and they frequently appears on other lists of countries and territories). It seems redundant to use the footnote when we can adopt a clearer term. In addition, mainland China incorporates the this specific article better as texts, tables, maps, and the bar chart all adopted the term with link. There is also an separate article on the virus outbreak in mainland China. Other terms would be inconsistent with the context. I am hoping that the dispute can be resolved so that a common terminology for mainland China to be used too :) Akira CA (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Admanny Same as Akira CA. "China" as a whole leads to four distinctive territories: Hong Kong Macau Taiwan mainland China ...which are all listed in the table. Thus, Mainland China must be clearly labelled one way or another, and not be hidden in a footnote or whatever. However, I somewhat agree with Krazytea that the word "mainland" is not officially part of China, thus I have opted to make "mainland" small on the chart by doing China (mainland). Kind of a compromise between the two. Admanny (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Statement by Hayman30 The issue here is that the term "mainland China" can be referred to different things for different people. "Mainland China" is not a "clearer term", unlike what Akira CA have suggested. There is not one universally recognized definition that is agreed upon. To people in Hong Kong and Macau, "mainland China" refers to the land mass of China excluding the Special Administrative Regions Hong Kong and Macau, as well as the state of Taiwan. To people in Taiwan, "mainland China" refers to the entirety of China directly controlled by the People's Republic of China. This includes Hong Kong and Macau, but excludes Taiwan. There are at least two completely different interpretations of the term. I somewhat agree that simply putting "China" may be misleading as that would give the impression that Hong Kong and Macau is not part of China, but I strongly oppose using "Mainland China" or "China (mainland)" as per the reasons given above. The footnote we had before, which clearly acknowledges that Hong Kong and Macau are indeed part of China, is in my opinion the best possible presentation, and I think it is the most inoffensive approach. Hayman30 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Second statement by Moderator Okay, based on the conversation on the talk page, I know you have all discussed NC-CN. The policy seems pretty clear about either using China or Mainland China depending on the situation. Because this is a template box, that will be used on multiple pages- it seems that it should be designed to fit the most pages. What terminology do those pages use? Could that provide some guidance? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC) The only problem is that mainland China is not a proper nor a formal name. I think this is the centre of the debate. Krazytea(talk) 16:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC) That's what I agree with. However, I feel the word "mainland" must be transparent along with "China" for reasons in my statement above. Admanny (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC) While not a formal name, it is descriptive, does the name in the box have to be formal? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC) I would argue that names in lists of countries and territories should always be formal names. If we are to set precedents in the cases of these outbreaks it can cause confusion in what the actual formal name of the state should be. The long precedent has been to use the terminology for the state of China which by convention in lists such as List of countries and territories by population, List of sovereign states, List of countries by Human Development Index to list mainland China as China, with the territories of Hong Kong and Macau on their own, also including Taiwan in an other category. By convention China is assumed to be mainland China and thus the territories of Hong Kong and Macau are separate. For any confusion a footnote is added distinguishing it as thus such as at List of countries and territories by population. Krazytea(talk) 21:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Note that Australian and British government use the term mainland China too, so it does possess formality to some extent... If we are to follow the format of List of countries and territories by population, we should name Hong Kong as Hong Kong (China) and Macau as Macau (China) which seems redundant. Given that 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak and Mainland China during the 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak have all adopted the term, I still consider mainland China to be more appropriate to the template. Akira CA (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC) Third statement by Moderator So it seems there is precedent already on both sides. Are either of you open to compramise? It seems that China (mainland) seems to be the most neutral- with both sides getting part of what they are arguing for- China the formal name, but still signifying that its specifically mainland China, but its up to you all. How is the data identified in the sources used for numbers? That would affect things as well I should think. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC) If I may propose something, perhaps if we switch to China (mainland) in the interim while perhaps asking for a RfC with those knowledgeable on the subject and seeing if a broader consensus can be attained? Krazytea(talk) 21:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I am fully open to that, because that's what I think looks best in the first place. Admanny (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC) The main source — BNO NEWS — uses the term Mainland China, WHO situation reports use China but include Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. Since this has been ongoing for a few weeks I prefer to end this dispute with a consensus; I'm prefectly fine with China (mainland), either small or not. Akira CA (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC) Final Statement by Moderator Four in favor feels pretty concensus-y to me. Then if we have at least 3 in favor I'm going to go ahead and close this out. Thank you all for being willing to compromise and working together. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2020 (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.

