Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 215

Sri Lanka Armed Forces

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by UMDP on 06:24, 24 December 2021 (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 Sri Lanka Armed Forces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved UMDP (talk · contribs) Oz346 (talk · contribs) Obi2canibe (talk · contribs) Cossde (talk · contribs) UtoD (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Inclusion of WP:CSECTION in the page when a separate article entirely dedicated for the content added exists in Sri Lanka and state terrorism there for no reason to add section under separate major heading. Specially if its just a small summary then insisting an entire heading is excessive when it could be added under another subsection. Under WP:3OR it was advised to include a small summary which I have no issue of but other user insists it to be under entirely separate heading How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oz346#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#War_crimes_section How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Agreement on a location place summary of the disputed content Summary of dispute by Oz346 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In response to the argument of there already being dedicated separate pages for the crimes of Sri Lankan Armed Forces, the same can be said for the opposing armed actor in the conflict the LTTE e.g. List of attacks attributed to the LTTE, but that does not stop there being extensive subsection summaries of the same crimes within its own main page LTTE. Having a dedicated article elsewhere for a subtopic of a subject does not exclude having a smaller summary on the main page. The neutral 3rd opinion already agreed on inclusion in a separate section. Please read the previous discussions. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC) "Specially if its just a small summary then insisting an entire heading is excessive when it could be added under another subsection." In response to this 'small summary' being too small for its own subsection. This is a moot point, because it can easily be developed and expanded on (just like its counterpart 'human rights violations' section in the LTTE page). After all gross human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces have been documented for decades, til the present year. Oz346 (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Obi2canibe I have no desire to get into yet another dispute about the Sri Lankan Civil War but I will leave these comments for anyone who cares (which on past experience is nobody). The editors who would suppress content about the war crimes committed by the Sri Lanka Armed Forces are the same editors who are very keen to make the crimes of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam very prominent across numerous Wikipedia articles. Dear UtoD aka UMDP, I presume you are going to remove the "Human rights violations", "Suicide attacks", "Assassinations", "Proscription as a terrorist group" and "Global network" sections from the LTTE article because there are separate articles entirely dedicated for the content so there for no reason to add section under separate major heading? Inappropriate nationalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Or will you be coming up with some clever excuse to keep the content in the LTTE article whilst at the same time hiding the war crimes committed by your people? --Obi2canibe (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Sri Lanka Armed Forces discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note Although they are not required to participate- all users who have been involved with this discussion need to be invited to participate and have their name listed on this dispute. Also- I do note that this discussion includes a portion that is 8 years old.....HOWEVER- both users actively involved in that session are still active on WP and should be included in this as well should they wish to be. Please add the other participants and notify them on their talk pages and then a volunteer will be ready to mediate this case. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC) @Obi2canibe: Well I have no issue with further summarization and transfer of content to separate articles for the LTTE to better fit the WP:SCOPE. It does appear that the WP:CSECTION have grown in size and there are too many quotes as well. I do agree that assassination doesn't even need a separate heading and a lot of WP:UNDUE weight has been put on some sections. Don't see the issue of having a list of countries that proscribed it as a terrorist group though. Move along. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Also I do find the "your people" comment a little bit WP:baitty. UtoD 19:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC) First Statement by Moderator SLAF I will attempt to moderate this dispute. I have not researched the details of the dispute, and so I will ask the parties to provide concise summaries of what the dispute it. I know that Sri Lanka had a long and bloody civil war in the recent past, with some atrocities, and we need to provide a neutral account both of the history and the current situation. Read the usual ground rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are not useful, even if they make the poster feel better. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. I will repeat those rules as necessary, because I already had to collapse one exchange. I will start by asking each editor to state, in no more than two normal-length paragraphs, what they either want changed in the article or left the same in the article, and why (in terms of policies and guidelines. If there are any questions, ask them along with your statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC) First Statements by Editors SLAF Statement by Oz364 Similar to the LTTE human rights violations section, I believe the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page should also have a dedicated subsection summary covering its extensive human rights violations: Human rights violations The Sri Lankan Armed Forces which was almost exclusively made up of Sinhalese ethnicity during 30 year old Sri Lankan Civil War and the two JVP insurrections, has engaged in several counts of violence against civilians including numerous instances of civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, destruction of property and assassination of civil leaders. Use of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have also persisted in the post war period. Oz346 (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by UtoD The content of the topic has already been WP:SPLIT into the Sri Lanka and state terrorism so their is an entirely separate article for the WP:SCOPE of the topic. The CSECTION must be a small summary and cannot be expanded in the Armed Forces page to be WP:BLOATED, so there is a tight limit on expanding it which is not a issue in the page dedicated for the topic. I have no issue with adding most of the proposed content but it should be merged with the existing section under History heading which goes better along WP:CSECTION policy as well. The content could be easily integrated into the sections devoted to relevant conflict. If the issue is in the LTTE page then that is what needs to be fixed, not trying to make a WP:POINT in the SL Armed Forces page. Solving the issue of sections with WP:EXCESSDETAIL in LTTE page is better than trying to do the same to SL Armed Forces page. -UtoD 06:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion in the space for statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC) WP:CORG clearly allows for a subsection in articles about 'controversies' in organisations. This same policy also says that sections texts should not be made so large by attempting to integrate every topic into them. For example, your suggestion to merge the text into the already overly long history section goes against this guidance.Oz346 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Second statement on SLAF by moderator The proposed section on Human Rights Violations appears to state as fact that the Sri Lankan Armed Forces have a history of human rights violations. Neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. Is there universal agreement as to the human rights violations; or are there at least two points of view about the human rights violations, that they happened, and that they either didn't happen or aren't proven? At least two questions need to be answered about a section on human rights violations, both related to neutral point of view. The first is whether the inclusion of a section in the main article is consistent with balance and due weight. The second is how to present what may be contentious. Each editor is asked to provide a one-paragraph statement as to how their proposal will be compliant with neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Second statements on SLAF by editors Second statement by Oz346 There is universal agreement from a huge body of multiple reliable sources (Human rights groups, United Nations panel of investigation, independent news sources, peer reviewed journals and theses etc) that the Sri Lankan Armed forces have committed gross human rights violations during both the JVP insurrections and the Sri Lankan Civil war. However, there is a fringe view which emerges from only Sinhala nationalists, Sri Lankan government spokesmen and paid lobbyists that the Sri Lankan Armed Forces have not committed human rights violations. It is akin to holocaust denialists, and I do not think this fringe view should be given undue prominence. Considering the huge scale of the human rights violations by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces which have accumulated since the 70s and persist to this day (2021), I think the small suggested subsection I have already typed above is more than warranted. Especially when compared to the bloated counterpart sections on the LTTE page, which has committed considerably less crimes on comparison. Oz346 (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Second statements on UtoD Adding a small generalized summary without going to individual or specific incidents reduces any controversies or debates on any individual incidents. For example avoid mentions of individual incidents but simply mentioning the category of incident such as attack on civilians. Trying to bloat a WP:CSECTION because of the a rival organization's page is WP:POINTy and certainly a major violation of WP:NPOV. Content should added through the History section to maintain WP:NPOV, integrated with the content as recommended by wiki policy. If there is an issue in the LTTE page then the only option is to solve that page's issues without introducing the page issues to another page to make a WP:POINT. Dumping HR violations since the 70s would be far past WP:UNDUE and would strain the WP:SCOPE of the article, the topic already has been WP:SPLIT as the scope of the topic is largely in the article of Sri Lanka and state terrorism. There is also WP:POV issues in the content for example considering the increasing percentage of the ethnic group in a military is a WP:POV issue, as per the source given it is about the military transforming from minority dominated in the 50s to majority dominated by 80s. It could be integrated to the History section on Eelam war that by then the Armed Forces have transformed from minority dominated to majority dominated with WP:NPOV wording. The content should be integrated with existing content, linked to direct readers to dedicated pages for detailed information on those issues.- UtoD 15:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Third Statement on SLAF by Moderator It isn't entirely clear what Utod is saying, whether they are saying that the paragraph should be added, or that it should not be added. I think that is because their paragraph is longer than it needs to be, and so distracts from its content. My opinion is that we should be very careful in stating in the voice of Wikipedia that a government has committed human rights violations. (We don't even state in the voice of Wikipedia that China is committing genocide against the Uighurs.) Will each editor please provide a concise restatement about adding a paragraph on human rights violations by the SLAF? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Third Statements on SLAF by Editors Third Statements on SLAF by UtoD To clarify my previous statement, I believe that the content of the paragraph by Oz346 could be added but by integrating the content to the existing content at the History section which is much more WP:NPOV and is also the recommended method by wiki guidelines. There is already a section on the topic in the History section and most of the content could be merged with that as a small summary with links to the relevant pages. The wording should also be more WP:NPOV. Adding the content to make a WP:POINT of "hypocrisy" or "double standards" is certainly not WP:NPOV. - UtoD 20:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC) Fourth statement on SLAF by moderator Is there agreement that the Sample Paragraph by Oz346 can be added to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Fourth statements on SLAF by editors Fourth statements on SLAF by UtoD It Needs to be edited before being added. The first sentence is not relevant and the source is just a mention of how it became minority dominated in 50s to majority dominated around by the 80s. The "The Sri Lankan Armed Forces which was almost exclusively made up of Sinhalese[7][2] ethnicity during 30 year old Sri Lankan Civil War and the two JVP insurrections" should be replaced by "Allegations against state forces include". Then the para should be merged with Eelam War IV section in Armed Forces page right after the part that says "if proven, indicated that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the Tamil Tigers." I think the that way the content is preserved while also maintaining WP:NPOV-UtoD 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator on SLAF If User:UtoD has a proposed wording that they will agree to, they need to provide the exact wording, as per Be Specific at DRN, or we will just go around and around. Please provide the wording, and we will see whether we can get agreement on an article change. User:Oz346 may also propose a wording that agrees with the comments of UtoD. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors on SLAF Fifth statement by UtoD When the content is merged with the existing para on Human rights violations under Sri Lanka Armed Forces#Eelam_War_IV Eelam War section the final total paragraph should be like this. I have no issue with changing specific words but the content should be merged and should be integrated with the existing content rather than added separately, (The existing para) The Armed Forces along with the LTTE have been accused of committing war crimes during the war, particularly during the final stages. A panel of experts appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to advise him on the issue of accountability with regard to any alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law during the final stages of the civil war found "credible allegations" which, if proven, indicated that war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the Tamil Tigers. (Merge from here) These include civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have continued to the post war period. -14:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Fifth statement by Oz346 As mentioned before, I completely disagree that the 'Human rights violations' section should be hidden away in the already overlong history section. Secondly, the roping in of the LTTE into the sentence structure is misleading and hides the culpability of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces for their own gross human rights violations. These sentences refer specifically to the crimes committed by the SLAF not the LTTE. A reader reading this would be confused of who committed the mass rapes, massacres etc which have been repeatedly attributed to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces by multiple reliable sources. Sri Lankan Armed Forces crimes are a separate phenomenon from the crimes committed by the LTTE, and they should not be submerged in order to hide culpability. Sample text: Human rights violations The Sri Lankan Armed Forces during the 30 year old Sri Lankan Civil War and the two JVP insurrections, have been implicated in several counts of violence against civilians including numerous instances of civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have also persisted in the post war period. Oz346 (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (SLAF) User:UtoD is asked to provide a draft paragraph. That does not mean to provide instructions on how to edit the draft paragraph by User:Oz346. We need two draft paragraphs side by side. Then we can either decide between them or work toward a compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (SLAF) Sixth statements by UtoD @Robert McClenon: It appears user Oz346 has added the same disputed content to a separate article on the topic yesterday however this was not mentioned in the DRN even though one of my proposals was to add the same content to a article which is better suited for the WP:SCOPE of the disputed content instead of the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. Further it appears another user has disputed some of the content in that page as well. I find it bad faith to continue adding the same content to different pages while the DRN continues and the topic includes if other pages are more suitable than the Armed Forces page. However I could consider this an agreement to add the content to a better suited page rather than the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page if the User agrees. Also if we are continuing the dispute will I have to invite the other user as well as the dispute is over the same content?. Thank you -UtoD 17:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC) That summary content was already present on that particular page. Check the history of that page before making unsupported accusations. In fact, I added that summary paragraph from that particular page into the Sri Lankan Armed Forces page, before you removed it. Wikipedia allows content to be copied to relevant articles, as long as it is attributed. They are not mutually exclusive and they are certainly not of undue weight in both articles. As mentioned before, going that by criteria huge swathes of text need to be deleted from the LTTE page, as they are already mentioned in other dedicated pages. This is not a valid argument to censor the gross human rights violations of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces from the main SLAF page. Oz346 (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, its better to solve the problems in the LTTE page rather than making a WP:POINT in the SLAF page and WP:CENSORSHIP is not related to this type of disputes and is not the point. You can't make edits and forcefully keep them shouting censorship. -18:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (SLAF) This will have to be settled by one or more Requests for Comments, or by agreement to leave the section out in this article, if it can be settled. That will mean a draft paragraph from each editor, or an agreement as to how to document the allegations of war crimes. I have tried to get two alternate paragraphs, and that hasn't worked. Now there is a content fork issue. Here is my last effort to resolve this. I am suspending the rule against back-and-forth discussion. For between 48 and 72 hours, you should communicate directly with each other, civilly, either to resolve the issue, or to provide two alternate paragraphs for the community to choose between. If this does not result either in agreement, or alternatives for an RFC, I will fail the discussion and advise the two of you to resolve it at WP:ANI. You don't want to resolve it at WP:ANI, so resolve it here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (SLAF) Seventh statements by UtoD I have no issue with changing the specific words in my sample para. I believe its better to not add the new content as the existing para in the page is adequate but I can give consensus to my sample para being integrated to the existing para in the History section of the SLAF page. -UtoD 07:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Seventh statement by Oz346 I agree with the request for comments suggestion. I believe that this dispute will only be concluded correctly by neutral third party intervention. There are already two paragraphs suggested by both disputing authors, which can be submitted to 'request for comments': Paragraph 1 suggested by Oz346 to be placed in its own subsection: Human rights violations The Sri Lankan Armed Forces during the 30 year old Sri Lankan Civil War and the two JVP insurrections, have been implicated in several counts of violence against civilians including numerous instances of civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have also persisted in the post war period. Paragraph 2 suggested by UtoD to be merged into existing history section: Accusations against state forces include civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have continued to the post war period. Oz346 (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator (SLAF) I have composed a draft RFC at Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces/Human Rights RFC. Please review it. Do not !vote in it at this time, because it is not yet a live RFC. I will move it to the article talk page and make it live with 48 hours. You may change the wording prior to that time. After it is published, it will run for 30 days and then be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Looks fine to me.Oz346 (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (SLAF) Eighth statements by UtoD No major problems but is there a answer if any addition should be made at all? -UtoD 14:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator (SLAF) Go ahead and make an addition to the draft RFC, and I will look at it. If it is satisfactory, I will post the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (SLAF) Back-and-Forth Discussion SLAF Firstly, my suggested passage is far from bloated. Secondly, regarding the LTTE page, I do not have an issue with the human rights violations subsections there. However, I do have an issue with hypocrisy and double standards. It is reasonable for 'human right violations' subsections to be present in both of the armed parties of the conflict. As for 'dumping' HR violations since the 70s. This is a long term phenomenon that has spanned decades, and has been picked up by reputed human rights groups. See this report by Amnesty International on the 20 years of impunity for the human rights violations committed by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces: https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa370052009eng.pdf It is certainly not undue to give a general summary. Regarding the ethnic breakdown aspect, I have no issue with removing or rewording that part. Oz346 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC) I can change it to "State forces are accused of". I don't understand the so-called "hidden away in the History section" claim when it is the most WP:NPOV method to add content, integrated with existing sections. No content is "hidden" and any demand for WP:SOAPBOX cannot be allowed and if the user wants one, its better to not add the new content at all. -17:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC) That is similar to saying that the "Nazis are accused of killing Jews during the Holocaust". 'Accused' and 'allegations' paint a picture of merely accusations with little or no evidence. My current paragraph with the use of the word 'implicated' is suffice. As mentioned before, WP:CORG clearly allows for a subsection in articles about 'controversies' in organisations. This same policy also says that sections texts should not be made so large by attempting to integrate every topic into them. For example, your suggestion to merge the text into the already overly long history section goes against this guidance. Oz346 (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Avoid using the Nazi Analogy fallacy. WP:CORG is by nature WP:UNDUE for state militaries as the concept itself is controversial and "controversy" is an integral part of their activity resulting in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the section is too long it should be removed entirely similar to the United States Armed Forces and only be present in the dedicated section such as United States War Crimes or continue the small summary in History section like the Syrian Armed Forces to maintain WP:NPOV. No individual instance is exceptional and Sri Lanka is not special compared to numerous militaries that have committed many war crimes during their long histories. Pushing for special attention here is a clear case of WP:SOAPBOX. -UtoD 15:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Calling something a fallacy, when there overwhelming evidence from countless reliable sources is a fringe belief, and should be treated as such. Really the topic of Sri Lankan Armed Forces committing countless gross human right violations is only controversial to people with fringe beliefs, very much in the mould of holocaust deniers. You will not find such fringe beliefs outside of Sri Lankan war crime apologists (similar to holocaust deniers). And I disagree completely that its undue. Human rights violations sections are present in other armed groups, most notably in the opposing party of the conflict the LTTE. I disagree that the Sri Lankan Armed Forces are special compared to the other armed groups, that their gross human rights violations should be hidden away. Oz346 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Issues with the historical organization of the LTTE page should be solved then without making a WP:POINT in the Armed Forces page. If you consider it being "hidden away" then its your WP:POV issue as this is not a platform for WP:ACTIVISM or to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, there are better places for that. I believe its best to not add the content at all now. -16:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: can you please chime in, as we have reached an impasse. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Reply "Allegations against state forces include". Disagree completely with this qualifying sentence, the evidence of human rights violations is overwhelming and is supported by countless reliable sources. This will mislead readers into thinking that they are all charges with no evidence, when in fact the evidence is overwhelming. It's like saying "allegations of killing of Jews during the Holocaust". Also disagree completely with the idea that the paragraph should be submerged and hidden away into the large Eelam War IV section. If the ethnicity part is a problem, then this clause can simply be removed: "which was almost exclusively made up of Sinhalese[7][2] ethnicity", and the opening sentence would still make sense and preserve coherence. Oz346 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Sample paragraph by Oz346 Proposal by UtoD I believe the content should not be added at all as it already exists in another page. Adding this to the existing paragraph is in Eelam war section is agreeable, Accusations against state forces include civilian massacres, ethnic cleansing, pogroms, forced disappearances, sexual violence, property destruction and assassination of civil leaders. Reports of torture, extra judicial killings and sexual violence have continued to the post war period. As mentioned before, the use of the word 'accusation' throws doubt on something which is universally accepted by multiple reliable sources with strong evidence, that the SLAF have been responsible for countless gross human rights violations. This is similar to saying that the "Nazis are accused of killing Jews during the Holocaust". 'Accused' and 'allegations' paint a picture of merely accusations with little or no evidence. My current paragraph with the use of the word 'implicated' is suffice. Secondly, saying that violations have continued "to the post war period", as opposed to "in the post war period" gives the impression that violations have continued to the post war period, and then ended. This is not the case, every year since the end of war in 2009 is replete with reliable sources documenting continuing human rights violations by the SLAF, 2010-2021. 'In the post war period' is more appropriate. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2022 (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.

