Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 204
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Jabir ibn Hayyan
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as resolved. After discussion, the moderator provided a third opinion that has been accepted by the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion | ||
|---|---|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Months ago an editor proposed to rewrite Jabir Ibn Hayyan's article : [1] and pinged several other editors. Firstly i want to underline that i agree with almost all the other editor's work, but not with his opinion about some sources that were cited in the article, thus i took this to WP:RSN where two editors commented about the sources and dubbed them as being "reliable" and "ok". However, the other editor did not agree with that. Then the editor edited extensively the article and removed the 3 sources that were accepted at WP:RSN, arguing that he has cited better sources in the article that support an uncertainty about this scholar's ethnicity. When i tried to add back some sources that he removed while they were accepted at WP:RSN, [2], he reverted me : [3] on the ground that "these sources mistakenly assume that there is no uncertainty over the matter". Now, we have been discussing extensively on the article's talk page about this : [4], but i feel that the thread is stalling while the other editor keeps editing the article claiming that his edit is a compromise without even waiting for my response before : [5]. I don't ask for a rewrite of the main space of the article, i just want to add back some sources that support other views about Jabir's ethnicity, like i did here : [6]. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think that per WP:NPOV, all the views should be sourced, as it stands, only sources that support an uncertainty about Jabir's ethnicity are represented, i want to add sources that support the 2 other views, thus those who say that he was an Arab and those who say that he was a Persian. Summary of dispute by ApaugasmaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have from the very beginning of this dispute confirmed, and still do confirm, that the sources in question are generally very reliable. Rather, my concern was that they are inappropriate to cite in this context (per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). It was a bit brazen of me to describe this concern as "in context, however, they are not reliable at all", but taking this to WP:RSN, where only general reliability can realistically be assessed, was not a constructive way to deal with this. One undesirable result of this has been that I have felt hesitant to rewrite the section on Jabir's biography, choosing at first to only rewrite the rest of the article. When I finally did muster up the courage to rewrite the biography section, I did not include the sources in question, because I still felt that it would be WP:UNDUE to do so. However, recent discussion with Wikaviani has convinced me that they are indeed relevant to include, and that due weight can be given to them by keeping them in the footnote (as Wikaviani's own proposal did) and by not fully quoting them. The sources in question are now cited in the article, along with two other sources of a similar nature that I added on my own initiative. In response, it is now claimed that they should be cited in the main body of the article. In general, much of the discussion on Wikaviani's part has consisted of quoting policy on me, and it is only in their very last edit that they are clearly putting forward what they think should actually be done with the article (equally representing the views that Jabir was an Arab, that he was Persian, and that it is uncertain). Still, it should be clear from my repeated attempts to state my case why I would oppose such an equal treatment, and it seems that Wikaviani just does not want to engage with any of the arguments I presented. I am genuinely grateful for their intervention, since the article indeed needs some input from other editors, but I do think that the level of stress this has caused is unacceptable. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 18:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Jabir ibn Hayyan discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Jabir)I will act as the moderator for this content dispute. Please read the usual ground rules. You are responsible for understanding and following the rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask for an explanation rather than guessing, because I will not tolerate disregard of the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but do not necessarily inform the other participants. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not edit the article while this case is in progress. Answers to my questions should be addressed to me and to the community, not to each other. If you want to discuss anything with each other, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion. However, moderated discussion is done by dialogue with the moderator (at least when I am the moderator). It appears that the issue, or one of the issues, has to do with what to say about Jabir's nationality. Both Arabs and Persians claim this great scholar as one of their own. Please summarize, in one or two paragraphs, what you think should be said about his nationality. Then we will see whether there is a mutually agreeable way to edit the article. If there are any other issues, state them. If not, please say that there are no other issues except his nationality or ethnicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC) First