2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Feminist on 09:59, 9 February 2020 (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 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Feminist (talk · contribs) Akira CA (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Hi, an editor is attempting to litigate my RfC closure and reverted my edit to the article in which I tried to enforce the RfC result. The question centers on whether my RfC closure applies to an animated map in the article. Can another editor step in to provide their opinion? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak#Further clarification about animated map depicting Greater China How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I and Akira CA disagree on interpreting the RfC and I would like opinions from other editors. @Robert McClenon: For what it's worth, I consider the dispute to have been resolved as multiple editors on the talk page agreed with my closure and that Akira CA's reinstatement of the map was inappropriate. feminist (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Akira CA Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is a RfC on a static map of infected cases in Greater China. The map includes mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan, all coloured under the same color scheme. The concern was including Taiwan violates NPOV. And the consensus was replacing the map with a mainland China one. After the RfC closed, feminist removed a different animated map in the article. Which I think is valueable, NPOV, and most importantly, irrelavent to the consensus of the RfC——only one (Jabo-er) has suggested removing the animated map. It's clearly not a consensus. Akira CA (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 2019–20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Will User:Akira CA please state concisely whether they are challenging the closure of the RFC by User:Feminist, or whether this is a separate content dispute? If this is a challenge to the closure of an RFC, then it should be taken to Administrators' Noticeboard (because that is specified as the forum for reviewing RFC closures). If this is a separate content dispute, then please state it concisely, and I will verify whether there has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC) It's about a different dispute where feminist thinks the consensus of RfC applies but I disagree. The RfC consensus was about replacing a static map in the body, but feminist removed an animated map in the lead by claiming that's part of the consensus too. Akira CA (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - Will User:Feminist please state concisely what she is requesting at this noticeboard? It does not appear that this is a request to review the closure of an RFC, and this is not the forum to review the closure of an RFC. I do not understand what is being requested, and, if that isn't clarified, this request will be closed due to not knowing what to do next. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC) It's a bit of both: a content dispute regarding whether an animated map depicting the PRC and Taiwan together should be removed, and whether the RfC I closed supports the removal. Regardless, because multiple editors have removed the map and no other editor has attempted to reinstate it to the article, I consider the matter to have been resolved. feminist (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - This case is something of a puzzlement because it appears that the filing party thinks that the dispute has been resolved. In that case, it isn't clear whether there is still a dispute within the scope of this noticeboard. What does either the filing editor or the other editor want from this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2020 (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.