the falling of barel shmoeli נפילת בראל שמואלי

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Realfawn on 09:20, 11 January 2022 (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 falling of barel shmoeli נפילת בראל שמואלי (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Realfawn (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I wish to express my deep disappointment and grief from the decision to delete the Wikipedia term "the falling of barel shmoeli "(נפילת בראל שמואלי ) . in my opinion ,from years of extensive use of Wikipedia , Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia promoting the spread of truth among a world in which people are trying to hide all sorts of things. I cannot understand the decision to delete the term , more over if this term has a deep impact on Jewish population. furthermore the decision to delete the term causes pain and grief to all Israeli and Jewish population. my question and demand to you is , why would a free and social encyclopedia would ever want to delete a term? why delete anything as long as its compliant with the truth ? I heard that the explanation to delete was that Wikipedia is not a memorial site ? if that's true this is very sad to hear . as a user I expect Wikipedia to express objectiveness when it comes to falling Israeli citizens (or any other casualty of war and conflict). just to make a point , theoretically , in my opinion , anybody that want to list any casualty of any war or even natural death , should be able to do so , if that's what happened . according to that logic I don't understand why Wikipedia would appose any personal memorial page or term on Wikipedia . if valadimir putin has a page on Wikipedia , so should barel shmoeli , casualties of the war in Syria , or any other war for that matter. in my opinion , this somewhat political decision by Wikipedia , damages this encyclopedia objectiveness and true reporting to the world ( Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia but also a news media outlet ) . it is with sadness that I inform you that if you do not show respect and sensitivity to my country's historical events ( in Israeli culture , a single death from terror or war is seen like a loss of a whole war ) , I will question the integrity of this encyclopedia , which can lead me to refrain from using Wikipedia . thank you . How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? bring back the term about Barel shmoeli at once please . other then that allow the registering of any personal term about any death (natural , war, conflict , human error ....) . an encyclopedia that really wants true discussion , reporting and freedom of information , should not delete , limit , or intervene with someone's decision to register any personal term as long as its true . thank you for listening . the falling of barel shmoeli נפילת בראל שמואלי discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Realfawn, if I understand you correctly, you are objecting to the removal of an article on Hebrew WP. English WP, where you have posted, has no authority to tell Hebrew WP "you can't do that!" The projects are autonomous, and if you can't get consensus for what you want on Hebrew WP, then that's pretty much it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2022 (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.

Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kautilya3 on 14:39, 14 January 2022 (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 Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kautilya3 (talk · contribs) Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The issue is about the lead paragraph of the article, created by the opposing party in recent months. I believe that it does not satisfy the criteria for the lead paragraph as set out in MOS:BEGIN. The talk page discussion has been unhelpful in focusing on the issue. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus#First para How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Settle whether the lead paragraph is a violation of MOS:BEGIN. Summary of dispute by Fowler&fowler Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm obviously not participating in this piece of benighted POV-promotion, or should I say, attempt to deny an NPOV text in an article that is only peripherally in my range of interest. It takes two to tango. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC) And if you think I care, I have now reverted the article to the version it was before I first edited it on 14 August 2021. Have a ball. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus 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.

|}

Todd Ames Hunter - Redistricting 2021

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by EaziGH on 18:04, 14 January 2022 (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 Todd Ames Hunter - Redistricting 2021 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved EaziGH (talk · contribs) Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am contacting you regarding a section on TX state representative Todd Hunter, particularly the section on the 2021 redistricting process. The section as drafted by Snooganssnoogans expresses personal and political opinions, rather than facts about the individual or links to the redistricting maps in question. I have attempted to address this via the user's talk page, and the page's talk page with no progress. To ensure the integrity of the information currently displayed, I would like to ask for dispute resolution to 1) open a dialogue with the user 2) ensure the section is generally free of personal opinions or speculation. Please elevate this issue so that it gets the attention it deserves. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snooganssnoogans&action=edit&section=2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Todd_Ames_Hunter&action=history How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I have attempted to address this via the user's talk page, and the page's talk page with no progress. Rather than reverts and undermining the collaborative process, this user refuses to engage in productive discussion regarding his edit as evidenced by his edit history and multiple warnings. I would like to ask for dispute resolution to ensure this issue gets the attention it deserves. Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Todd Ames Hunter - Redistricting 2021 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.

|}

Nanny

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NannyExp on 01:21, 15 January 2022 (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 Nanny (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The reference to US training had been edited and information removed. I am trying to build a parallel section to the UK section. I have provided credible links to CACHE and to the International Nanny Association. The user says these are not credible, yet the UK section above references CACHE, the references include other associations and the the occupational outlook handbook that the article sources references the International Nanny Association as a resource. While there are no trainings required CACHE endorsed training is now available in the US through the only US CACHE Endorsed Training Centre, Nanny Stella, Inc. User says we can't use a business but above in the UK section, Norland, a business was listed. I am trying to create a parallel section for US training and I am unsure as to why the references and sources for the UK section are acceptable but not for the US section. I have provided numerous links to citation as well. Nanny Stella is already included as a notable nanny in the article as well. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:19D:480:FA10:D500:89A9:41E1:77AD How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please provide guidance as to if a US section on training would make sense, if the sources/citations provided are credible and why the standards are not the same for both the US / UK section. Unfortunately, since I have been in this industry for many years and have helped to bring the CACHE training to US nannies, there is bias against my contributions. Unfortunately we have a small industry. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Nanny 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.

|}

Battle of Seneffe

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by LaHire07 on 17:41, 15 January 2022 (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 Battle of Seneffe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved LaHire07 (talk · contribs) Robinvp11 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Dispute on the result of the battle. One can see in the talk page that many editors do not agree with what is currently written in the infobox of the battle, using numerous and perfectly acceptable sources. Indeed, it seems that historians themselves do not agree about the result of the battle, that is if the battle was inconclusive or a French victory. The problem is that the current article clearly ignores historians according to which the battle was a French victory, and even claims that "historians generally view the battle as inconclusive", which is not verified and probably false. Some historians indeed view the battle as inconclusive, but "generally" is a matter of proportion, not sheer numbers, and I can cite at least six renowned historians who view the battle as a French victory : Robert C. Tucker, Trevor N. Dupuy, Hardy de Périni, Gaston Bodart, John A. Lynn and Micheal Clodfelter. Their opinion is completely ignored by the article. Moreover, two sources (Cathal Nolan and Tony Jacques) that the article use to claim the battle as inconclusive actually do not claim the battle as inconclusive. I've been asking for a compromise, that is to put "see Aftermath" in the infobox and to describe the point of view of each of those historians, whether they think of a French victory or an inconclusive battle, but that was refused. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Seneffe#Casualties_(again) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To find a compromise, which would only consist of putting "see aftermath" in the inbobox and showing the point of view of each historian in the aftermath. Which seems quite normal. Summary of dispute by Robinvp11 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Battle of Seneffe 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 appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greece

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 139.138.195.157 on 18:09, 18 January 2022 (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 Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved sweetpool50 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Parthenon Marbles or the Parthenon Sculptures . The page in concern is under the title 'ELGIN MARBLES'. The argument was brought forward by many others too in discussions groups with no solution. These marbles CANNOT be called 'the Elgin marbles' because there were never made by Elgin. Elgin stole them. Ripped them and took them away. The title of the page should be the PARTHENON MARBLES or PARTHENON SCULPTURES and in the article could be included the line : also known as 'Elgin marbles' which were stolen by Elgin during the Ottoman empire. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1065731904 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? correct the page's title Summary of dispute by sweetpool50 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Greece 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.

John Campbell_(YouTuber)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 184.147.172.196 on 20:14, 18 January 2022 (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 John Campbell (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Danieltate (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In the talk page, I am arguing that the section "COVID-19 misinformation" should be removed. This section is defamatory, and political in nature - and thus should not be included in his bio. First, it is wholly reasonable for someone to occassionally misinterpret a scientic study. John has analyzed hundreds if not thousands of scientic studies on his channel, and should not have one single misinterpretation showcased on his wiki page. Second, Meghan Kall who is cited as commenting on his analysis is a partial observer. One person's opinions on John should not be showcased, as that is the view of just one person. Lastly, John is an ardent advocate for vaccination, so having a statement that one of his videos was used by an anti-vaxxer is misrepresenting. He cannot control who uses his videos, and should not be considered guilty by association. The entire section is partisan in nature and should be expunged from his page. This entire section should be removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have discussed this in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Campbell_(YouTuber)&action=edit How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By reviewing both sides of the argument in the talk page, and making a decision. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Danieltate Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. John Campbell_(YouTuber) 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.

Martin Kulldorff

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Michael.C.Wright on 04:58, 20 January 2022 (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 Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) Llll5032 (talk · contribs) Notified Dispute overview An editor's summary of the Great Barrington Document (GBD) mischaracterizes what the document states. The GBD does not "encourage herd immunity." The GDB states that herd immunity is the end result, but the strategy is focused protection. I would therefore like to change the statement "In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups to encourage herd immunity while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups." to the following: "In 2020, Kulldorff was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated lifting COVID-19 restrictions on lower-risk groups while attempting to protect more vulnerable groups in a technique the authors called focused protection." That way the editor's summary of the GBD is more neutral and inline with what is written in the GBD. It is perfectly acceptable to include in the BLP that others (such as Fauci) have interpreted focused protection to mean "let it rip." But wiki editors should not mischaracterize or interpret documents. The original statement, as it currently exists, was in part authored by me. However, due to a warning of edit warring, I am unable to revert the statement because it was contributed to by another user involved in the edit war. We are the only two active editors of this page and therefore consensus can be difficult to reach. I feel in light of the clarifications by the authors of the GBD and the fact that the statement is editors' summary of the GBD, it is important that the summary not mischaracterize the document. Sources for GBD authors' clarifications can be found at the talk page where the other editor and I have discussed it. Thank you for volunteering. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Herd_Immunity How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? An experienced, outside source could suggest wording that does not mischaracterize the GBD document or inject POV into the article. The article in question is a BLP and the subject therefore should be handled carefully and with utmost attention to neutrality to avoid harm to the subject as a result of editorializing by wikipedia editors. Maybe a solution is to not summarize the GBD at all and just link to its wiki article. Summary of dispute by Llll5032 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Martin Kulldorff 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.

Indigenous peoples of the Americas

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kaidros on 23:17, 17 January 2022 (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 Indigenous peoples of the Americas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kaidros (talk · contribs) 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This dispute is on which source information should be pulled from, In 2010 the mexican indigenous self-identification census stopped taking into account ethnicity and started being a culturally based one question survey, however the metric now used for a more accurate indigenous population count takes into account language spoken by self identification of the head of a household and an extended study on these “indigenous households” taking data on income, language, ethnic group, individual members of the household, etc. this is the metric which calculated the indigenous population for the final report of 2020 on the mexican population and for the official atlas of indigenous groups of mexico. This household metric is similar to the metric used in the rest of the countries and I believe it to fit the best with the article’s context. User 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC believes the culture questionnaire should be the final determination on the ethnic indigenous population and I believe the final determination on the ethnic indigenous population should be the indigenous households study which was a long term study on people who were interviewed and proven to ethnically be indigenous and not just a one question survey asking people, on the self perception of their culture (without discussing ethnicity). How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? i’m hoping an experienced editor can give a third opinion on which metric and figure better fits the article, a culture based one question survey or the data reports on ethnically indigenous people in Mexico. Summary of dispute by 2001:1388:19:8909:DB0:C584:590B:98EC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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.