statements by editors (Jabir)First statement by ApaugasmaThere are no other issues except for how to represent the scholarly views on Jabir's ethnicity. I believe that however we are going to represent these views, we should reach an agreement on (1) how to assign WP:DUE weight to the various sources who have expressed such views, and (2) how to represent that relative weight in the article. As for (1), I believe that the view expressed by Kraus 1942–1943 and Delva 2017 (full citations here), which is that Jabir's ethnicity is uncertain, should carry the most weight. This is primarily because (A) these two sources are the only ones who have based their views on a systematic investigation of the medieval bio-bibliographical literature on Jabir, but also to some extent because (B) Kraus is the single most authoritative scholar in the field (for references, see the third paragraph here), and because (C) they supersede the older views of Ruska 1923 (that Jabir was Persian) and Holmyard 1927 (that Jabir was Arab), who were still working with a relatively small selection of Jabirian texts and bio-bibliographical sources. Scholarly views which only mention Jabir's ethnicity in the passing and without any discussion, such as Sarton 1927–1948, Newman 1996 and Forster 2018, should carry the least weight. As for (2), I believe that only the view which carries the most weight should be summarized in the main text, and that those which carry less weight (because superseded or passing mentions) should be mentioned in the footnote. This is how the article is at the time of writing (1st paragraph of 'Biographical clues and legend'; note 21). What I think should in any case be avoided as WP:UNDUE is (A) fully quoting scholars who only make passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity, and (B) adding multiple numbered references in a row so as to draw attention to a particular view (see also the essay WP:CITEKILL#In-article conflict). Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC) First statements by WikavianiAs i said below, i want to underline that all i want, is to add back some sources in the article ( 3 of the 4 sources i want to add back in the article were denied by Apaugasma, therefore, i took them at WP:RSN here, where they were said to be "reliable" and "ok" ). I'm aware of WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, that's why i added back the sources with inline citations and without changing the main text of the article, but this was reverted by Apaugasma on the ground that these sources mistakenly assume that there is no uncertainty over Jabir's ethnicity. All i want, is to add the sources back, per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, in order to fairly represent and source all the views about Jabir ibn Hayyan's ethnicity (i.e Jabir being an Arab or a Persian or someone whose ethincity is not known).---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 13:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Jabir)Maybe I understand, and maybe I don't. The issue has to do with the discussion of Jabir's ethnicity. Are we in agreement that his ethnicity is uncertain? Is there any issue other than how to state the uncertainty of his ethnicity? Both of the statements above are relatively long, and so I may have misread something, but it appears that the question is whether to list sources stating the Arab conclusion and sources stating the Persian conclusion, or only those that say that his ethnicity is uncertain. If that is the issue, then perhaps the requirement for reliable sources is being taken a little too strictly. If his ethnicity has been a matter of dispute for centuries, then shouldn't we identify at least one source that says Arab and at least one source that says Persian, even if those sources are now considered questionable? If they are questionable, is it because they disagree and can't both be right? Shouldn't the reader be able to see what the scholarly disagreement is? If that is the question, that is my comment. In any case, please state very briefly whether my interpretation is correct. If not, please be prepared each to provide a draft of what you think the article should say about his ethnicity. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Jabir)Second statement by ApaugasmaDear moderator, your interpretation is incorrect on the following points:
Thank you very much for your attention, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Second statement by WikavianiThe disagreement is about the quotes. I want to fully quote the sources that support an Arab or a Persian ethnicity ( like i did here ) while Apaugasma doesn't. Hope to have been clear.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Jabir)I am asking each of the editors to provide a draft statement of what they want to put in the article about the ethnicity of Jabir, either with or without the requested quotes. Also, please state, in one paragraph, why the inclusion or exclusion of the quotes is more consistent with the principle of due weight, since this dispute appears to be about due weight rather than any other guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Jabir)Third statement by ApaugasmaJabir's ethnicity should be described in the article as it is now: the main text describing the view that his ethnicity is fundamentally uncertain as explained by Kraus 1942–1943 and Delva 2017, with one footnote (no. 21) referring to the superseded views of Ruska 1923 (Jabir was probably Persian) and Holmyard 1927 (Jabir was probably Arab). Because context matters, and because replicability is important, the passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity by Sarton 1927–1948 and Newman 1996 should be given the least prominence of all. Ruska's and Holmyard's research-based views from the 1920s predate the groundbreaking and widely cited studies of Kraus in the 1930s and 1940s, and are largely ignored by Jabir-scholars from the post-Kraus era such as Sezgin 1971, Plessner 1981, Lory 1989, and Nomanul Haq 1994 (none of whom think Jabir's ethnicity certain enough to even deserve mention). Ruska and Holmyard should be cited in the footnote as significant minority views, but literally quoting their dated arguments would be putting undue weight upon them. Even less justified would be to literally quote the passing mentions of Jabir's ethnicity by Sarton 1927–1948 and Newman 1996, because these are not grounded in any research at all (neither primary research nor citation of other secondary sources). Quotes imply endorsement, and would serve only to create a false balance. However, the most important thing of all to avoid is adding multiple numbered references after one particular view, which would distort that view's prevalence in reliable sources by unduly attracting attention to it in the main body of the article. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 04:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Third statement by WikavianiThe part about his background should be as it was here, per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, since all the added sources (Holmyard, Ragep, Sarton and Newman) are reliable for this topic ( see here ) and their views, even if they are, perhaps, less prominent than those of Delva or Kraus, should be literally quoted in the footnotes but not the main text, in order to comply with WP:DUEWEIGHT, as we don't need to have all the sources of an article being of equal prominence : "Neutral Point of View says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Please note that in the version that i propose, all the main text of the article about Jabr's ethnicity is still from Kraus and Delva while Holmyard, Ragep, Sarton and Newman would be literally quoted only in the footnotes, this sounds like a fair representation of all significant viewpoints done in proportion to the prominence of each.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Jabir)It appears that the only differences have to do with the inclusion or exclusion of some footnotes. I will again remind both of you that sometimes if you use too many words to make your case, they get in the way, and you have both been too wordy. I would like each editor to state, in one paragraph, why you think your approach is better. Also, since there isn't much difference between what you are advocating, I will ask you to engage in back-and-forth discussion for 48 to 72 hours and see if you can reach an agreement. So your fourth statements may reply to each other, but also say, in one paragraph, why you should include or exclude the footnotes. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Fourth statements, and discussion, by editors (Jabir)Fourth statement by ApaugasmaThe research-based views that Jabir was Persian (Ruska 1923) and that he was Arab (Holmyard 1927) are outdated and have been superseded by the higher quality research of Kraus 1942–1943, as confirmed by the complete lack of mention of ethnicity among most later scholars. Isolated mentions like those of Sarton 1927–1948 and Newman 1996 do not cite any source at all (neither primary nor secondary). The views of these scholars are in the footnotes to avoid putting undue weight upon them. However, literally quoting these outdated or unsourced views in the footnotes would defeat that purpose, since quotes imply endorsement, especially if rendered without context, and would thus serve only to create a false balance. We should also contextualize the sources we cite, since they do not support the main text, but represent different views which are expressly kept out of the main text. This is done best by putting them in one footnote. Multiple numbered references create the false impression that sheer quantity determines scholarly prominence. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Fourth statement by WikavianiI want to literally quote ( in the footnotes only ) what Holmyard, Sarton and Newman say ( these sources have been dubbed as reliable by WP:RSN : here ) while the main text of the article remains based on Kraus and Delva's works, this sounds like a good compromise
Fifth statement by moderator (Jabir)It appears that the question at this point is whether the actual quotes about Jabir's ethnicity should be provided. My opinion is that, since Wikipedia will be saying that his ethnicity is a matter of dispute, there is little value in providing statements that we do not consider authoritative. If I have misunderstood, please say so. Back-and-forth discussion may continue for another period. Is there any other issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Jabir)Sixth statement by editor (Jabir)This is only a clarification about what I meant by authoritative. Sarton and Newman are authoritative sources, that is, reliable academic sources, about the history of science. However, they cannot both be authoritative as to the ethnicity of Jabir, and so neither of them is authoritative on that point, on which there is disagreement. There is no authoritative source on that question, on which authoritative scholars disagree. So, in my opinion, there is no need for quotes that disagree, and it is sufficient to state that there is not an agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Discussion may continue for 24 hours or until it becomes necessary to clarify anything else.