Gender dysphoria

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Markworthen on 07:39, 15 February 2020 (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 Gender dysphoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Markworthen (talk · contribs) Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs) Crossroads (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are several. I would end up repeating much of what is on the Talk page here. It's probably easier for you all to scan/read the most recent four sections on the article's Talk page. Plus, that way you will see everything in context and without my particular perspective potentially biasing the presentation. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Let's_move_away_from_U.S.-centric_articles_(DSM-5_vs._ICD-11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Recent_lead_changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_dysphoria#Multiple_issues_cleanup_tag How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I don't know. I haven't done this before. Summary of dispute by Flyer22 Frozen Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Crossroads This seems way premature. The matter is still under discussion. It isn't even clear to me what, exactly, you still want to do to the article. But, my objections are at the talk page too, as are those of others like Doc James. I'll add more later if I have to. Crossroads -talk- 07:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Agree with User:Crossroads. We need further discussion. Sure improvements can be made but they need to be done with care and with discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I have never asked for dispute resolution before. Although I did read about the various dispute resolution options, it seems I chose an option (Dispute resolution noticeboard) that is further down the line than I realized. Crossroads and Doc James have much more Wikipedia editing experience than I do, so I defer to their judgment in this regard. In other words, if they both think this option is premature, I have no reason to doubt their conclusion and I will accept closing down this request (if that is the correct term) without complaint.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I still think this should be closed for now as premature; but since we're here, I have to give my side of the issue: Here are the problems with this (later adjusted to this): 1. The condition that the article is about exists outside America. Calling it an "American psychiatric diagnosis" is America-centric. 2. This: At the same time, transgender people who experience distress—even if that distress occurs as a result of social rejection and violence—nonetheless have a mental disorder according to DSM-5. This classification stands in contrast to the...(ICD-11), which does not classify "gender incongruence" as a mental disorder is WP:Editorializing and WP:SOAPBOXing. 3. It introduced a contradiction. The mainline text said, The ICD-11, which will come into effect on 1 January 2022, but a note was added saying, The World Health Organization (WHO) refers to an effective date only twice on its website, and in both instances the phrase "come into effect" is not explicated. The article was made to argue with itself. 4. Closely related - if something has an "effective date", that date is the date it is effective, or comes into effect. The wordings are obviously equivalent. 5. The note went on to say, In addition, WHO has also stated, "... ICD11 is now available for implementation, following its adoption at the World Health Assembly on 25 May 2019." Sure, implementation takes time. Computer systems need to be updated, people trained, etc. That doesn't change the fact that it has not come into effect yet. 6. "Gender dysphoria" is by far the most common term on PubMed. Searching with quotes, we get only 119 for "gender incongruence", but 1,223 results for "gender dysphoria", over 10 times as many. This includes a full page of 20 results just since the start of this year. "Gender incongruence" does not even have that many since the start of the year. By no means can we put WP:UNDUE weight on that term. On the talk page, Markworthen stated: I proposed "DSM-5 diagnosis"...Would you be okay with that compromise? Definitely not. It's casting doubt in the lead sentence. Our article on evolution doesn't start with, "Evolution is a biology concept..." The article should begin with "Gender dysphoria (GD) is the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth" because the article is about "the distress a person feels due to a mismatch between their gender identity and their sex assigned at birth", not a mere diagnostic category. Repeatedly tagging the article with 3 templates [57][58] after he didn't right away get his way with the changes, and when there is yet no consensus that the problems are there, seemed spiteful and unhelpful. WP:WNTRMT point 3 permits the removal of "POV-related templates", which these clearly are, even while under discussion. Crossroads -talk- 19:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Crossroads - It seems you did not read what I wrote above: I have never asked for dispute resolution before. Although I did read about the various dispute resolution options, it seems I chose an option (Dispute resolution noticeboard) that is further down the line than I realized. Crossroads and Doc James have much more Wikipedia editing experience than I do, so I defer to their judgment in this regard. In other words, if they both think this option is premature, I have no reason to doubt their conclusion and I will accept closing down this request (if that is the correct term) without complaint.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) I did read that. While this is open I have no choice but to give my side because I don't know what the official... moderator (?) of the discussion is going to do with this. They may want to handle it here now, or they may close it down based on what you said and send it back to the talk page. I am not that familiar with DRN myself. Crossroads -talk- 19:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC) Ah, okay. What you write makes sense. Thank you for helping me understand it better.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Gender dysphoria discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UFC 244