Martin Kulldorff

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Michael.C.Wright on 00:38, 16 January 2022 (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 Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) Llll5032 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article is a scientist's bibliography page. I have made a statement that he has published several articles about several topics. I have cited multiple sources to support the claim that he as published several articles about those topics. An editor has asserted that the sources added are not secondary and has added a template "non-primary source needed" to the claim. I have sought consensus that the template be removed. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have added additional citations to resolve the issue (such as Harvard Catalyst and Research gate). My original source is Google Scholar. I have tried to reach consensus on the talk page here: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Kulldorff_is_highly_published How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A more experienced editor can help us to determine if Google Scholar, Harvard Catalyst, and Researchgate provide satisfactory support for the claim "Kulldorff has published or co-authored research on subjects such as..." without the need for the template "non-primary source needed." A similar dispute is discussed here: Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Amicus_brief_-_no_secondary_sources_needed and therefore mediation on the use of primary sources may help tremendously. Thank you in advance! Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Llll5032 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a biography of a prominent scientist who has become controversial during the COVID-19 pandemic. What we've disagreed on is this: Do WP:REPUTABLE, WP:MEDPRI, and WP:BLPSTYLE say we should cite a secondary RS about what research to list by the scientist? Or should we use our own judgement (or AI results) without consulting a secondary RS? None of the current cited lists and databases seem to offer secondary RS analysis, so I added the "non-primary source needed" tag without removing the content. We have resolved the second dispute that Michael also linked to, but have other questions about source reliability and SYNTH that may require a third opinion. Llll5032 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Martin Kulldorff discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor of this request for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC) If I am the other editor, then I am aware of the request by Michael.C.Wright and agree to a moderated discussion. Llll5032 (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC) I notified the other editor immediately. Here is the notifcation. The other editor has also already posted their dispute in the appropriate section above. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Questions: Is this a tagging dispute, or is this about the content of the article? Are the editors asking for a third opinion, or for a mediator? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks for volunteering, Robert. I think it is mostly a content dispute. The tagging question Michael shared is one of several questions on the talk page, where Michael and I are the only active editors. We have different interpretations of RS, PSTS, ONUS, BLP and SYNTH. We have been warned not to revert each other's edits in the article. So we need to break some ties or find compromises. More than mediation, third opinions may be most helpful for a fast resolution, especially if any content or tagging is to be removed. Llll5032 (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC) --- Ultimately this is a tagging/gaming dispute. The statement in question is: "Kulldorff has published or co-authored research on subjects such as disease surveillance, infectious disease outbreaks, scan statistics, pharmacoepidemiology, and vaccine safety. Papers he's contributed to have been cited over 27,000 times." The source for that statement was Google Scholar. Here is the diff of the original statement. That statement has no SYNTH. The source is reliable and can be supported by other sources, which share the same features (are either lists, primary sources, or are off limits due to BLP and personal information about Kulldorff). I'm not sure what ONUS qualifies here. The other editor has not challenged the verifiability of the Google Scholar results, nor the soundness of the claim itself: (paraphrased) 'Kulldorff is highly published and work he's contributed to is highly cited.' The original statement does not contend that citations of Kulldorff's work were positive or negative or that the quality of Kulldorff's work was high or low. It is merely that Kulldorff is highly published and work he's contributed to is highly cited. This is well supported by primary sources and is therefore a neutral statement of fact. I could provide additional sources indicating a high number of works published and a high number of citations of that work. However, they will all be similar, verifiable sources that are primary, lists, or violate BLP's restriction on personal information. For example, Kulldorff's CV is publicly available and published by the FDA. It clearly indicates he is highly published (201 published works), with a long list of funded projects, presentations, etc. Because the article is BLP, Kulldorff's publicly available CV is "off limits" because it contains his office address. I believe the editor is gaming to prevent statements that support Kulldorff's expertise in vaccine safety. I believe the editor's primary method is to discredit and/or de-value sources to advance a POV. This is evident by the fact that the editor objected to my use of The Federalist as a source for one statement, while (still) leaving the very same source in use for a neutral statement in the same wiki article. In other words, the other editor is clearly picking and choosing what he challenges and why he challenges it and is not being consistent in his attempt to edit neutrally. I would ultimately like to have the original statement returned to the article. The original statement supports Kulldorff's expertise in the underlying science of vaccine safety, which is the at the center of what he is known for and the justification for his BLP in the first place. Publishing a largely one-sided BLP does not honor the BLP policy, which states "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Wikipedia should present factual, verifiable information in a neutral manner that does not advance an editors specific POV. Thank you for volunteering to mediate this dispute. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC) I have agreed with Michael when he pointed out low-quality or problematic sources to remove. I don't support using low-quality sources in most articles, much less in a medical BLP involving COVID-19, and I don't care whose point of view they support. If I made any oversights (?), then they were not intentional. I want to focus only on resolving questions about the Kulldorff page. I think we just need more active experienced editors in the article to help decide. Llll5032 (talk) 05:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC) Also, on reconsidering, I agree with Michael that this specific dispute about Kulldorff's published research is more about tagging and policy than content. The content isn't in dispute so much as whether it should be supported by a secondary RS, so I tagged it and did not intend to remove it. But I think this is the smallest of the disputes at the page. Llll5032 (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC) First statement by moderator on Martin Kulldorff Please read the ground rules. I will ask some preliminary questions. First, do the editors want a third opinion, or do the editors want moderated discussion? If a third opinion is requested, I will provide a third opinion on any questions, but I will not discuss or debate my opinion. It will be non-binding, and the editors will then be expected to resume discussion. If the editors want moderated discussion, I will not offer any opinions except on policies and guidelines, because I will be neutral. So the first question is which approach the editors want. The second question is that I will ask the editors to specify what changes each of them wants to make to the article (or what they want left alone). After the first round of answers, I will give directions on what to do next. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC) First statements by editors on Martin Kulldorff I would like a third opinion about Michael's initial question regarding the "non-primary sources needed" tag. I seek no changes to the sentence that Michael raised his question about, because I think both the content and the tag are appropriate. Thanks again, Robert. Llll5032 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Kulldorff) In my opinion, the secondary-source tag can be removed. The statement that is tagged says that he has published or co-authored research on certain subjects. A statement that he has published research on a subject is essentially a secondary statement about the existence of the research. It doesn't make any statement as to the content of the research. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Kulldorff) Thanks for the opinion, Robert. I will remove the tag. Llll5032 (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you Robert for the assist and thank you Llll5032 for making the change. Sorry I wasn't more engaged towards the end. I was out of town and Internet access was sketchy. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC) I asked editors at the BLP noticeboard for assistance resolving some remaining questions in the article. Robert, I want to invite you too. Thanks again. Llll5032 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2022 (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.

List of Shakespeare authorship candidates

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Faktorovich on 01:03, 27 January 2022 (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 Shakespeare authorship candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Faktorovich (talk · contribs) Wham2001 (talk · contribs) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk · contribs) GoingBatty (talk · contribs) Schazjmd (talk · contribs) Austronesier (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On December 18, 2021, a previous Wikipedia editor, Wham2001, had added this citation: "Percy, William, poet and playwright; proposed by Anna Faktorovich.[57]" And this citation: "https://anaphoraliterary.com/attribution/ British Renaissance Re-Attribution and Modernization Series" by Anna Faktorovich. Anaphora Literary Press. The format of Wham2001's citation was incorrect, as Wham2001 failed to add a bibliographic entry, like the one I added in my edit earlier today: Faktorovich, Anna (2021). Re-Attribution of the British Renaissance Corpus. Anaphora Literary Press. ISBN 979-8-49958-765-2. Wham2001 also failed to include separate candidate listings for the other 3 authors I attributed with "Shakespeare's" texts in my study that have not been previously mentioned by any other researchers: Josuah Sylvester, Gabriel Harvey and William Byrd. In my edit of this page earlier today, I corrected these errors. I am a subject-expert because: 1. I served on a Bibliographic Fellowship with the Modern Languages Association, where I helped to edit the MLA Bibliography, 2. I published 2 previous scholarly books with McFarland, Rebellion as Genre and Formulas of Popular Fiction, 3. There are 34 citations of my research on https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dJD72pMAAAAJ&hl=en. I also added the other candidate listings with precise and accurate citations of who they are and what they wrote. Wham2001 had already cited my study, so I was not adding any new self-promotions, but merely correcting Wham2001's misunderstanding of my findings. But later today, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, first undid all of the edits I had made claiming a researcher cannot edit mistakes connected with their own research. When I complained about this undoing, Sång deleted all mentions of not only my name, but the credits to all authors I listed as candidates, including Percy, who Wham2001 had previously included. My edits were essential bibliographic corrections to comply with Wikipedia citation style. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#c-Gr%C3%A5bergs_Gr%C3%A5a_S%C3%A5ng-2022-01-26T21%3A14%3A00.000Z-Recent_WP%3ASPS_additions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#c-Gr%C3%A5bergs_Gr%C3%A5a_S%C3%A5ng-2022-01-26T21%3A14%3A00.000Z-Recent_WP%3ASPS_additions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Faktorovich#c-Gr%C3%A5bergs_Gr%C3%A5a_S%C3%A5ng-2022-01-26T21%3A04%3A00.000Z-On_editing_Wikipedia How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please review and respond to the specific comments I made in the links above and also here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#c-GoingBatty-2022-01-26T22%3A21%3A00.000Z-Faktorovich-2022-01-26T21%3A59%3A00.000Z. The editors who made the initial comments have now stopped responding to my complaints, after I addressed the vague erroneous reasons they gave for deleting my edits. My edits are factual and essential. Their retaliation-response deletion of my study is irrational/malicious. Summary of dispute by Wham2001 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Gråbergs Gråa Sång Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The discussion at Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Recent_WP:SPS_additions started less than 24h ago. I intend to reply to Faktorovich's latest post today, my timezone. Hopefully others will continue to comment as well. I have not been notified of this discussion at this point, I noticed it at WP:DBD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by GoingBatty Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Schazjmd Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Austronesier Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. List of Shakespeare authorship candidates 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supercomputer&diff=prev&oldid=1068313033

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 71.28.221.201 on 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mreatwashacked (talk · contribs) 2601:240:CD01:1410:280E:2454:BADD:62E7 (likely alias of the same user for botting) (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Article talked about energy use in units of megawatts per year instead of megawatt-years. These are fundamentally different units - like foot pounds vs pounds per foot. Megawatt-years corrects the units to match the source and the SI standard. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mreatwashacked/Slap_Me&redirect=no#Trouted How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The edit should be reverted, in line with the source material and SI standards for dimensionally correct units. This has been an extremely unpleasant experience and is likely to discourage me from continued contributions in the future. It would be great if you could get my talk page updated to remove the undue warnings (perhaps put them where they belong), since the IP will soon be assigned to someone else. Summary of dispute by Mreatwashacked Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2601:240:CD01:1410:280E:2454:BADD:62E7 (likely alias of the same user for botting) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supercomputer&diff=prev&oldid=1068313033 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.

Bengal tiger

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by BrightOrion on 14:48, 29 January 2022 (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 Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BrightOrion (talk · contribs) BhagyaMani (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Twice I have added text saying "It [the Bengal tiger] is found in four countries. India's tiger population was estimated at..." Twice user BhagyaMani ‎has deleted it. I feel it is relevant because the article lists four countries but does not mention that the tiger is found in ONLY those countries. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BhagyaMani How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like a third-party's opinion please. Summary of dispute by BhagyaMani Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bengal tiger 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.

Irvington, New York

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Skyerise on 16:38, 30 January 2022 (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 Irvington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Skyerise (talk · contribs) Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Jonesey95 (talk · contribs) Ɱ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article doesn't follow our Manual of style. While other editors are open to conforming the article to the MOS, one - who presumably is the author of the non-conforming styles - insists that the MoS is optional and his styling is superior. Issues include: oversized images, misuse of bold, misuse of bullets, use of spacing comments. This has been going on literally for years. Skyerise (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? edit talk page How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It just needs more input from more people due to an obstructive attitude and a hair-trigger reversion habit. Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I will not participate in this case, which is the result of retaliatory editing by Skyerise after they attempted to have me sanctioned at AN/I {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Changes_to_long-established_end_matter_organization] and was shot down by User:Black Kite and User:Cullen328. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Please contact me on my talk page if necessary, I am not, and will not, monitor this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Jonesey95 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Ɱ Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Irvington, New York 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.

2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Venkat TL on 18:24, 25 January 2022 (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 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Venkat TL (talk · contribs) Het666 (talk · contribs) Kaustubhkul (talk · contribs) Dhruv edits (talk · contribs) Tejasvi 3094 (talk · contribs) Dev Adhi (talk · contribs) Preet Manak Singh (talk · contribs) ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Punjab Election page lists the candidates of 3 major alliances. Het666 keeps adding alliances that are not in the top 3. The position of SSM and NDA is fourth and Fifth, respectively. There are 6-7 alliances, and it is not possible to list candidates from all these alliances. Normally only the Election winners and the runner up candidates are listed in table in the election article, in results section. Since the results will come in early March, top 3 alliances have been listed, as they have consistently been in top 3 in opinion polls and the victors and runner ups will be from these 3.Venkat TL (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2022_Punjab_Legislative_Assembly_election#Should_NDA_be_added_into_the_list_of_major_candidates How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Het666 seems to have language barrier in explaining/understanding the discussion. He keeps adding the disputed text and edit wars. He has agreed to Dispute resolution, so we are here. Venkat TL (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Tejasvi 3094 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Please Add NDA Candidates in Candidates List — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejasvi 3094 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Wikipedia Is a source of information if we won't provide information regarding the candidates of other 2 major allaince which might play a good role in elections then how would the people be aware of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejasvi 3094 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC) 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Comment 1 Please include all editors who have been involved in this discussion- I have read the talk page- and there have been 4 total editors that I see involved in this discussion. Once all involved editors are listed we can possibly proceed. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Nightenbelle, other commenters were not pursuing this further. Moreover only Het666 gave confirmation to participate in Dispute resolution. After your request, I have now messaged everyone named in that thread. Venkat TL (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC) First Statement by Moderator I am opening this thread for moderated discussion. Your discussions should be addressed to the community, and to me as the representative of the community, not to each other unless I say that you may engage in back-and-forth. First, please read the rules. These are not exactly the same as the rules that I or other moderators normally use, but they are similar to the usual rules, with certain differences. Second, please read the rules again. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, rather than guessing. First I would ask that each person involve confirm they intend to participate and give a brief statement of their ideal solution. The total statement should be 5-6 sentences total. 14:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I will give the other participants another 24 hours to decide to participate- if they don't want to participate- then this will be closed as no-solution found. This is a voluntary process and while we don't require every involved user to participate- we do require at least a few to establish some sort of consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC) First Statement by Venkat TL (talk · contribs) The Punjab Election page lists the candidates of 3 major alliances. The position of SSM and NDA is fourth and Fifth, respectively. There are at least 6-7 alliances, and it is not possible to list candidates from all these alliances. Normally only the Election winners and the runner up candidates are listed in table in the election article, in results section. Since the results will be released on 10 March, top 3 alliances have been listed, as they have consistently been in top 3 in opinion polls and the victors and runner ups will be from these 3. On 10 March only the Winning and the Runner up candidate will remain on the Election page. Ideal Solution from this DRN will be to maintain the WP:STATUSQUO with 3 (or top 2) major alliance in candidate list until the results are declared. (for example see 2022 Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly election, 2022_Goa_Legislative_Assembly_election) Venkat TL (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC) First Statement by Het666 (talk · contribs) National Democratic Alliance have enough influence to be in Candidate List with former CM and Minister, MPs and with 7 MLA . Also from another Wikipedia articles on various states NDA column is everywhere . Suggestion : To make separate page for candidates in 2022 Punjab Legislative Assembly election like List of candidates in the 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election (_talk_) First Statement by Kaustubhkul (talk · contribs) First Statement by Dhruv edits (talk · contribs) First Statement by Tejasvi 3094 (talk · contribs) First Statement by Dev Adhi (talk · contribs) First Statement by Preet Manak Singh (talk · contribs) First Statement by ਕਿਸਾਨੀ ਜਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ (talk · contribs) 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.

Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DVillageP11 on 15:39, 31 January 2022 (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 Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DVillageP11 (talk · contribs) Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk · contribs) Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In August, an editor changed the page for the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation (aka Village Preservation) to reflect a nonneutral and inaccurate point of view, one that was biased against the organization's work and misused references. I and others tried to edit the page back into a neutral POV, but all edits have been rejected. All of the edits I attempted to add/update (both in the edit and talk stages) were well-sourced, but that had no impact. I then went into the talk page and tried to contact that editor to work out some way to make the page more accurate yet reflect both points of view, but nothing happened with that. I then tried to get some support/advice from other editors, and the only element of the page that was changed was the lede; while the new text is better, it still is not accurate in how it describes the nonprofit's activities. My last attempt to resolve the issue on Jan. 20 sums up the issues here well yet has gone unanswered, which means there's a good deal of info on the page that remains inaccurate, biased, or missing. I've listed the initial editor who changed the page in August and two others who helped with the lead paragraph in December, but I don't know how to notify them of this discussion. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Greenwich_Village_Society_for_Historic_Preservation How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Update the page as I've requested/discussed several times, so as to correct errors in fact, remove nonneutral POV, include details that give a better description of the organization's activities, and ensure proper and accurate references. Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Pyrrho the Skeptic Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rhododendrites Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. To Nightenbelle: Can I ask what RFC or 3o is? (talk) See: WP:RFC or WP:3o Sorry I should have linked those in my close. I apologize for the oversite. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC) OK, thanks for the advice. (talk) 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.

Opera (company)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Heartmusic678 on 11:48, 3 February 2022 (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 Opera (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Heartmusic678 (talk · contribs) Jemimahtrump (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Since 13 February 2020, there have been a series of disruptive edits and edit wars on Opera (company) regarding the content of the Controversy section. Please see the talk page for more details. Please provide objective feedback on how to protect the integrity of the content on the page and provide advice on what to do in the event of future disruptive edits and edit warring and over page content should page protection not be extended after 1 month. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I tried multiple times to reach the editor who reverted my edits, and received no response. After this, I followed the dispute resolution policy, civilly asking for an end to disruptive edits and warning of the potential consequence of edit warring to no avail. I requested and was granted semi-page protection for Opera (company). See talk page. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Provide objective feedback on how to protect the integrity of the content on the page and provide advice on what to do in the event of future disruptive edits and edit warring and over page content should page protection not be extended. Summary of dispute by Jemimahtrump Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Opera (company) 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.

wakefield

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 2.24.114.186 on 16:45, 7 February 2022 (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 Wakefield (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Esemgee (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have added information, a simple edit, to the historical record contained on the Wakefield page, to shown that eminent historians such as Sir J.C. Holt, 'Robin Hood', 2011 ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0500289352 / Professors John Taylor and Barrie Dobson, 'Rymes of Robin Hood: An Introduction to the English Outlaw' 1997, ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0750916613 / Professor Maurice Keen 'The Outlaws of Medieval Legend', 2000, ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0415236509, et al, state that Robin Hood's heists took place at the Saylis, Wakefield. Historically, this is recognised as fact. A user named Esemgee reversed my edit on the basis that, 'Barnsdale in not in Wakefield'. This statement is correct, however, my edit does not so much as reference Barnsdale. It specifically states the Saylis, which is located within Wakefield, being situated with the postcode WF8 3JJ. Today, the Wentbridge House Hotel, a public house, stands on ground that is historically legally recorded as being 'Saylis plantation'. The historians cited above explain this in their works, and with a postcode of WF8 3JJ, the Saylis falls firmly within Wakefield. In confirmation of the historical importance of the site, English Heritage placed one of their famous Blue Plaque's on the Wentbridge bridge to confirm this detail! Again, the postcode of the bridge is WF8 3JJ. I am happy to work in collaboration with Esemgee so that the passage is written in such a way as befits the historicity of the Saylis site and maintain's Wikipedia's ethical standards, but the user has not bothered to discuss this matter. Instead, Esemgee acted out of hand and reversed my edit, on a false premise, forcing a resolution to this dispute to be sought. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[talk‎ 104,913 bytes +698‎ WF8 3JJ!!! Check the wording of an article before you edit it, as you have stated publicly that you reversed the page because "Barnsdale is not in Wakefield". Nowhere does the article state 'Barnsdale', that is your mistaken assumption! The article specifically states 'the saylis', and that is Esemgee talk contribs‎ 104,215 bytes −698‎ Barnsdale is not in Wakefield city undo Tags: Undo Reverted Discussed issue with editor, who's not willing to discuss matter. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Review the evidence and decide whether the information belongs on the Wakefield page. Summary of dispute by Esemgee Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. wakefield 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.

Martin Kulldorff

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Michael.C.Wright on 23:30, 2 February 2022 (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 Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) Llll5032 (talk · contribs) Notified on talk page Alexbrn (talk · contribs) Notified on talk page Users have been notified of this request. Dispute overview Martin Kulldorff claims to be an epidemiologist on his LinkedIn page. He has the skill "epidemiology" listed on his LinkedIn page and that skill has been endorsed by 44 LinkedIn users, 2 of which were colleagues of Kulldorff's at Harvard University, a previous employer of his. He has also reviewed studies/papers for journals such as Epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Epidemiology, European Journal of Epidemiology, and more. Francis Collins, the former head of the NIH has referred to him and the other authors of the Great Barrington Declaration as "fringe epidemiologists" in an email to Anthony Fauci. One blog post by David Gorski, an oncologist specializing in breast cancer surgery, therefore not an expert in the field, parenthetically asserts Kulldorff is "not an epidemiologist" on the blog Science-based medicine (SBM). The article is a clear hit piece, even if SBM has been deemed 'generally reliable' at WP:RSP. Because of the single, parenthetical assertion that Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist, that title has been removed from his BLP article. Kulldorff is clearly an epidemiologist; he has worked and studied directly in epidemiology, has been responsible for reviewing studies in epidemiology, and many of his peers consider him an epidemiologist. His BLP should reflect that fact, especially in light of his controversial opinions about the Covid pandemic, which is the justification for his notability and reason for the BLP in the first place. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#Epidemiologist_or_not? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Help us to determine if a single, parenthetical statement in an obvious opinion/hit piece is enough to counter years of work and study in the field and clear acceptance and use of the title by his peers (who have authority and expertise in the relevant field). Summary of dispute by Llll5032 Most sources label him as a biostatistician instead. We should be cautious about using a title at the top of a BLP article that is disputed ("a biostatistician, not an epidemiologist") by a RS on the RSP list. We could stick to titles with no disagreement by RS and still describe the subject's contributions. Llll5032 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alexbrn We lack sources for such an assertion. The OP dismisses the "single parenthetical assertion" that the guy is not an epidemiologist, but is all over the "single parenthetical assertion" that he is one. RS seems to categorize him more as (slightly different) a biostatistician. For BLP reasons we need to be cautious and not over-reach beyond good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: Sorry for my tardy response. For whatever reason it wasn't obvious from my watchlist there was any activity here which needed attention. Anyway, in answer to your question I don't particularly want to change anything: I only arrived at the article because of a query at WP:BLPN.[1] My general position is that if a BLP subject is to be given a contentious label (and Kulldorff's precise role is contended in RS), sourcing needs to be impeccable. Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Martin Kulldorff discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - Notification of other editors should be on their user talk pages. Notification via notice on the article talk page is not sufficient. Other editors have not yet been notified. The template {{DRN-notice}} may be used for the purpose, or any clear concise civil notification may be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC) This is now done correctly. My apologies. See links above, next to each editor's name. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Kulldorff) I am opening this dispute for moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask a question rather than guessing or inferring. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements are not helpful; they may make the poster feel better without clarifying the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. I have a question, and an assignment. The assignment is that each editor should state, in no more than two paragraphs, what they want either to change in the article or to leave unchanged in the article, and why. The question is whether there are any issues other than whether to use a particular descriptor for the subject's professional area. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC) First statements by editors (Kulldorff) First statement by Michael.C.Wright I would like the label 'epidemiologist' returned to the short description and the lead section, effectively reversing the original removal. The label has been used in the past by Francis Collins, former director of the NIH and his usage of the term was covered by the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post and the Munk Debates have also used the label 'epidemiologist' to describe Kulldorff. Kulldorff uses the term on his LinkedIn page, where the skill "epidemiology" is listed and endorsed by 44 other LinkedIn users, including two who worked with Kulldorff at Harvard University. The justification for Kulldorff's notability and thus the reason he has a biography on Wiki is his coauthor-ship of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), a statement on how the authors think the Covid-19 pandemic should be handled. The GBD is a statement argued in large part from an epidemiological perspective. The label 'epidemiologist' gives a reader an immediate understanding that Kulldorff has expertise in the relevant field and that his opinions, as fringe and controversial as they may be, are still informed by work and study in the field of epidemiology. Using the label 'epidemiologist' and also describing the mainstream view of his more controversial, epidemiological ideas helps to maintain a neutral POV. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC) First statement by Llll5032 Thanks and sorry for my delayed response, Robert McClenon. I am not asking for any changes in the article. It is my understanding that we usually follow secondary RS for labels in Wikivoice in the top/description, and almost all the cited secondary RS in this article don't use the label epidemiologist. It has been mentioned that one source also disputes the label. I don’t know if this secondary RS consensus is outweighed yet by the OP's proposed selection of sources for the top/description. Those sources include one secondary RS, the Post, but it labeled him a biostatistician instead in its latest article. The OP cites a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, but a previous Wall Street Journal opinion piece co-written by the subject himself labeled him a biostatistician instead, and its (RS) news article labeled him a professor of medicine instead. Are the secondary sources omitting the title because other labels are more precise? Is that a better question for talk page consensus or the science noticeboard? Llll5032 (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Kulldorff) The ground rules state that an editor is expected to check on the status of the case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions from the moderator at least every 48 hours. Maybe the rules ought to state clearly that a statement should be posted every 48 hours, but if the moderator says that each editor has an assignment to answer a question, that means to provide the answer within 48 hours. User:Alexbrn and User: Llll5032 have not replied within 48 hours. I don't want to close this case due to lack of response, because that doesn't resolve the dispute. Participation in DRN is voluntary, and failure to participate does not cancel either the verifiability policy or the policy on biographies of living persons. If there is no answer, I will close the case, and will advise the filing editor to edit boldly but not recklessly, and will advise all editors to discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Martin Kulldorff, and will advise that consensus can be established by a Request for Comments. So: Do the two other editors want to comment, or should I take the less than satisfactory action of closing the case due to lack of response? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure where or how to report this, so I'll try here. User:Alexbrn has now edited the article here and here, despite WP:DRNA. I understand the rules state that editing the page during moderated discussion will fail the mediation but I don't think one user should be able to fail the mediation in such a way. That's too easy to game—specially when one party wants no change. I also don't feel that some users should be required to follow the rules while others refuse to do so. Also, I'm new to mediated disputes and RFCs. Are you saying this dispute should stay open and becomes part of an RFC, if an RFC be pursued? Maybe I misunderstood the DRN process and should have filed an RFC instead of the DRN. My goal was to get an indifferent opinion on the usability of the specific SBM article in preventing the use of the term 'epidemiologist' in a biography. Maybe reliable sources noticeboard is the logical next step? Thanks again for your help and patience. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Kulldorff) Second statement by Michael.C.Wright Too long, didn't read. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Thank you for spending the time to moderate this discussion. I do appreciate it and I request that we discuss the issue a bit more, if possible. The challenge I see is that the single source that states 'Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist' is not strong enough to challenge sources claiming he is. The source is politically biased and partisan. The statement 'Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist' is not supported in the article by any evidence. It is an un-sourced, parenthetical statement made in a blog article written by a non-expert in epidemiology, which does not conform to WP:MEDRS. I do not dispute that there is consensus that the blog Science-based Medicine (SBM) is 'generally reliable' but there are a number of issues with this specific article that should disqualify it as "an impeccable source" for a parenthetical assertion: The author has utilizes name-calling (calling the authors "COVID-19 deniers, conspiracy theorists, and grifters") Assigns guilt by association with climate-deniers, creationists, RJ Reynolds, etc. It relies too heavily on Twitter for source material and regarding the Great Barrington Declaration specifically, it has few links or citations to scientific papers or reliable secondary sources It assigns motives to the authors ("...so embarrassed are the scientists behind the Declaration...") without consulting or interviewing them. The article connects the authors to the Koch brothers, a connection which has nothing to do with science, epidemiology, or even quackery but everything to do with politics. Just the point of calling the authors 'COVID-19 deniers' is false on its face: they have written a document suggesting an alternative to how to respond to the pandemic. My point is that the single source casting doubt on the label 'epidemiologist' is not a good source to be used on Wiki and it is especially not strong enough to support the statement that 'Kulldorff is not an epidemiologist.' User:Alexbrn has said: We'd need more than SBM to say the guy was "not an epidemiologist"... — User:Alexbrn 08:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC) If we can't say he's not an epidemiologist, and there are reliable secondary sources that say he is (including the former-director of the NIH, who clearly disagrees with Kulldorff's opinion), then there should be no contention in saying in the article that he is an epidemiologist (which is not an official job title). I don't even disagree with the article highlighting that Collins called Kulldorff a "fringe epidemiologist." My contention is not with the label 'fringe.' Finally, while I understand the policy that "any contested material should normally be removed or left out of the article," I also feel it is being used by the other editors here as a form of Wikilawyering, specifically "Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles." The rule is being leveraged to weaponize the policies rather than to resolve a problem. Specifically; In the editor's discussion titled Medical citation needed, contested copy placed by Alexbrn is still in the article. In the editor's discussion titled Herd Immunity, contested copy placed by Llll5032, in dispute for nearly three weeks, is still in the article. I use these examples not to litigate them here but to demonstrate what I see as evidence of wikilawyering, or bad faith editing. If the editor's believe the policy pertains to copy by other editors, they should apply it to their own as well. They have not. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Kulldorff) One editor wants to restore the removed designation of "epidemiologist", and another editor wants to leave it alone (not restore it). In a biography of a living person, any contested material should normally be removed or left out of the article. There are two possible resolutions. The first, which I recommend, is to agree to omit the contested designation and close the case. The second is to ask the community via a Request for Comments whether to restore the designation. I will close this case as omitting the designation unless there is a request for an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Kulldorff) Back-and-forth discussion (Kulldorff) 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.