Sixth statements by editors (Jabir)Seventh statement by moderator (Jabir)If an editor wishes, I can compose a Request for Comments. Otherwise I will close this dispute as resolved by a third opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (Jabir)No need for a request for comments, i could post one myself if i thought that it would be helpful. Close this and let's move forward. Thank you for your time. Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion (Jabir)
I'm just going to make the following statement for clarity's sake, because I genuinely feel there may still be some confusion over this matter. The four sources that were added back in the edit that I (too boldly) reverted are, in order of occurrence: Holmyard 1928 (The Works of Geber, Translated by Richard Russell), Newman 1996 (The Occult and the Manifest among the Alchemists), Sarton 1927–1948 (Introduction to the History of Science), and Newman 1994 (Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist). In my compromise edit, I added a number of sources, including Holmyard 1927 (An Essay on Jābir ibn Ḥayyān), Newman 1996, and Sarton 1927–1948. Holmyard 1927 is a scholarly paper that contains the research behind the view expressed in Holmyard 1928. So of the four sources in question, I replaced one with a more scholarly equivalent and left out one (Newman 1994) because citing Newman twice would be redundant. The scholarly views of all three scholars involved (Holmyard's research-based argument that Jabir was Arab, and the passing mentions of Sarton and Newman of Jabir as "the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan") are all present in the article as it stands now. I hope this helps, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:23, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Another very brief statement just for clarity's sake: since wikicode can be confusing, I invite everyone to a take look at the footnote (no. 21) in the live version of the article. Page numbers are present (except for Forster 2018, which as an online encyclopedia article has no page numbers), quotes are not. Hovering over (or in the mobile version, clicking on) the references brings up full citation. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 02:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Dear Wikaviani, I would like to ask you to consider striking Ragep from your third statement, or otherwise make clear that Newman is the actual author of that source. Wouldn't you agree that it would be unhelpful to perpetuate the confusion over this? Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 14:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
|
RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The language at the top of this noticeboard says that this is an informal place to resolve small content disputes. This is clearly not a small content dispute, and is clearly a mixture of content and conduct. This dispute has apparently going on for more than a month, and has already had administrators involved with warnings of blocks. If the administrators who are already involved in this dispute are not able to handle it, or would prefer not to resolve it due to involvement, the next step may be WP:AN or WP:ANI, with a request for the community to impose Community General Sanctions and start handing out topic-bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute pertain to several areas regarding the issue of tables on the page, and include, but are not limited to:
Both this page, and its Series 1 counterpart, have had a similar sequence of events occur, although the dispute is "only" taking place on the talk page of UK Series 2. The tables were changed without consensus, and it just so happens that the "axe" of full protection has "fallen" whilst the "new" versions are in place, enraging many IP addresses as can be noted by the long list of edit requests.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2)#All_options,_redux No clear consensus can be established, it would seem. It should be noted that there appears to be a vocal minority pushing loudly for them to be changed. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help to establish a new consensus for TV show progress tables, or at the very least just the Drag Race ones. This requires a definitive answer to the following:
Summary of dispute by DeepfriedokraPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RandomCanadianPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cyruslcohen556Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Guy MaconI have no strong feelings about the page (I have never seen the show and did not know who RuPaul was until I saw this dispute come up on a noticeboard) but my opinion is that the "Contestant progress" table should be removed, not just from this page but also from all related pages. I don't think that such charts are encyclopedic, and consider the material in the "episodes" sections to be more than adequate. I don't think that anyone except the most rabid fancruft lover cares about how each round went after the show ends with a winner. Some fans like to follow along during the show, but the episodes sections have all the information those fans need. As for the "other pages have this so there is a consensus" argument, I did a quick review of the following pages (including a sampling of the "season X" subpages)...