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Udar55 on 23:46, 16 February 2020 (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 UFC 244 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Udar55 (talk · contribs) Regice2020 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview While doing some edits on MMA pages, I noticed UFC 244 had been significantly altered since I last saw it. Not only did it stray from the standard WikiProject Mixed martial arts format, it was riddled with grammatical errors and, astonishingly, incomplete with one section ending mid-sentence. I reverted it to the last edit that matched the WMMA format and left a note on the MMA WikiProject page. The edit was quickly reverted and user Regice2020 responded to acknowledge it was his work. I questioned why he unilaterally decided to make these changes, but the only offered reason was he wanted to make it a good article. I reverted it again, but he quickly reverted it back. Rather than suffer a 3R, I tried to engage in discussion on the WikiProject talk page, but it just kept going in circles. Finally decided to come here after he left a rather bizarre, unprompted message about U.S. politics. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#UFC_244 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am hoping someone can settle this dispute. Wikipedia's MMA Project has a very set standard for events, with bigger events being drawn out to larger articles. However, this doesn't appear to be warranted here and an admittedly unfinished article looks rather poor. I hope someone can declare which format is accepted. Summary of dispute by Udar55 Regice2020 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. UFC 244 discussion ! For the record, Udar55 jumped that gun multiple times which i called him out for that. Did not discuss on UFC244 talk page as that where the issue is. Udar55 maybe upset that i am not a Trump supporter as that article originally contained irrelevant Donald trump information. Udar55 contacted CASSIOPEIA, mma editor and i contacted the UFC244 ga1 reviewer Kosack before making any ANI or Dispute reports. UFC 244 discussed changes would professionally matches UFC 148 a GA article. Regice2020 (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC) I literally have no idea where this politics stuff is coming from. I want the article to look professional and match previous professional looking UFC articles. Will bow out until third parties reply. Udar55 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC) First Statement by Moderator Good day. I'm volunteering to try to moderate this dispute. From what I understand, Regice2020 is attempting to make a GA out of a page, and Udar55 objected to an unfinished page being left up and also questioned the necessity of this particular page being chosen to develop to GA status. Some politics were also thrown around. I usually ask the involved editors to state their cases first, but you've both done that already. So instead I would like to start with a suggestion- Would you both be open to 1st- Have Regice2020 build the new article in his sandbox- if you need help on how to do that, Myself, or anyone over at the Help Desk would be happy to help. That way- the main article stays looking polished, and you have time to really add to the article and make it great before launching it. 2nd- Udar55- when Regice2020 is ready to publish the new article- you could give it a quick copyedit- make sure he's got the grammar and what have you good. And as far as politics- please remember WP:POV and consider if his appearance is truly noteworthy, and if so- keep politics out of it and just state the facts. Would that work for you both? Udar55- I understand its not your choice of which article you would focus on for GA status, but if it happens to be Regice2020's passion- are you opposed to him working on it as long as it stays in the sandbox until its ready for publishing? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for the reply. I have no objection to looking at a draft in Regice2020's sandbox and helping get it into shape if needed. Udar55 (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Speedy close @Nightenbelle: thank you for your suggestion. The UFC 244 was already in the middle of GA development as no one else came up to discuss GA on UFC 244 talk page during 2 weeks of changes. The very minor errors would be a non issue simple fix. It parts of GA finalization phase. The dispute resolution noticeboard was not needed at all. Udar55 contacted CASSIOPEIA, a experienced mma editor, about the issue on this page. Udar55 did not have a patient to wait for a reply from CASSIOPEIA, instead quickly submitted a dispute noticeboard. I also contacted the reviewer for question about this issue. I had no intent to quickly submit a dispute resolution after contacting another experienced user for assistance. To be honest this dispute resolution noticeboard is not necessary at all.Regice2020 (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Speedy close @Nightenbelle: Both editors had contacted me about the dispute above and I have messaged both of them on my talk page and at WP talk:MMA-UFC244 and explained the situation. I am happy to know Udar55 understood my message and GA requirements and willing to work together with Regice2020. I am willing to give a hand to help both editors in the collaboration work of of the article mentioned. A speedy close is appreciated. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:00, 18 February 2020 (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.