Azerbaijan (toponym)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Abrvagl on 16:59, 9 February 2022 (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 Azerbaijan (toponym) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Abrvagl (talk · contribs) LouisAragon (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are reliable secondary and primary sources related to the Article. However, it was impossible to reach a consensus with some editors to add provided information to the article. Editors who are against the change provided a counterargument as "Provided sources are not in line with the way article written and with already provided sources. This argument does not make any sense, why encyclopedia should be one-sided?. I decided DRN, as there was no response on the talk page and consensus, was not possible to reach. Proposed edit to the article is to consider following sources: 1. WP:RSPRIMARY Jean Chardin stated: Azerbaijan, province of Persia, borders to the East upon the Caspian Sea, and Hyrcania; to the South upon the province of Parthians; to the West upon the River Araxes, and Upper Armenia, and to the North upon Dagestan. (https://archive.org/details/travelsofsirjohn00char/page/348) 2. WP:SECONDARY Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. First print edition: ISBN: 9789004161214, 1960-2007 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_0736) states: The Arrān is usually applied in Islamic times to the district in Transcaucasia between the Kur (Kura) and Aras (Araks) Rivers. In pre-Islamic times, however, the term was used for all of eastern Transcaucasia (present Soviet Azerbaijan), i.e. Classical Albania (cf. article “Albania” in Pauly-Wissowa). By the 15th century A.D. the name Arrān was not in common parlance, for the territory was absorbed into Ād̲h̲arbāyd̲j̲ān. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Azerbaijan_(toponym)#Jean_Chardin_into_Persia_and_the_East_Indies_:_the_first_volume,_containing_the_author's_voyage_from_Paris_to_Ispahan_:_to_which_is_added,_the_coronation_of_this_present_king_of_Persia,_Solyman_the_Third Talk:Azerbaijan_(toponym)#Article_does_not_reflect_full_picture. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I believe that dispute can be resolved either by including information from sources that I suggested after agreement how to include them, or dispute can be resolved if proper justification will be given on why provided sources should be ignored from the article. 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 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Azerbaijan (toponym) 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.

2022 Winter Olympics

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Angele201002 on 10:54, 9 February 2022 (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 2022 Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Angele201002 (talk · contribs) CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) Dispute overview COVID 19 is not a diplomatic boycott and is not a relevant reason to be included in the article Relevant sources have stated that there exists a US/Lithuania-led diplomatic boycott to the 2022 Winter Olympics. In addition, three countries (Czech Republic, Estonia and Japan) have claimed Chinese human rights violations as a reason for not sending diplomatic officials to the Games. There are also various countries mentioned in the article who have claimed COVID-19 and/or quarantine requirements as a reason to not send diplomatic officials to the games. Both mentioned sources in the article state that Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, New Zealand, Slovenia and the Netherlands have cited COVID as the reason and are explicitly not boycotting the games. However, the article continues to state (and mislead) that "They have cited COVID-19 restrictions for their reasoning while also expressing concern over China’s human rights conditions". Additionally, note that diplomatic non-attendance during COVID is not especially newsworthy for the Games. During the only other Olympics held during the pandemic, Tokyo 2020, many nations (many more than at these games) did not send diplomatic officials. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2022_Winter_Olympics#COVID_19_is_not_a_diplomatic_boycott_and_is_not_a_relevant_reason_to_be_included_in_the_article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? To remove the countries who have stated they are not attending due to COVID (not newsworthy considering the non-attendances at Tokyo) or to state that "various other leaders, similar to Tokyo 2020, chose not to attend the Games due to COVID-19 concerns" Summary of dispute by CapnJackSp Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2022 Winter Olympics 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.

Pala Empire

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Ekdalian on 11:47, 10 February 2022 (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 Pala Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Ekdalian (talk · contribs) Dear Debasish (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is all about showing all possible theories of Origin of Pala Empire. There are different opinions among scholars regarding their origin as per reliable sources. Some consider them to be Buddhists, while there are claims of being Kshatriya. Similarly, another opinion by Abu'l-Fazl (the grand vizier of the Mughal emperor Akbar, also the author of the Akbarnama and one of the Nine Jewels or 'Navaratnas' of Akbar's royal court) is the Palas were Kayasthas. This is relevant since Abu'l-Fazl might have more information regarding the Palas at his time. Moreover, we are not talking about any primary source, but all secondary sources by reliable authors (Nitish Sengupta, already cited in the Origin section and other reliable authors like Wink) who quote Abu'l-Fazl and mention in their modern sources that "according to Abu'l-Fazl, the Palas were Kayasthas". My objective is to provide all opinions as per WP:NPOV How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Pala Empire#Recent_dispute_(Feb_'22) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By helping editors understand that all relevant opinions (reliably sourced) must be covered under WP:NPOV; also, the ground for removing the statement doesn't fall under WP:REMOVAL Summary of dispute by Dear Debasish Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Pala Empire 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.

Pit Bull

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tazdeviloo7 on 19:28, 14 February 2022 (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 Pit Bull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tazdeviloo7 (talk · contribs) Unbiased6969 (talk · contribs) Geogene (talk · contribs) Valjean (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article currently uses a 6% figure for the population of pit bulls. This figure is sourced from www.animals24-7.org which is a personal blog and it is in contrast to this quote from the American Veterinary Medical Association, "...the number of dogs of a particular breed or combination of breeds in a community is not known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then incomplete. Breed data likely vary between communities, states, or regions, and can even vary between neighborhoods within a community." This is talked about in Talk, but it's not going anywhere and there's an edit war over this. There's also the issue that if Animals 24-7 on the 6% figure is valid because it is quoted in other non-academic publications then does that make pitbullinfo.com's 20% pit bull population figure valid as well? Like the Animals 24-7 source, it is quoted by other publications such as forevervets.com, petkeen.com and hkrtinc.com. Unlike Animals 24-7, pitbullinfo.org is open about where they got their population figure from, ASPCA shelter data that they directly link to. It is very important that we focus on the 6% statement and nothing else. Are pit bulls 6% of the dog population in the US? Does this 6% figure have a reputable source. If the 6% source is reputable then is the 20% figure source reputable by the same standards? The goal is to improve the article with accurate information from reputable sources. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tazdeviloo7 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pit_bull#Pitbulls_6%_of_dogs_in_US_reliable_source? How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We need a mediator to help determine what is to happen with the disputed despite 6% statement. The source is reliable and it stays or the source is not reliable and it is removed. Summary of dispute by Unbiased6969 The Time's article is clearly deriving and citing dogsbite.org and animals24/7.org data, and it is not something the author themselves did any research into. Both sites have been found by the community in Reliable Sources [2] to be unreliable. Being cited by Time does not bring credibility to those cites, no matter how much the other side would like you to believe that. Just means that the journalist engaged in lazy journalism by not fact checking their sources. Using Time's name to cite dogsbite's and animals24/7's data is disingenuous and misleading to readers. Dogsbite and animals24/7 are not widely referenced in reliable sources. Two examples is not wide-spread, granting it the status of reliability, especially when the community already determined their data is unreliable. Also stating that "Independent organizations have published statistics" is misleading as dogsbite.org and anaimal24/7.org are far from independent and are advocacy blogs ran by two people with agendas. At minimum it should state that advocacy sites against the breed. Also, since someone inferred biases in their argument against my position, at least one of the users in favor of the source has a bias against the breed as can seen seen in the talk page in this quote "...I see many pit bulls (we go for walks with a ski pole, bear spray, and a 9mm because when they get loose, they attack us and our dogs, so we're fighting for our lives)..." Lastly, just know that this whole "page under attack" thing is meant to distract from the fact that their position is to keep unreliable data in a Wikipedia article because it supports their biases. If hospital records actually showed the data they claimed, then just cite the studies released by the hospitals. No need to cite an unreliable advocacy site when they allegedly obtained their data from hospital records... Unbiased6969 (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Geogene WP:USEBYOTHERS Geogene (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Re Unbiased6969's request for "hospital studies", Bite risk by breed from the literature review and bite severity by breed from our case series were combined to create a total bite risk plot. Injuries from Pitbull's and mixed breed dogs were both more frequent and more severe....Breeds vary in both rates of biting and severity. The highest risk breeds had both a high rate of biting and caused significant tissue injury. [3] Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis Essig et al., 2019. Geogene (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC) From another: Most pediatric dog bite injuries afflicted male children (55.6%), ages 6 to 12 years (45.7%), by a household dog (36.2%). The most common offending breed was a pit bull or pit bull mix (53.0%). [4] Analysis of Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries at a Level 1 Trauma Center Over 10 Years Muñoz et al., 2021. Geogene (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC) a Atsme's remarks are puzzling, in that there seems to be no reason why breed would ever not be considered in dog bite epidemiology, given that it's already been shown to be a major factor in bite severity. There's no evidence of this happening in recent medical journals, and it's not clear why an AVMA opinion would be relevant. Perhaps pit bull advocates would like for that to happen, for reasons of their own.... Geogene (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Valjean Geogene's WP:USEBYOTHERS argument is our policy. When multiple RS cite a figure like this, it is justified to use it and those sources. "advocacy sites against the breed." is mentioned without noting that the Pit Bull article is under attack by multiple pro-Pit bull advocates. -- Valjean (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC) User:Unbiased6969, stop making changes to your comment after others have responded to it. That's deceptive. This version is the comment I have responded to, but now you've changed it many times. That's not allowed. User:Robert McClenon, please do something about this situation as it has created grounds for serious misunderstandings and BLP violations against other editors. The personal attacks by Unbiased6969 need to stop. -- Valjean (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC) I am using very RS: A 2000 joint review project between researchers in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) found the data indicated that Rottweilers and pit bull-type dogs accounted for 67% of human dog bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1997 and 1998, and followed with "It is extremely unlikely that they accounted for anywhere near 60% of dogs in the United States during that same period and, thus, there appears to be a breed-specific problem with fatalities." Pit bull-type dogs were identified in approximately one-third of dog bite-related fatalities in the United States between 1981 and 1992. The review notes that studies on dog bite-related fatalities which collect information by surveying news reports are subject to potential errors, as some fatal attacks may not have been reported, a study might not find all relevant news reports, and the dog breed might be misidentified. Valjean (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC) User:Geogene, please add those sources and content to the Pitbull article. -- Valjean (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC) References Pit Bull discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC) I have notified them now, thank you. Tazdeviloo7 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC) If anyone can link me the rules for this, I would be more than happy to read them I read the page and did not see anywhere where I could not edit my own argument. If that's not allowed, my mistake and I can change it to the original one.Unbiased6969 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC) Hi Unbiased6969. The relevant guideline is here: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. You should study your edit history here and then make your additions as separate comments. Minor corrections that do not change any meaning, such as fixing insignificant typos, are excepted from this rule. -- Valjean (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Uninvolved (in dispute) editors I wouldn't waste too much time on this dispute. Our Dog Project is in the process (slowly but surely) of updating and clarifying dog type, dog breed misinformation, and updating stats that, like the ones in this article, are a couple of decades old. New DNA studies and research has concluded that there has been a significant amount of misidentification of pit bull-types. I urge editors to find the most recent stats which have stopped using breed types because of the issues such misinformation has introduced. Following are a few links that may help bring the issues into perspective: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160292/ J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2014 Oct 2; 17(4): 322–339. Published online 2014 Mar 27. doi: 10.1080/10888705.2014.895904] AVMA AVMA National Canine Research Science Direct NCR Breed was not one of the Factors Identified Considering breed id is in the early stages of being eliminated from dog bite reports, WP updates will be forthcoming. Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 16 February 2022 (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.

LGBT in Islam

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Santasa99 on 18:33, 18 February 2022 (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 LGBT in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Santasa99 (talk · contribs) GenoV84 (talk · contribs) VenusFeuerFalle (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In this articles lead sec. we have two statements, little bit differently formulated, but conveying exactly the same information using same refs and same, or more precisely, duplicate wikilinks, whose pipes are differently framed. First of these two duplicate links is using inappropriately constructed phrase, "Islamic death penalty", which gives us entirely new and different meaning from linked title, "Capital punishment in Islam". Attempt to amend these problems were reverted and discussion bogged down with evasive walls of text. Resolution was offered, with two statements merged as one coherent, without losing an ounce of meaning and context, amending duplicate links and the problematic "Islamic death penalty" phrase in the process, but that was reverted and rejected without giving a satisfactory argument. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:LGBT_in_Islam#Public_opinion_among_Muslims How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By stating whatever you think is reasonable and obvious. LGBT in Islam discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Current status - we have two statements conveying same info: However, some hadith collections condemn homosexual and transgender acts,[5][7][12][13] prescribing the Islamic death penalty for both the active and receptive partners who have engaged in male homosexual intercourse.[1][2][6]; and few lines below: Homosexual acts are forbidden in traditional Islamic jurisprudence and are liable to different punishments, including stoning and the death penalty,[2][6] depending on the situation and legal school. Resolution offered is formulated like this: Some hadith collections condemn homosexual and transgender acts,[5][7][12][16] making them forbidden in traditional Islamic jurisprudence and liable to different punishments, including stoning and the death penalty for both partners, the active and receptive, who have engaged in male homosexual intercourse,[1][2][6] depending on the circumstances, country and the legal school. This was rejected.--౪ Santa ౪99° 18:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Note - The filing party has not listed or notified the other editor(s). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC) I am sure I did?! One, two--౪ Santa ౪99° 22:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC) But I didn't list them - I don't how I missed it.--౪ Santa ౪99° 23:12, 18 February 2022 (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.

Justin Gatlin

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Criticalthinker on 05:57, 21 February 2022 (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 Justin Gatlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kiril Simeonovski (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is an active dispute between myself and user Kiril Simeonovski regarding whether a term he wants to use is POV and whether or not it should be in the opening section of the article. It is my opinion that the term is POV and that the subject is described in two full sub-sections within the article itself and thus redundant. I also do not believe that this is typically how we do articles on athletes on wikipedia; it does not seem consistent with best practices. The default has been the article prior to his edits; no one had an opinion that this term should be added. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Justin Gatlin#Two-time doper How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We simple need a third-party opinion to stop what has become an editing war. Summary of dispute by Kiril Simeonovski Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Justin Gatlin 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.

Religion in Egypt

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by STOPBIAS20 25 on 18:26, 21 February 2022 (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 Religion in Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved STOPBIAS20 25 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have undone your edit back to Lakeisuehudoospeh edit as the information he has stated does have information that verifies his edit and is fairly recent and from a credible source as his edits and reference does support his argument and information. Clearly undoing or deleting his edit is hiding the truth from fairly recent information by a credible analyst about the Middle East. Moreover state media Al Ahram mentions 10-15% as an estimate and 5% is impossible as that apples for the Middle East region combined with Christians being largest out of 5% in the Middle East region. Clearly obvious with proof to verify my undo edit. However if there is no proof for his edit then that will be excusable to delete but this wrong of you to delete his edit especially references that supports his edit that is fairly recent information and evidence. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have undone your edit back to Lakeisuehudoospeh edit as the information he has stated does have information that verifies his edit and is fairly recent and from a credible source as his edits and reference does support his argument and information. Clearly undoing or deleting his edit is hiding the truth from fairly recent information by a credible analyst about the Middle East. Moreover state media Al Ahram mentions 10-15% as an estimate and 5% is impossible as that apples for the Middle East How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I have undone your edit back to Lakeisuehudoospeh edit as the information he has stated does have information that verifies his edit and is fairly recent and from a credible source as his edits and reference does support his argument and information. Clearly undoing or deleting his edit is hiding the truth from fairly recent information by a credible analyst about the Middle East. Moreover state media Al Ahram mentions 10-15% as an estimate and 5% is impossible as that apples for the Middle East Religion in Egypt discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This is premature, suggested changes should be brought up at Talk:Religion in Egypt and discussed there before being brought here. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC) I agree with Rosguill, it is too early for dispute resolution. STOPBIAS20 25 has not discussed this issue on the articles talk page. JimRenge (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2022 (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.

Pit Bull

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tazdeviloo7 on 02:05, 23 February 2022 (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 Pit Bull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tazdeviloo7 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview "despite comprising 6% of pet dogs" is on the main article. This 6% statistic comes from one source, https://www.animals24-7.org/ , which is a non-academic blog. The sources cited in the article, Time Magazine and PitBulls for Dummies both reference the animals 24-7 source. This 6% statistic is in direct contrast to a reliable source, The American Veterinary Medical Association, which has stated "there is no reliable way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population at any given time". There is edit warring going on regarding this statement that has not been able to come to a resolution in the talk page. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pit_bull#:~:text=BSL%2D201208.pdf-,Pitbulls%206%25%20of%20dogs%20in%20US%20reliable%20source%3F,-%5Bedit%20source%5D How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We need a mediator to help settle this matter so we can make or not make the edit finally instead of edit warring. Pit Bull 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.

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Abrvagl on 15:22, 25 February 2022 (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 Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Abrvagl (talk · contribs) ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article, in the section Official position, states that: On 16 July 2020, during the 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry threatened with missile strike on the nuclear power plant in Armenia.[111] Information taken from the heading of the following article: "https://www.rbc.ru/politics/16/07/2020/5f104f1d9a7947d06ad17bfd" However article itself, clearly states that "The representative of the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan recalled the possibility of a strike on a nuclear power plant in Armenia, commenting on reports about the possibility of an attack by the Armenian military on the dam of the Mingachevir reservoir". This case has nothing to do with Anti-Armenian sentiments and it is clear WP:RSHEADLINES, therefore I suggest to remove it. User ZaniGiovanni, however, states that "Third party confirming that it's just a made up claim from Azeri side". I do not understand how his statement related to the dispute, but he insists on it. We need help to resolve the dispute. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [5] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? We need experienced Wikipedia editor to review the case and decide how dispute can be solved, because at this stage reflected information WP:RSHEADLINES, statement either can be removed as it is not related to sentiments, or can be at least reworded to reflect what stated by the source. Summary of dispute by ZaniGiovanni Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan 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.