...and saw nothing like the Drag Race "Contestant progress" tables. I would also note that this is not even close to being the worst example. Look at the dumpster fire that is RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 2)#Contestant progress. Fifteen confusing color coded categories for ten contestants... Finally, do we really need to have many times more words (spread over multiple pages) covering this one TV show than we have covering all of world war two? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Lil-Unique1Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Yellowmellow45Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by FireflyPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AsarteaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Black KitePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CCamp2013Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Novem LinguaePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Candyo32Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Eagle2chPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Auror AndrachomePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Lauren-mae69Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by CharleealexPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DrmiesPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
|
Charlie Dizon
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The rule that an issue must be discussed on the article's talk page is not an optional suggestion. You are wasting your time and that of the volunteers by filing a request here before discussing on the article talk page. The filing editor is advised to discuss the issue concisely on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? I have raised it in WP:AN#Notability of awards but a certain user said that I must raise this issue here. I have not discussed this issue on the article's talk page but the user is not active as of today. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute pertain to several areas regarding the issue of edits on the page, and include, but are not limited to:
The issue here is that if an award won by a celebrity is not notable, is there an alternative for that before inserting it in a celebrity's article?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Charlie Dizon#All_options,_redux Not yet. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
|
African American Vernacular English
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This is not an article content dispute. This is a dispute about capitalization, and an allegation of hounding. Capitalization should follow the Manual of Style. Report hounding at WP:ANI; but first read the boomerang essay, don't throw boomerangs at invisible kangaroos, and be aware that there is a difference between claims of hounding and actual hounding. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The subject wiki user, generalrelative, has continued to undo my edits, and is now actively harassing me. The basic premise is a matter of Enlglish construction - proper nouns are capitalized, common nouns are not. Yet he continues to capitalize black. Black is a color, it is not akin to, African, or French, or English - because these are proper nouns. He continues to revert my edits, without justification. The rules of basic grammar apply. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African-American_Vernacular_English&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BlauGraf How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Direct generalrelative to stop reverting my edits, and direct that the rules of English grammar be obeyed - only capitalization shall apply to proper nouns. Summary of dispute by generalrelativePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
African American Vernacular English discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Dave Anthony
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | After reviewing the talk page and edit summaries, I am going to close this for a couple of reasons. First- edit warring and personal behavior issues do not belong on this board- but on the ANI. Furthermore- case has not been discussed on the talk page for 11 days until today. So this is somewhat of a new issue that requires more discussion. And finally- this is all moot because of WP:BLPSELFPUB which says that "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources." Since the information in question does involve claims about third parties (the subject's parents) it cannot be used in this article. If you can find a reliable secondary source that says the same thing- then you can revisit this, but for now- the source provided is insufficient. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I am attempting to add information about the life of the subject of this page, it has bearing who the subject is as a person. I can show other examples of similar information being included in BLPs. Another editor is bouncing back and forth between calling this defamatory, bloated, unimportant, misidentifying the source as the subject's own podcast, invalidating the use of primary sources in general, and saying that I should not be editing this page because I am a fan of the subject. I am also a fan of clean water and kittens, I happened to haven choosen to edit this page, and the other editor seems hellbent on stopping any edits I make. S/he/they have been notified that I will be filing this dispute resolution request. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dave_Anthony How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I'd like the information about the subject growing up with neglectful parents and struggling with his mental health to be included in the article. Summary of dispute by BonadeaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have not been notified of this dispute report, but I saw it anyway. The editor opening the report posted to the article talk page after restoring the material a couple of times, but has not responded to my reply there. The issue at hand is that the article presented negative information about non-notable people (the parents of the subject), supported only by a primary source. I do not see how WP:BLP allows for that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Dave Anthony discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Rent control_in_the_United_States