Oko (orisha)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Conde Edmond Dantès on 16:20, 18 February 2020 (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 Oko (orisha) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Conde Edmond Dantès (talk · contribs) Chicocvenancio (talk · contribs) Rui Gabriel Correia (talk · contribs) JMGM (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Divergence between alternative spellings. It started in 2019 and continued to the present day. In short, two users disagreed with the alternative spelling "Ocô" used in Brazil. Trying to resolve the friction, I added seven sources of Brazilian books and newsletters, all verifiable online; however, they were all contested with an argument that I disagree with. There are conflicts between the accounts involved in Wikipedia in Portuguese, so I request external interference to prevent further discussion and, mainly, to prevent conflicts from being transferred here. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Oko (orisha)#POV vandalism/ disruptive behavious How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I added seven secondary sources as books by top-level Brazilian authors, such as Prandi and Amado. I dialogued requesting that the discussion be closed for good, but there were new challenges. Oko (orisha) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gtoffoletto on 20:13, 18 February 2020 (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 Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Gtoffoletto (talk · contribs) ජපස (talk · contribs) LuckyLouie (talk · contribs) 93.211.221.1 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A disagreement regarding a new source has emerged. The source is https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30916275/government-secret-ufo-program-investigation Inside the Pentagon's Secret UFO Program, published on Popular Mechanics 14 February 2020 and written by investigative journalist Lt. Tim McMillan (ret). The editors contend that this source should be treated as WP:SENSATIONAL and "unbalanced". They describe it as an "editorial failure". I asked for justification but received vague replies. The article is a long-form "yearlong investigation" where an investigative journalist checked sources thoroughly including direct witnesses, new evidence and references to source material. Seems hard for me to define it anything other than a balanced and well sourced article from a reputable source and definitely not Tabloid or yellow journalism. Several other reputable sources are aligned with this story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtoffoletto (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Discussion on the topic here Talk:Advanced_Aerospace_Threat_Identification_Program#Popular_Mechanics_article_as_a_source How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Other editor's assessments of the source would be appreciated. We would like help to reach consensus on the source and be pointed to relevant frameworks for assessing if it is a WP:RS. Summary of dispute by ජපස Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It is not clear to me what outcome User:Gtoffoletto is looking for here. The source certainly is WP:SENSATIONAL and editorially unbalanced. That someone might disagree with this assessment is not surprising (there are a lot of UFO-fans out there), but to what end does that matter? For Wikipedia's purposes, we need to adhere to WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG, and, yes, WP:SENSATIONAL. jps (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wrong forum. The filing editor says they are seeking "other editor's assessments of the source". DRN is conducted between the editors already involved in a dispute and a single mediator who functions as a neutral facilitator. It isn't meant to duplicate the functions of WP:RSN (which is designed to help editors to gain input regarding the suitability of a source for a given usage) or an WP:RFC (which is designed to openly solicit input from the community regarding a precisely-stated editorial question). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 93.211.221.1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program discussion Good day, my name is Nightenbelle and I'll volunteer to mediate this dispute. After looking at the discussion on the talk page, I need to ask Gtoffoletto are you sure you are on the right board- this board exists to mediate and find a compramise- not provide a 3rd opinion WP:3o, request for comment WP:RFC or make decisions on content WP:Fringe_theories or WP:Reliable_Sources. If that is what you are looking for- you need to go the appropriate board. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your reply. We tried to discuss the best way to handle the dispute and originally I was leaning for an RFC. I see LuckyLouie also believes that this is not the appropriate board and suggests WP:RSN. It seems a more appropriate tool for the occasion. I wasn't aware of it. ජපස‎ you agree? --Gtoffoletto (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC) No one can stop you from posting wherever you want. For what my two cents are worth, however, I would advise slowing down a bit and trying to learn the editorial philosophy and culture of this website before filing yet another report. You seem to be out looking for the answer you want and don't seem to be understanding what those editors who disagree with you are saying. jps (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC) So what I'm hearing is the editors involved don't want to do a DRN at this point? Is that correct? If so, I'll go ahead and close this out.Nightenbelle (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Yes thanks Nightenbelle --Gtoffoletto (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2020 (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.