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Abrvagl on 11:41, 25 February 2022 (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 Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Abrvagl (talk · contribs) ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs) Brandmeister (talk · contribs) Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Issue about removal of information not supported by the reliable sources, from the article. Information to be removed: The 2nd President of Azerbaijan, Abulfaz Elchibey during a speech in June 1992, once said "If there is a single Armenian left in Karabakh by October of this year, the people of Azerbaijan can hang me in the central square of Baku". He also once "threatened to occupy Armenia, wash his feet in Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores" Issues are: 1. Not reliable source: Source refers to the Baroness Cox's speech at hearings, parliamentary debates & talks, where she stated that As the then Azeri President Elchibey said in June 1992:. Transcript of the Baroness Cox speech at hearings is not a reliable source and not an Official Position. Cutting words from her speech as stating them as fact is unacceptable. Basically Abulfaz Elchibey never said that (unless reliable source proving that provided), but Baroness Cox said that Abulfaz Elchibey said that. 2. Not neutral Caroline Cox's neutrality is under big question. She openly admits in the same source being engaged in "advocacy for the Armenians of Karabakh". By 2003 she had made more than 60 trips to the region. Frank Pallone, Jr., the co-chairman of the US Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, praised her devotion to Armenia and Karabakh. On 15 February 2006 she was awarded the Mkhitar Gosh Medal by the President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan. 3. Not possible to verify. The only source supporting alleged Abulfaz Elchibey's statement is Baroness Cox's speech at hearings. No reliable source confirms that. No official transcripts of his speeches exists. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [6] [7] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? There is need for additional editors to view the issues, as although the majority of the editors agreed that it would be removed, ZaniGiovanni revert edits and does not agree. His point is that is is reliable source because "it is UK source". Summary of dispute by ZaniGiovanni Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I suggested this user to open a DRN notice for another discussion, see Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Denying_entry_to_Azerbaijan:_Ilham_Aliyev's_interview_to_Simonyan. They kept restoring undue quotes of current president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev, despite multiple WP:RS in opposition to it, see Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Denying_entry_to_Azerbaijan and their edits [8], [9]. They also removed a quote from Uk Parlament regarding previous president of Azerbaijan, Abulfaz Elchibey. I'm not sure about the "wash his feet in Lake Sevan and drink tea on its shores", so I didn't restore that part as I didn't find any sources for it. I restored Elchibey quote in Uk Parliament source [10]. I'm happy to hear the mediator's thoughts regarding this. Also, this isn't a BLP edit, Elchibay died a long time ago. Not sure why an editor, Morbidthoughts, from a separate BLP discussion is pinged here. This was the edit in question involving Morbidthoughts, which I didn't restore and currently trying to reach consensus in their talk page, it doesn't have anything to do with the current discussion. My current summary of this discussion is the following: 1) Aliev's quote that Abrvagl added/restored [11], [12] is entirely undue as multiple WP:RS are in opposition to it and none support his "This information does not correspond to reality" claims, see sources [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. 2) I would like to see mediator's opinion regarding Elchibay quote I restored as I think it's appropriately sourced. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC) I would also note that this user seems to be on a WP:SPA journey with a strong POV. This report might not be filed on good intentioned grounds, as apparent by their other contributions. They just removed sourced content in Lachin from HRW with bogus reasoning in talk, see diff, discussion. Update: The user is now edit-warring in Lachin citing "WP:ONUS" [18] without actually providing a valid argument for their removal. I don't know how to approach them, maybe the mediator could also take a look at this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Brandmeister Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Morbidthoughts Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. One of the other editors has responded (and does not need to be notified), but the other two editors should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2022 (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.

All-Russian nation

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Farwest1 on 12:47, 3 March 2022 (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. – New discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute All-Russian nation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Farwest1 (talk · contribs) Mellk (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have changed the common spelling of the capitol of Ukraine in this article from Kiev (Russian spelling) to Kyiv (Ukrainian spelling). This follows the convention elsewhere in Wikipedia, including the main Kyiv page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyiv When describing the city Kyiv, its Ukrainian spelling should be used, since that is its correct and accepted spelling in 2022. When describing specific historical instances or texts, it is understandable that the Russian spelling might be used. Additionally, the word Kyivan is cited in other articles as a common synonym to Kievan, and should be used where possible since Kyiv currently exists within Ukraine as a Ukrainian-speaking city. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I have explained that the main Kyiv page uses the Ukrainian spelling throughout, as should other Wikipedia pages citing Kyiv. The user Mellk has reverted each one of my minor changes to the Russian spelling, arguing that it is the consensus. But consensus appears to be established by the fact that Kyiv is used in the main description page for the city, and elsewhere in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=All-Russian_nation&oldid=prev&diff=1075017742 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Either lock the page, or speak with user Mellk to describe the consensus established elsewhere in Wikipedia. Summary of dispute by Mellk The consensus established at Talk:Kyiv/Archive_9#RfC:_Kyiv/Kiev_in_other_articles (I linked this in the edit summary and on their talk page) after Kiev was moved to Kyiv is that for historical topics, "Kiev" should remain unchanged and therefore not be changed to "Kyiv". Hence why other articles still use "Kiev" in historical contexts (pre-1991) and why this is reinforced by other editors. It also reminds that in all cases, WP:BRD must be followed for such name changes. Instead Farwest1 insists that this consensus should be ignored, that just because the article is Kyiv and not Kiev, "Kyiv" is the only correct spelling to use (even though they also changed all instances of "Kievan Rus'" to "Kyivan Rus'" when that article is Kievan Rus'), that using "Kiev" supports Russian imperialism and denies Ukrainian statehood. They decided to continue reverting until I gave them a warning and tried to explain this consensus on naming. But somehow that was not clear enough, they're still pretending that this consensus does not exist or should not apply. Their response is "I disagree with the Wikipedia consensus". Mellk (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC) All-Russian nation discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. @Farwest1 - as the filer, it is your responsibility to notify Mellk with the {{subst:drn-notice|name of DRN case}} template, and a ping is not sufficient for this purpose. However, Mellk has appeared to be able to find this case anyway. Though, I'm confused - you claim to have discussed the issue on the talk page, but I find no such discussion on Talk:All-Russian nation. Where was this discussion located? casualdejekyll 15:27, 3 March 2022 (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.

Jim Henson

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Nikkimaria on 01:14, 21 February 2022 (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 Jim Henson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) ContentEditman (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is a disagreement about whether it is appropriate to include |death_cause= in {{infobox person}} How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Jim_Henson#death_cause How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? The discussion at the talk page has become uncivil, and two 3Os have not resolved the dispute nor halted edit-warring. Hopefully this venue can help support a more moderate discussion. Summary of dispute by ContentEditman Nikkimaria has left off quite a lot of this discussion. I was not the original editor that added the Death to this page. But I do support their addition and even added references in support on the talk page. His cause of death was national news not just for who he was but how he died. There are many reliable references on just his cause of death such as... As you can see stories on just the cause are written on the subject. I remember it as Flu shoots went up after that. I grew up poor so we never got flu shoots, except after Henson died. I still remember that as I and many other kids got them due to his cause of death. His cause of death has major significance for the Henson's notability. To this day its even still brought up in pop culture. Family Guy is one I know off the top of my head. Search Youtube for "Family Guy - Wrong Sounding Muppets" for example as you-tube link is not allowed. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Nikkimaria is clearly editing in bad faith and leaving out a lot of this dispute. Thanks ContentEditman (talk) 22:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC) References Jim Henson discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Overtaken by events. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC) Volunteer Note to User:Nikkimaria - It appears that the other editor edits sporadically, and is likely not to respond. We can wait for 24 hours, and then I will close the case as no response. Alternatively, however, if you wish, I can start a Request for Comments on whether to include the case of death in the infobox. That is your call; if you don't respond and there is no response, it will be closed and you and the other remaining editors can edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC) First statement by moderator (Henson) User:ContentEditman has made a statement, but it is not clear whether they are agreeing to moderated discussion. So I will ask both editors to read the usual rules, and then provide a one-sentence answer to: Do you agree to moderated discussion, subject to the rules? If so, also answer, in one paragraph, whether there is anything besides the inclusion of cause of death in the infobox that you think should be included in mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC) First statements by editors (Henson) Yes to the first question, no to the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Yes I agree to all on topic as stated. Thanks. ContentEditman (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Second Statement by Moderator (Jim Henson) User:ContentEditman has not responded in almost 48 hours. We will proceed. There appears to be a rough consensus against including the cause of death in the infobox. There is agreement that the details of his death will be described in the article, but that was never in dispute. The filing editor, User:Nikkimaria, may either treat that as a rough consensus, or use a Request for Comments to request that the community formalize the consensus. With the first option, they may remove the cause of death, that is, revert its addition. If it is added again, it is not a good idea to continue edit-warring (that often results in both editors being blocked), but the edit-warring may be reported at WP:ANI or the edit-warring noticeboard. The disadvantage to that approach is that the other editor may disagree as to whether there was a consensus, and may ask for discussion or for dispute resolution, which would bring us back here. The second option, a Request for Comments, has the disadvantage of running for thirty days, and the advantage of being binding and enforceable. I will formulate and post a neutrally worded RFC if I am asked to do so. If the other editor replies and does not agree to moderated discussion, or does not reply, then we continue as stated. If the other editor replies and requests moderated discussion, then I will request one-paragraph statements from each editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors (Jim Henson) Third Statement by Moderator (Jim Henson) Each editor should provide a brief statement addressing: a. Why do you think that the cause of death should either be included in the infobox or not included in the infobox? b. Do you have a compromise proposal? c. What arguments do you plan to address in an RFC? d. Are there any other points that we should consider before an RFC is posted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Third Statements by Editors (Jim Henson) As noted, consensus for inclusion has not been achieved, and the existing talk discussion shows a rough consensus for exclusion. Additionally, the template documentation provides guidance for when this parameter should be used: when it is significant to the subject's notability. There is no indication that is the case here: he was already notable for unrelated reasons prior to his death, and had he not been an otherwise notable person it is unlikely that this death would have made him notable. There is a common misconception that because case X includes a particular parameter that means case Y should as well, but per MOS parameter choice is determined at each individual article. In terms of potential compromise, discussion of the topic in the article text could be expanded with additional sourcing - for example if there were MEDRS-compliant sourcing for the claim made on talk that it impacted influenza vaccination rates. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Moderator (Jim Henson) I have created a draft RFC on the infobox at Talk:Jim Henson/Draft RFC 1. Each of you may put a brief (one-paragraph) statement in support of your position in the space after the statement of the question and before the Survey. After you have each edited the draft RFC, I will move it to the article talk page and activate it. You may also ask any questions or provide any comments at this time. I will wait 48 hours for the brief statements, so that if one or both statements are not provided in that time, I will start the RFC anyway. I hope that this can resolve the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Fourth Statements by Editors (Jim Henson) Fifth Statement by Moderator (Jim Henson) I have started the RFC at Talk:Jim Henson. Unless there are any comments from the participants, I will close this dispute resolution thread in 24 to 48 hours as being resolved by the RFC. Discuss any article content issues on the article talk page. The guideline of bold, revert, discuss applies to the article (as to the rest of the encyclopedia). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Fifth Statements by Editors (Jim Henson) Sixth Statement by Moderator (Jim Henson) Neither of you have made a statement in the Survey yet. Please make a statement in the Survey. You may also engage in discussion if you wish to, but that is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Sixth Statements by Editors (Jim Henson) 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.