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as severely premature. Discussion has been going on for 24 hours, with filing editor being combative and demeaning to other editors. I suggest you evaluate your approach, attempt an actual sustained discussion after reading WP:AGF and if, after a more extended discussion, you still cannot find a compromise, you may re-file. Continued edit wars may result in blocks, and behavior issues can, and should, be taken to the WP:ANI Nightenbelle (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview I have serious doubts about the neutrality of this article and about the warlike behaviour of some of the users who are custodians of the content of this article. The article is intended to describe an economic technique called rent control (in the United States). As I explain in the Talk section, there are multiple reasons why I consider this article to be non-neutral, deliberately ideologically driven and unscientific. In particular, some users want to keep as the second sentence of the article an statement that is false, not relevant and based on opinion polls or personal assessments: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". This information is misleading and does not reflect the current state of economic science. It is also inappropriate as the second sentence of the article, as it is a sentence with political connotations. It is not well quoted. Moreover, the sentence itself does not even reflect what the opinion poll (already biased because it is the opinion of a few economists) purports to measure. Some users also seek to highlight results of opinions and opinion polls and to minimise or obscure results of recent studies published in peer-reviewed impact journals.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think editors should remove the sentence from the introduction of the article (i.e. remove "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing"). Once this is done, editors should remove a lot of non-relevant, opinion-based, ideological text (in particular, the first paragraph of the "Impact" section). Once this is done, I think the page should be protected. Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SnooganssnoogansPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BinksternetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rent control_in_the_United_States discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Coos Bay, Oregon
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Okay- first- the page you are trying to fix is Coos Bay, Oregon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) not Coos_Bay and Oregon which are two separate pages. Second, you need to engage in extensive discussion beore posting here- more than 24-48 hours worth. Third- if a change is challenged- you should not re-add it until it has been discussed and approved on the talk page- you cannot just force the change. I'm going to engage with you there and help you develop it into an appropriate statement okay? It sounds like there is some confusion on WP:MOS when it comes to formal, encyclopedic, writing. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview I've posted my addition to the article before, revised it like they'd want and posted it, and they keep removing it and telling me I'm in the wrong and how I should discuss it in the talk section, but then when I go there they don't talk to me about it. All my info has reliable citations. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Coos_Bay,_Oregon How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either try to provoke decent discussion or keep my revision up on the grounds that extensive discussion was never attempted. Summary of dispute by KidAdPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PaisarepaPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Kaseng55Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Coos Bay, Oregon discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Rachel Levine
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The filing editor has not (contrary to their opening statement) discussed this matter on a talk page. (What wasn't clear about the question?) The filing party should either discuss on the article talk page, but be ready to accept a consensus against them, or may leave the article alone. Disruptive editing may be reported at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Rachel Levine is a public official in the United States of America. She is also transgender. She is very well known for her transition, and even better known as being the likely Assistant Secretary of Health in the United States. As a public official, her former name is of public interest. It should not be excluded/prohibited from her article. I know of no objection from her; she's a public official who's very open/honest about her transition. It's not right to assume she's ashamed. This is not an instance of 'deadnaming'.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GorillaWarfare#An_objective,_apolitical_fact. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? As a public official, her birth name should be included somewhere in the article. Summary of dispute by GorillaWarfarePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Opertinicy has not engaged at the article talk page, where this has been discussed at length. MOS:DEADNAME is clear, and the talk page discussion agrees, that Levine's previous name should not be included as she was not notable under that name. Rachel Levine discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Roderic O'Gorman
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Since no further editors were listed, nor were any editors notified, and talk has been continuing on the talk page, I'm going to assume fling editor changed their mind. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview I wanted to cite a valid source from Gript.ie news but an editor won't let me change the contents , I also tried using a youtube video link but again the same editor wouldn't let me use this either . He keeps undoing it . I also disputed the use of the term 'far right' . for example one line reads .. "at a rally held against O'Gorman outside Dáil Éireann by members of the Irish far-right" . I pointed out that there is no organisation in Ireland called 'the far right' and therefore how could there be members of an organisation that doesn't exist . but I wasn't allowed to change that line either . I would appreciate if someone could take a fresh look at it as I'm not familiar with all of the wikiepedia rules . Thank You
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roderic_O%27Gorman How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think You can resolve the dispute by looking at the changes I wanted to make to see if they are reasonable and by Determining why using Gript.ie as a source is not being allowed by the editors having regards to the rules of wikipedia and the link in question I wanted to use . thank you Summary of dispute by CeltBrownePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BastunPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Roderic O%27Gorman discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
JA21
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Filing editor has accused others of sockpuppetry- which is a behavioral issues and belongs on an WP:ANI board. Also- their is currently a clear consensus on the talk page, so this is forum shopping, which is also not allowed. The DRN cannot overturn consensus or force compliance with one editor's desired edits. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview The dispute revolves around the political position of JA21, specifically the inclusion of 'far-right' (or 'centre-right') alongside 'right-wing'. Confirmed sock puppets have been used in the discussion, as well as new accounts. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:JA21 I have tried referring to Wikipedia Policy, in particular those surrounding NPOV. I have added additional reliable sources. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By providing insight on whether the sources that characterize JA21 are reliable and plentiful enough to be included in light of balance and NPOV. Summary of dispute by Historicus9Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MahusetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Shadow4darkPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Goalkeeper87Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
JA21 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Knights of the Golden Circle
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Since the other editor involved has already declined to participate- There is no reason for this to be open. However, I want to remind filing editor to WP:AGF, to remind the other editor that they have been warned about combative or rude behavior before and quite recently on the ANI and remind both of you if you have a problem with an editor's behavior you may go to the WP:ANI. In this case filing editor- I would recomend WP:3O or WP:RFC to get some other eyes on this article. the DRN is not your last and final option if the other editor refuses to participate Nightenbelle (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview User:Beyond My Ken is constantly reverting my edits as well as any other edit to the article that doesn't follow what he has in mind, specifically regarding the opening line "The Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC) was a secret society founded in 1854 whose existence was not, in fact, a secret.", which I initially removed due to my belief that it wasn't wiki-like (seriously, show me another article that has that type of start and not a short summary of sorts). He's also acting kind of obnoxious about it, like he "owns" the article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? We've been discussing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle#About_the_lead for a while now. Every attempt I've had at trying to work things through with him here has fallen on deaf ears or has resulted in him trying to use Wikipedia guidelines against me. That big reply you see from him basically says "You're not good in my eyes, so you can't edit this." How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I don't know, since this is my first time actually reporting or whatever. I guess you could send someone over to make a compromise or offer a third opinion or something? Like, this is one line, and I don't want to spend an entire month butting heads with this guy, but at the same time, I also don't feel like letting this guy just block every edit he personally doesn't think is right. I know he's infinitely more experienced at Wikipedia than me, but still. He can't just block people off forever. Summary of dispute by Beyond My KenThis is a trivial matter which has had minimal discussion on the article talk page. There is no need for dispute resolution at this time, so I will not be participating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Knights of the Golden Circle discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Rent control in the United States
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. The unregistered editor has now filed a thread at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. This dispute is closed at this noticeboard and will be discussed at NPOVN. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved
Dispute overview Two Wikipedia articles, namely "Rent control in the United States" and "Rent regulation", contain a statement that reads as follows: "There is a consensus among economists that rent control reduces the quality and quantity of housing". I have tried unsuccessfully to debate with three of the users who seem to be the custodians of this article to make them see that this statement is false and that the article, such as it is, has a serious problem of lack of neutrality. My arguments have only been partially heard by one of the users, who seems more open to editing the article. I would nevertheless like to ask for help here again, since the case at hand is a blatant case of lack of neutrality that seems not to be resolved among the users who are the most active custodians of the article. Proponents of the claim use these sources: 1) An article by Blair Jenkins (of whom we do not even know if she has a PhD in economics), who has no other publications on this subject and whose article is published in a journal of dubious quality (impact factor 0.920). Furthermore, the article argues that 23% of economists either "agree with provisions"(16.6%) or directly "disagree" (6.5%) with the claim that "A ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available". Is this a consensus? No. Is it a reproducible and sufficiently consistent article that it can stand alone to make such a claim? No. Is the publisher neutral? No. The Journal Econ Journal Watch [12] is published by a self-declared "conservative" and "libertarian" think tank called Fraser Institute [13]. 2) An opinion survey without peer review and isolated interviews. 3) One report by another self-declared "liberal" think tank [14].
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have provided consistent arguments for weeks here: [15]. Also, here: [16]
Maintaining the claim in these articles implies a significant ideological bias and a serious lack of neutrality. My position is that the sentence should be removed. If the sentence is to be retained, then for the sake of truth, we should at least edit it to say something like: "According to one study published by a libertarian think tank, most economists agree that "a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available", while 23% of economists have reservations or disagree". Summary of dispute by MrOlliePlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by BinksternetPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SnooganssnoogansPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rent control in the United States discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Fayum mummy portraits
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page, and the other editor is not listed. The filing editor has made one comment, and has not waited for a reply, which should then be followed by discussion. Discuss the issue at Talk:Fayum mummy portraits. There should be at least two and preferably more comments by each editor, lasting at least 48 hours. Often a back-and-forth discussion can resolve the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview Regarding the population of Ancient Egypt stated on the page. The referenced one stated that 7-10 million natives was there with no support with respect to the logic followed to make such claim. My references say it's 3-5 million at most, and it addresses the other wrong estimate of 8-10 million. And my reference states the population as whole Greco-Roman Egypt to be 3-5 million including all ethnicities. My reference also more logical as Egypt population in 20th century didn't exceed 11 million, in 19th century it was by all good estimates 4.23 million. How come only the natives at Greco-Roman period to be 7-10 millions while life conditions at that time, don't allow for such figure to exist. In summary my problem in major two issues:
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think either removing the statement of 7-10 million native Egyptian or stated both sources that some estimate it to be 7-10 million and other sources 3-5 million and that's for all population, not just the natives. Fayum mummy portraits discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|