Reiki

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Pamxz on 21:48, 19 February 2020 (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 Reiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Pamxz (talk · contribs) Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) MrBill3 (talk · contribs) SummerPhD (talk · contribs) TylerDurden8823 (talk · contribs) Ronz (talk · contribs) McSly (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The definition of Reiki in the first paragraph is antiquated and unreferenced. I have offered a current definition from an independent, reliable source - the NIH - but it has been rejected because it does not include the word pseudoscience. In fact, the current unreferenced definition also does not include the word pseudoscience. I am baffled because the editors working with me on this article reject even the most logical and guideline-proof change. This is my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article and that can be trying for experienced people, but I do believe the NIH definition is a no-brainer to use. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Reiki#Needs_Work How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? While I respect the consensus approach, still, a minority of one should be heard with an open mind. I feel the other editors do not have an open mind. I would appreciate your help in determining whether the NIH definition is appropriate to replace the old unreferenced first sentence. Summary of dispute by Roxy the dog I cannot see a dispute that needs resolving. A consensus exists. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 02:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC) In case the above isn't clear, I shall not participate. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MrBill3 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by SummerPhD As previously discussed, the definition in the lede is a summary of the article's content. Most of the reliable sources say it is pseudoscience. That the NCCIH -- which never uses the term anywhere for anything -- doesn't is not surprising. NCCIH -- unlike the NIH -- "funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance."[59] - SummerPhDv2.0 23:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TylerDurden8823 I disagree with Pam's assessment. Her views on science as a "scientist" seem illogical and deeply flawed. I do note Pam's contributions (seen here [60]) appear to be those of a classic WP:SPA. Now, it's true that I don't see the phrase "energy healing" come up in the body of the article, so that part is a true area for improvement, but the alternative medicine aspect is cited in the next section of the body (and not every sentence in the lead requires a supporting reference-this is well-established on Wikipedia). Several editors disagree with Pam's proposed changes. Pam has no basis to suggest there is a consensus for their suggestions. Interestingly, when Pam says they're proposing using the NIH, they really mean the NCCIH (this is the link provided on talk: https://nccih.nih.gov/health/reiki-info). The linked page interestingly says this "Reiki hasn’t been clearly shown to be effective for any health-related purpose. It has been studied for a variety of conditions, including pain, anxiety, and depression, but most of the research has not been of high quality, and the results have been inconsistent. There’s no scientific evidence supporting the existence of the energy field thought to play a role in Reiki." Meanwhile, Pam is arguing that we should be "open-minded" that Reiki works and says there is emerging evidence that it does. I have yet to see a single high-quality source put in front of us to support that. The NCCIH has been questioned by prominent advocates of evidence-based medicine who espouse scientific literacy and fight quackery e.g., [61] and [62]. The editors have been very logical and appropriate in their civil rejection of Pam's proposals. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ronz Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Decline to participate. Accusing editors of not having an open mind suggests this is not a content dispute, but a WP:BATTLE. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by McSly Not sure what could be achieved here. We have a consensus. The filer doesn't seem to understand that the intro is a summary of the article. Their statement here that the definition and the word pseudoscience are not referenced is incorrect. Per WP:LEAD, those statements are perfectly sourced in the body of the article. For example, I'm counting at least 5 sources that not only states that Reiki is pseudoscience, but that it is used in textbooks as an example of pseudoscience. --McSly (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC) Reiki discussion Hi, I'm Nightenbelle, I will volunteer for this dispute. I see that one editor has already declined to participate. If the other editors would like to work towards a compromise I am willing to mediate, but I have to be honest, it looks like a consensus has already been reached. Is everyone other than Ronz willing to participate in finding a compromise? Nightenbelle (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC) A compromise with what Pamxz is asking for seems inappropriate. As the saying goes "in science, compromise is a betrayal of truth." As you said Nightenbelle, there is a very clear consensus (and an appropriate one at that). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC One against a well-reasoned consensus of many does not call for a compromise. It's not a question of editors having an open mind, it's a matter of the sources seeing it as a closed issue. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:59, 21 February 2020 (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.

Maximus the Greek

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Edion_Petriti on 07:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion