Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
White Zimbabweans	Closed	Katangais (t)	6 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	12 hours
Bernese Mountain Dog	In Progress	Traumnovelle (t)	6 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Four Noble Truths

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Joshua Jonathan on 08:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Four Noble Truths (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs) Robertinventor (talk · contribs) Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User:Robertinventor thinks that the Four Noble Truths article relies too much on scholarly sources; he thinks that these scholarly sources are mistaken on the four truths; he thinks that "traditional pov's" are excluded; and he thinks that this gives a wrong impression of the four truths. His proposal is to split-off an article based on scholarly sources, and retain the main article for "traditional pov's", which in his opinion are best preserved in this version of 10 october 2014; I think that this is contrary to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONCENSUS. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Endless discussion at the talkpage; several requests for topic-bans, one of which was admitted. How do you think we can help? Helping Robert clarify his arguments; help him formulate concrete proposals for textual changes (Robert does not want to edit the article himself). Summary of dispute by Robertinventor Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I believe the reason for this DRN is that I objected[1] when @Ms Sarah Welch: removed my POV tag[2][3] from the Four Noble Truths. Please note that this was preceded by WP:TPOs by @Joshua Jonathan: who deleted my first post in several months from the talk page[4], and then when @Farang Rak Tham: reverted [5], by @Ms Sarah Welch: who then collapsed it[6]. This was followed by another attempt to get me topic banned by JJ, which lead @Softlavender: to warn him about trumping up a non-issue, and that if he persisted, she would request a boomerang, for his WP:TPO[7][8][9]. In my view we have two WP:SUBPOVs here. To demonstrates this, and the impossibility of consensus editing, see: evidence from editing history. Sutra tradition editors have given up attempting to edit now except for the Anatta article. They make occasional edit attempts there, but these are reverted by JJ etc. There are few active editors remaining in the topic area with the SUBPOV of sutra tradition Buddhism. My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from readers, including previously active editors, and invite discussion. So, what I propose is to add POV tags to the four core articles Four Noble Truths, Karma in Buddhism, Anatta and Nirvana. I would like to leave the tags in place for at least several months to get some discussion going. My current proposal is to separate out the SUBPOVs. This is already done in the religion topic area, for instance, Resurrection of Jesus has four versions according to WP:SUBPOVs. The idea is to use the current mature articles and the ones from before JJ's non consensus major rewrites in 2014 as starting points. I had some hope that JJ etc would agree to this, but we haven't achieved consensus. However I can still present it as one idea for the POV discussions. Here is evidence that the western academics themselves recognize the two SUBPOVs. Here is a summary of some of the differences in the SUBPOVs. My only wish is to add those POV tags. Reply to Ms Sarah Welch @Ms Sarah Welch: The POV tags would of course explain what is POV about the articles. When you removed the tag, someone had previously edited it to remove its link to the section on the talk page where I summarized the POV issues. This is the section it originally linked to Short summary of the issues with this article. I would use a "SUBPOV" tag if such exists but can't find one. But an article which is SUBPOV, if it is not balanced by the presence of another article with the other SUBPOV becomes POV. Hope that is clearer now. @Ms Sarah Welch: the cite to beyondthenet.net is a quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi, which the article itself cites to him. Bhikkhu Bodhi is a highly respected WP:RS in sutra tradition Buddhism. It is of course possible for even a mature article to have some unnoticed cites that are less than WP:RS. But that's not one of them, at least as far as the author is concerned, so long as one accepts Therevadhan scholar Bhikkhus as WP:RS for Therevadhan Buddhism. It would of course be reasonable to ask for the original source for that quote. But that is surely just a minor issue that would have been reasonable to raise on the talk page. It's not a reason for a major non consensus rewrite of the whole thing, that you are unsure of the provenance of a single quote on the page. @Ms Sarah Welch: I can understand that if one is immersed in the views of western academics, this article may not seem to be a POV at all but to be NPOV. But it's only NPOV within the topic of western academic Buddhism, and doesn't represent the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. After all, why do you think we tried so hard to get @Joshua Jonathan: to revert his edits? If you can't see that we have a different SUBPOV, can you not see at least that we think there is a difference of SUBPOV? And why do you think Carol Anderson's "Basic Buddhism" makes no mention of her views in "Pain and its Ending" if both represent the same SUBPOV? Do you think that "Basic Buddhism" and "Pain and its Ending" represent the same SUBPOV? Reply to Winged Blades of Godric @Winged Blades of Godric: First, I'd use a SUBPOV tag if there is one. Suppose that you were a Muslim or a Jew, and felt that Resurrection of Jesus was POV because it doesn't mention the Islamic or Jewish views on the matter, and there were no articles yet presenting it from these perspectives - I think you'd add a POV tag but you wouldn't expect Muslim or Jewish editors to be able to work in consensus with Christians to make it NPOV. We tried that here and it doesn't work. But that doesn't make it NPOV. So what else can I do? If you have suggestions do say. We do need to attract editors from the other SUBPOV to the project and - maybe they will have other solutions. Also this idea that it can only be solved by two separate articles is just a proposal. if I add a POV tag then perhaps other sutra Buddhists can find a way to make a NPOV version of it, in collaboration with @Joshua Jonathan: when @Dorje108: and I were unable to do so - I don't know. And it is just my own view that such an article would be confusing - maybe they find a way to do it that is not confusing, and easy to read? On Walpola Rahula he is one of many WP:RS in this topic area. However he was particularly notable, his book is perhaps the most famous one on Therevadhan Buddhism, it covers the four truths in great detail, and he spanned both the Eastern and Western scholarship being trained in both with a PhD at a western university, and working as a professor in a Western university from the 1960s to his death. Also, his book on Therevadhan Buddhism covers core teachings common to all the Buddhist sutra traditions because many of the Pali Canon sutras are common to them all. The 2014 article has numerous cites, and presents this SUBPOV throughout. [10]. For several more cites on the third truth of cessation, as a truth that is realized in this life, not at death, see the section Third truth: cessation of dukkha of the previous mature article. The cites used there are all WP:RS for this SUBPOV. See also the section: Experiental knowledge @Winged Blades of Godric: I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but to hopefully help a little, I've just added three new sections to show the POV slant of the Four Noble Truths article towards the WP:SUBPOV of western academic Buddhism. I could give many other examples of this nature, indeed just about all sections in all four articles are POV like this. See POV sections of the article. Any questions be sure to say. @Winged Blades of Godric: I've just edited Example 2 Historical Development with some information about the authors on the POV of authenticity (which JJ has now moved to a new section Pali Canon#Attribution according to Theravadins), and also added a new section About Religious Sources which quotes from the 2008 discussion on the talk page that lead to the current guidelines on Religious Sources. @Winged Blades of Godric: Oh, I'm not talking about a few scholars who might have unusual ideas. We are talking here about the best sources there are, the most knowledgeable most reputable scholars on the Buddhist sutras. When I said that JJ says that the western scholars "note" but never the sutra tradition scholars, I didn't mean this was an evil ploy on his part. It just was an example of the SUBPOV of the article, that throughout it is written from the POV of western scholars who make observations about the Buddhist scholars SUBPOV mainly to make points that support their own SUBPOV. My basic argument here is simply that these articles are POV and so need to have WP:POV tags. Try comparing The present version[11], with the previous version[12] Is it not clear that they are presenting different ideas and use different sources? Anyway I've done my best. If it is not clear that they are different SUBPOV's, I'm not sure what else to say. Can we not have the POV tags in place to permit readers of the articles to say whether they think they are POV? There are two of us, myself and @Dorje108: who say they are POV. If we could leave them tagged for a while, we can see what other comments we get. Saying my comments are OR because I present the views of my faith there, is a bit like saying that someone's views are OR if they say that an article doesn't represent their Christian beliefs. There's surely nothing wrong in saying "This article doesn't represent the beliefs of my faith"? @Winged Blades of Godric: Sorry to have given the impression that @Joshua Jonathan: is trying to sway the reader by using "states that" and "notes that". Have just made that a bit clearer, it now reads. "As usual JJ uses "notes that", and "states that" to indicate editorial approval. Note, I'm not saying that this is intentional, as a way to sway the reader. I just take it as an indication that it is written from the western academic SUBPOV." See Example 2 Historical Development @Winged Blades of Godric: And yes, I edited Pali Canon a while back to add some extra references on the spectrum of views on authenticity. I added the Bhikkhu Sujato and Prayudh Payutto cites for the view of authenticity. I also added the Carol Anderson cite for the view of inauthenticity though for some reason @Joshua Jonathan: has now removed it. However I can't even add a POV tag to Four Noble Truths without it getting reverted, and made subject to a DRN. And @Dorje108: of course did an attempt to revert during his major edit, and JJ just reverted the revert. He knows about these Therevadhan views on the authenticity of the Pali Canon - he has just now edited the Pali Canon page to move them [13]. I've also mentioned them to him many times in the talk page discussions. In his view they are not WP:RS for the article, because they are by Bhikkhus in the Therevadhan tradition, if I understand right. While he doesn't seem to mind them being used in the Pali Canon article. In any case this is just one section. Just about every single section on the page is WP:POV. Reply to Robert McClenon @Robert McClenon: Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. "As noted, Christianity is presented primarily as it is seen by Christians. Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity are discussed, but are not the primary way that Christianity is presented. Buddhism should be presented primarily in terms of what Buddhist scholars interpret as the teachings of Gautama Buddha, not what non-Buddhist Western scholars say about the teachings of the Buddha." That's my view and that's what these articles are not doing. I've been clumsy in explaining it but I guarantee that any sutra tradition Buddhist looking at those articles would not only find them POV but find them almost unrecognizable as Buddhism. I respect Richard Gombrich as a scholar. He is a man of integrity and he is entitled to his views which he also says brings him some peace of mind. But his views and those of the other western academic Buddhists are a different SUBPOV. A minority one too in terms of numbers. You have millions of sutra tradition Buddhists and I'd be surprised if there are as more than a few thousand with the views of western academic Buddhism. And some like Carol Anderson have feet in both camps with her book on Basic Buddhism expressing sutra tradition Buddhism. So yes, that's my basic point. Why should the main articles on Buddhist central ideas here in wikipedia express the SUBPOV of western academic Buddhism? When @Joshua Jonathan: made his non consensus major rewrite of the articles - he made it clear by his actions that in his view their ideas are so different from the views of sutra tradition Buddhists that the entire article has to be rewritten to take account of them, even against the protest of the sutra tradition Buddhists who tried to stop him. Yet now he tells us that his articles represent our SUBPOV. How can it? Surely just his actions are enough to show that this is a distinct SUBPOV? I would support articles on the SUBPOV of the western academics which could be almost identical to Joshua Jonathan's articles. They would be like articles on the "Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity" indeed. And for some articles like these core sutras, the western academic views are so complex and detailed and extensive, reinterpreting just about every detail of the Buddhist teachings on the matter, that they couldn't be covered in a single section but need an entire article to themselves. In my view, that's the situation with the western academic ideas on Four Noble Truths, Anatta, Nirvana and Karma in Buddhism. The western academic ideas don't differ in just a few details but they have build up a whole complex system of ideas which they call Buddhism, but is a different SUBPOV from sutra tradition Buddhism. They identify their own SUBPOVs as what they think Buddha taught before the sutras were recorded. Reply to Joshua Jonathan @Joshua Jonathan:. Yes the sutra teachings are of course presented in the context of rebirth and the idea that when you realize cessation, you also no longer need to take rebirth again. But that's missing the point. The Western academics you cite make it clear that total cessation of dukkha only happens at death. Indeed, at times it seems almost like a kind of "multi rebirth suicide", with the aim to cease existing and you no longer suffer because you no longer exist. In other cases it seems like the idea is a heavenly state after death that they are describing, that it's a way to get out of this world to somewhere else. That is not how Buddhists think about it at all in the sutra traditions. It's not just an end to rebirth. It's an end to the dukkha of rebirth, the unsatisfactoriness and suffering associated with it, yes. But also to the dukkha of sickness, old age, and death. And this cessation, it's explained clearly in multiple sources, is something that Buddha realized as a young man of 30, not at death. The cites on rebirth are about what happens once cessation is realized. But the four truths are expressed as a path to end dukkha, not a path to end rebirth. And Buddha didn't teach us that we have to end dukkha by ending rebirth. It would have been easy for him to say that if that was his path, but he didn't. Instead he taught much more directly, that the "summum bonum" can be realized in this very life. None of your cites on rebirth contradict this, which is the fundamental distinction between the sutra tradition Buddhism and the SUBPOV of these western academics, who often are of the view that the most you can realize in this lifetime is to have somewhat less pain, and to balance sorrow with happiness, and to face your death with equanimity, according ot the article [14] "According to Ambedkar, total cessation of suffering is an illusion; yet, the Buddhist Middle Path aims at the reduction of suffering and the maximalisation of happiness, balancing both sorrow and happiness" to quote from your article. Which could indeed be comforting, it may be a beneficial path for some. It just is not sutra tradition Buddhism. But throughout your article you present this and related views as what the Buddhist teachings are really about, and though you briefly touch on the views of sutra tradition Buddhists in a few sentences here and there, always the Western Buddhists get the last word in every section. This is not a minority or fringe view. Walpola Rahula is one of the most respected scholars in the Therevadhan traditions, and other WP:RS on Buddhism say the same. It is also a matter of quantity. Yes you have many cites, and occasional complete sentences about sutra tradition Buddhism, but the views of sutra tradition Buddhists are not presented in much detail. Only a small percentage of the words on the page are devoted to their views and nearly all the text presents intricate details of the western academic views. While the old version goes into the sutra tradition views on Nirvana in great detail multiple times, and of course barely mentions western academic views, so is weighted in the other direction. Neither is NPOV if they are the only articles on the topic. But both are presumably reasonably NPOV within their own SUBPOV, and if we had both articles that would provide the balance needed for NPOV, in my view as one possible solution, and that could be a basis for working on them further. Indeed the articles as they are now could present the western academic views much more clearly if they were somewhat more focused on them, in my view. As it is, you get some idea of the Western academic views, but not that clearly, because it is mainly presented as "what is wrong with sutra tradition Buddhism" rather than going into much detail about what positively the western academic Buddhists think Buddha's message really was and how they think he intended it to be practiced. And it gives almost no idea at all about sutra tradition views. Putting them into separate SUBPOV articles I think would lead to greater clarity for both. Summary of dispute by Ms Sarah Welch Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. @Joshua Jonathan: I am afraid this is a poorly framed DRN request. FWIW, on April 21, an admin RegentsPark requested me to participate and help out on Four Noble Truths article. My dispute with RW is the POV tag, which is procedural. RW tagged it, but did not identify specific issues with evidence verifiable in reliable sources ("I don't like it" or "I like it" is not a good reason to tag). I did not remove the tag immediately, and asked for specific clarification. I gave RW time, and waited for a response. RW promised a response. Later RW declined to address my request for explanation and specifics for the tag. I then explained why I am removing the tag, then removed the tag. If RW wants the tag back, he must explain the specific issue(s) with evidence that is verifiable in reliable source(s). Alleging that the article does not include traditional views or scholarly views, without specific evidence, is inappropriate. It is also false, the article has for a long time include both for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Reply to Robert Walker @Robertinventor: The "POV" tag is not meant to serve "My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from (...) and invite discussion." That tag is meant to help identify and fix specific NPOV issues. This is done by listing on the talk page the specific issue, with evidence of a missing or misrepresented POV from at least one RS with page numbers (more here). To invite discussion, try an RfC. You are welcome to create new SUBPOV articles in sandboxes and try to build support that they be made live. No POV tag necessary. I urge you reread Carol Anderson, Richard Gombrich, etc; because both I and @Farang Rak Tham already made a comment with concerns about what you claim about these scholars and the reality, last week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC) RW, Sorry, your reply is not clear to me. I don't know what you mean by SUBPOV in 4NT context. You give no specifics. Nor RS page numbers. It is Kafkaesque, "I say you are guilty [of POV], but won't tell you why or what evidence I have". Tag it so we can discuss what 4NT article or Joshua Jonathan could be guilty of!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC) RW, Once again, please note the DRN volunteer's comment: we can't sole source anything, that would not be NPOV. Similarly, JJ and the article can't ignore Walpola Rahula either. We don't. The article already explains Rahula's POV over a dozen times, and many more times with others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC) RW, you misunderstand Richard Gombrich, as @Farang Rak Tham already explained last week. The Buddhists scholars in Asia and West are saying the same thing. They do describe the views on rebirth, 4NT etc of millions of practicing Buddhists of various traditions. You champion the pre-2014 version of the article. But it cited blogs / non-WP:RS websites / WP:SPS such as beyondthenet.net, dharmanet blogs, etc. Blogs are not RS on "what millions of sutra Buddhists understand 4NT" to be, nor do they claim they represent the views of millions (some of those blogs/SPS are also by Westerners!). You allege Traditional Buddhists and Gombrich/ Bronkhorst/ Williams/ Harvey/ Rahula/ Keown say very different things. They do not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC) @RW, So once again you allege something.... this time, that beyondthenet.net is by Bhikkhu Bodhi, or what is on the webpage of a dead/under construction non-RS website is by Bodhi. But you never present evidence with your allegations, do you? DRN Volunteers: can you request RW to stop making allegations without evidence from reliable sources? If RW really believes something is from Bodhi, he should find a book published by a reputable publisher and give page numbers. FWIW, I checked google books, google scholar, library resources behind paywalls and I am unable to verify what RW alleges. The old pre-2014 version suffers with this systematic problem, and a few others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Reply to Winged Blades and DRN volunteers Winged Blades: a technical question... how are we supposed to respond to the new allegations from RW linked to a wall of text on another page? For example, it isn't true that Rahula's views are not included in this section. Rahula is covered in para 3 and 4. RW's allegation that "So - there is no way Walpola Rahula's work can be used to support Spiro's idea that somehow the search for worldly happiness is wrong" is also a misreading of what the section is actually stating. The section is merely summarizing, in para 4, the different views of Rahula and Spiro (JJ: good work there!). RW: I feel you must focus on something specific, so DRN volunteers can try to help. Right now, I see a gap between your allegations and the evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades: Thank you. Your suggestions make sense, and I am willing to accept them in the spirit of constructive next steps. @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: you? any further clarifications desired? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Reply to Robert McClenon RM: Thank you. My positions: [1] The POV tag on the 4NT article would be inappropriate, in light of the diversity of sources it cites and the different significant views it already summarizes. [2] If specific issues are identified, with source and page numbers, RW or anyone is welcome to edit the article, or we can work collaboratively on it through the talk page; so far, even after one of the largest walls of text and TL/DR case I have ever seen on wikipedia, I find no persuasive case here. [3] I do not mind RW drafting one or more SUBPOVs. JJ is right that RW seems to be arguing for POVFORK, but I accept RW's freedom to draft something somewhere without disrupting wikipedia's live articles (I guess JJ wouldn't mind too). [4] The article has over 200 cites, predominant number of which are Buddhist scholars. Some are practicing Buddhists (Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan traditions), some are not, as well as Buddhists who left Buddhism (e.g. Paul Williams). But these are all widely considered mainstream scholarship and Buddhist scholars. [5] RW's "no rebirth and Buddhism" POV is fringe and isn't Buddhist scholarship. Rahula, e.g., accepts rebirth-samsara-dukkha-nirvana has been an integral part of Buddhism, so do all others. The article cannot be rewritten from a fringe POV. FWIW, this section of 4NT article does discuss the Western versus Traditional view on 4NT in Buddhism, with numerous WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC) A commentary on dispute by Dorje108 Volunteer comment- Greetings friends: @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: . I will try to be brief. Walpola Rahula is cited often in many texts on Buddhism (both by Western academics and Buddhist scholars) because he is such a highly respected scholar and because he provides such a clear presentation of the traditional Buddhist POV. So it’s not that RW is relying on a single source; it’s more that Walpola Rahula is one of the more clear presentations of the traditional Buddhist POV. (When I was working on this article, I consulted many sources, but I often found the Rahula stated most clearly what many sources were saying.) I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist "assert" that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are “biased”, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are “unbiased.” Therefore, by this logic, the Dalai Lama (for example) as a source should be regarded carefully (as biased), but a Western scholar is not biased. Therefore a presentation or POV by a Western scholar should be given more weight. What I think RW is suggesting (and I agree with this suggestion) is that where there are different points of view in presentation of a topic (whether among different Western academics, or between Western academics and Buddhist scholars), that both POVs should be presented. What I encountered repeatedly in my discussions with JJ (from years ago) and what I have observed in recent discussion, is that when encountered with different POVs, both Sarah and JJ insist that one POV is valid (not biased), and the other POV is not valid (biased). Another problem I observed was that JJ seemed to be trying to write a definitive article on the Four Noble Truths. In other words, he seems to be taking on the role of an academic himself, in deciding what is correct and what is not correct interpretation of Buddhist teachings. Apologies for the length of this post. I am sure everyone involved has the best intentions, and we all have our own personal biases. Also, this is a vast topic, so it is not easy to summarize. But in brief I agree with RW’s point that the current article is not written from a neutral POV (for reasons stated above). I hope this helps. Best regards Dorje108 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC) (note to volunteers: should this part be moved up, as Dorje108 is not a DRN volunteer?); @Dorje108: It is always a good idea to include diffs with accusations and when you cast aspersions. You accuse, "I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased." "Continually insist" was a poor choice of words. No offense intended. More comments below. Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) I checked the Talk:Four Noble Truths, its archives, and the talk page of Project:Buddhism. I fail to see the support for your accusation. If you would kindly provide several diffs, to support your JJ and I "continually insist" language, we can examine the context and clarify any misunderstandings and associated dispute. For the second part, you too fail to provide a specific WP:RS, with page numbers, that states a POV different than the various POVs already summarized in the article. Without specifics and evidence, allegations cannot be cross examined with appropriate context and perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Greetings @Ms Sarah Welch: - I just read a comment of yours regarding Walpola Rahula as a source on a talk page; but I am having trouble finding the talk page again. (I think it was a sub-page of Robert.) I am looking for the page now. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Dorje108: Please take your time. It would be kind of you, and decent, if you would strike the "poor choice of words" containing phrases or sentences you are now unable to support with diffs, even if you choose not to apologize and you choose not to promise that you will never accuse someone of "continually insisting of something" without evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Sarah: Here is an example of what I was referring to. This is your recent statement on Robert’s talk page: “Rahula's interpretations and expositions in English are one of many, but Rahula is involved. In more ways that just theology. Rahula's or such authors need to be carefully considered given the COI/Primary. Even Theravadins disagree with him, leave aside Mahayana / Tibetans / Zen / etc. So, what should wikipedia do!? The best we can do is what many editors and admins have been suggesting to you... rely on multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars who are one or two steps away from the numerous translations and interpretations of Suttas out there. ” Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robertinventor&diff=prev&oldid=776575916 - So here you are contrasting “Rahula and such authors” who need to be “carefully considered” vs. “well respected, highly cited scholars”. To me this is an example of bias against Buddhist scholars who were not trained in the West. Rahula happens to be a “well respected, highly cited scholar” who was trained in Sri Lanka. Dorje108 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC) I hope you understand the word "bias" means "prejudice, usually unfair". The above does not support your absurd allegation, "continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased". It explicitly states, Rahula needs to be carefully considered, as well as those in multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Statement by User:Robert McClenon As I said above, I am not acting as the moderator, and am not a principal party, but am exercising my right as an editor to comment. I haven't read the detailed history. I tried to read the statement by User:Robertinventor and found it to be too long, difficult to read. However, if I understand it, I think that he may be right about one thing. That is that Buddhism should be primarily presented as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources. I am not a Buddhist; I am a Christian. As noted, Christianity is presented primarily as it is seen by Christians. Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity are discussed, but are not the primary way that Christianity is presented. Buddhism should be presented primarily in terms of what Buddhist scholars interpret as the teachings of Gautama Buddha, not what non-Buddhist Western scholars say about the teachings of the Buddha. The only real difference is that Buddhist teachings are based primarily on what the Buddha taught during his long ministry, while Christian teachings are based primarily on what was expounded about his teachings shortly after his short ministry. There are many Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources, just as there are many Christian scholars who qualify as secondary sources. Maybe that isn't what is in dispute. If so, then the editors need to clarify the issue. Other than that, the statements by Robert Walker are too long, difficult to read. Maybe User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Ms Sarah Welch can at least state concisely what their positions are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Uninvolved editor comment by User:Kautilya3 This case may not be appropriate for WP:DRN because it is not a content dispute as such. Rather it is a dispute on how the RS and NPOV policies apply to religion articles, or even whether they should apply at all. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN noticeboards would be better venues to raise such issues. My understanding (having participated in both RSN and NPOVN) is that there are no special policies for religions. The normal criteria of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY apply. The adherents of a religion discussing their understanding of their own religion would constitute PRIMARY sources. If they are notable writers, their views can be summarised with WP:In-text attribution. However, the articles cannot be based on their understanding. Like all topics, Wikipedia aims to summarise SECONDARY sources, and religions are no exception. RI's idea of creating separate articles, one based on SECONDARY sources and on based on PRIMARY sources, is not permitted by Wikipedia policies, because they amount WP:POV forks of each other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Talk:Four Noble Truths discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer notes about the case Volunteer note all parties have been notified and there has been extensive discussion on the talk page. All editors (other than the nominator) are requested to file a summary of the dispute in about one paragraph above. All editors are requested to follow WP:CIVIL. A volunteer will open the case after these perquisites are met. In the meanwhile, please do not edit the article in concern and stop all talks on the talk page. Yashovardhan (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer note If no party files an opening summary above within 24 hours, the case will be assumed to have been resolved and will be closed accordingly. Yashovardhan (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)  Note to participants: Please read User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules and ensure that you comply to the rules. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Filer note Robert will need more time than 24 hours: "I've got a lot on here, may not check in for a while. Things get easier here middle of next week for me. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)" diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer reply Fair enough. I'd want Ms Sarah Welch to file her opening summary above or state if she doesn't wish to participate in the discussion. She's given 24 hours from my last notice to do so. Robert is given 72 hours to file a statement above. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC) @Yashovardhan: Please be fair as a volunteer, and not order around giving one side 24 hours, the other 72 hours. User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules is your own personal page. Did you create these rules on your own? Do you have a link to "wikipedia community agreed" DRN guidelines for DRN volunteers, and content editors? If you wish to mediate in this matter and thereby contribute to improving wikipedia, I urge you to review the edit history of the last 1000 edits of the talk/article pages, read the archives 2, 3 and 4, as well as the current talk page. It is a wall of text, but it will give you the context of who the disputing parties really are, and what the issues have been. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn As per doubts raised by Ms Sarah Welch, I withdraw from this case with all due respect to all participants. I'll post on the talk page for another volunteer to handle the case. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer response to Sarah @Ms Sarah Welch: firstly, there exists no compiled set of rules for DRN. The rules are roughly scattered around the notice board top and other places linked. I'd gone through and compiled all these points into my user space for the ease of disputing editors. secondly, I won't go through 1000 edits just to know what kind of person you are. I'm neither required nor supposed to do so. lastly, you and the filer both had asked me to provide extra leeway to Robert which I did. You had been served proper notices and were online to receive and reply to those. This, giving you any extra leeway was not necessary. I've withdrawn from this case anyway and another volunteer will take over. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment--I am taking over as the moderator.Winged Blades Godric 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment--Both the parties are hereby allotted a stipulated time of 72 hrs. to reasonably summarize/alter their opinion or to decline participation.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment-I see both the parties have clarified their stand.And am currently looking on the matter.At the same time,I will request you to not reply each-other back unless I ask someone to clarify his/her position.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment-@Robertinventor:--A POV tag is not meant to get comments from readers and invite discussion.We have WP:RFC for that.Primarily if your views could be summarised(??) as that currently present in User:Robertinventor/Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal,I am afraid that is not a very good piece of policy-based writing.I may be wrong but I think your points are mainly derived from a lone souce- Walpola Rahula.Anyway, can you please provide a list of references that suport your point of view.I seem to have missed that.ThaWinged Blades Godric 03:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment--Regrets for being off about a day.I am currently looking into this.Winged Blades Godric 15:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment--I would advice all of you to kindly refrain from engaging with each other here.And please don't reply in other's sections.Winged Blades Godric 15:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment--I have to regretably say, the evidences against the accusations in User:Robertinventor/DRN Evidence and supplementary information#POV sections of the article look far too much.I am sorry if I am a bit harsh but my observation goes as follows:-- That each and every phrase/idea has been quoted to the proponent and nothing is stated in WP's voice looks good to me and not some evil editorial ploy.Furthermore in the Theravadan section Rahula has been already quoted once. Somewhere down the line I find you stating-- why sutra tradition Buddhists find these articles POV--that's a pretty non-sense argument at it's best.Avoid invoking elements of own WP:POV and mixing them with some WP:OR. If you want the article to cover the scape only from the viewpoints of Rahula and a few like-minded scholars, you could be thinking on the wrong lines. At Four_Noble_Truths#Historical_development you are permitted to add a contrary view-point by the Theravadian scholars.(may-be in a line or two.) On the point of WP:SUBPOV and forking the branches, that seems like a good idea.I believe, launching an RFC and seeking the opinion of the un-involved editorial community at large is probably the best way out on the issue. As a side-note, please try to be as concise as possible..That you want to include more non-Western views is not an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, the fact is that walls of text don't help always and the length and sheer volume of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're seeking. Winged Blades Godric 15:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Volunteer comment--At the same time, Ms Sara Welch and Joshua Jonathan is advised that per this RFC and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area#Religious sources --Rahula and Bhikkhu Bodhi may be considered WP:RS except if tdiscusssses matters concerning its personal connection with the subject matter.And I don't primarily see any bane to opoose RI so strongly in adding a few Buddhist sources to make and back up a few traditional claims/inferences in the article qwith relevance to WP:WEIGHT.But while I say this,I admit Rahula's views are fairly present in the article.Hence,WP:WEIGHT!Winged Blades Godric 16:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Reply by JJ: @Winged Blades of Godric: thank you for your concise comments. I don't object to using Buddhist sources an sich; as a matter of fact, I myself added several quotes by and references to Walpola Rahula, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu; and also quotes from the sutras. What I do object to is the idea that those Buddhist sources stand in strong contrast to the scholarly sources; they don't. Robert thinks that the release of dukkha is the sole goal of the Buddhist path, and that the end of rebirth is not a/the goal. He thinks that "ending rebirth" is a western scholarly re-interpretation, despite more than a dozen references + quotes (section "ending rebirth, note "Moksha", note "samudaya", note "Samsara", note "Nirodha"), from both scholarly sources and Buddhist sources, which say that the Buddhist "goal" implies both. To compare: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta [15]: "But as soon as this [...] knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths [...] was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening [...] Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'" Bhikkhu Bodhi (2011), The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering, p.10: "[the] elimination of craving culminates not only in the extinction of sorrow, anguish and distress, but in the unconditioned freedom of nibbana, which is won with the ending of reapeated rebirth." Keown (2009), Buddhism, p.65: "The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to put an end to suffering and rebirth." Robert is persistent on this personal pov of him; his proposal for a pov-fork is to split off all the scholarly statements and info into a separate article, and revert the main article back to his preferred version. That's not an option. Yet, you propose to do an RfC on forking "the branches"; given the above, what do you mean with "the branches"? A main article, giving an overview (compare Jesus, which gives "an overview of all perspectives"), and a subsidiary article with specific Theravada views (compare Jesus in Christianity)? Or something different (compare Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus)? A fork with the sole aim to present Robert's personal pov would not be a subpov, but a povfork. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC) References Reply by JJ to Robert McClenon @Robert McClenon: I see your point here, but I do not fully agree with you. We do not "[present] Buddhism [...] primarily [...] as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources"; we use secondary sources to present Buddhism as it seen by Budhists; in this, we do not restrict the sources to Buddhist scholars alone. The prime question is: do those sources give a reliable presentation? In addition, we also present scholarly studies on the history of Buddhism. After all, present views from within a religion can be different from past views; we do not exclude such a topic if there are no (reliable) sources by Buddhist scholars. To compare: for an article on the history of Christianity, we do not restrict ourselves to Christian historians, nor present only present-day views from Christians. NB: Anderson and Batchelor are Buddhists; so are Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Making a distinction between Buddhist and non-Buddhist scholars won't solve Robert's problem with the ending of rebirth. See Bhikkhu Bodhi on rebirth and Thanissaro Bhikkhu on rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Reply by JJ to Robert Walker: the phrase "notes that" can easily be changed into "according to"; no objection to that, of course. The Four Noble Truths article already contains the line "While the Theravada-tradition holds the sutras to be the complete and accurate records of the teachings and sayings of the Buddha". This line was added by me, without a source; it can be referenced with and expanded on with your authors 9(though I would prefer a scholarly source, but alas; Prayudh Payutto seems to be as orthodox and indigenous as can be). See Talk:Pāli Canon#Carole Anderson for the "some reason" why I removed it: a painful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what the source says. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Raheja Developers

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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

Closed discussion

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

Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020#RFC_Jeremy_Gable_as_a_candidate.3F

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by Crewcamel on 17:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Crewcamel (talk · contribs) Prcc27 (talk · contribs) Earthcent (talk · contribs) IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk · contribs) Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview TLDR: Im asking someone to step in and remove Jeremy Gable as a candidate and/or create a criteria for who's allowed on the page. Jeremy Gable (a small time playwright) is being included as a candidate in this article. I do not believe he has earned the respect necessary to be included. In accordance with WP:DUE i believe it is important that we refrain from granting him (and others) undue weight that they have not earned. A lot of editors disagree, they think we should include anyone with a wiki page who hints at a presidential run. If we followed that advice, we'd have to add Katy Perry, Paris Hilton and Lady Gaga among others. Please note that in March the article had ALL of these "candidates" and no one said anything because they didnt want to break the rules. MY POINT is that we need to draw a line somewhere for what merits inclusion. And "anyone who has a wiki" is not that line. If we don't the reliability of the page will be tarnished. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I started an RFC about Jeremy Gable at the recommendation of some guy who was a moderator or something. Removed Jeremy Gable myself, got reverted. Questioned whether or not hes a natural born citizen or not. (hes born in england) How do you think we can help? 1. Step in and remove Jeremy Gable as a candidate and/or 2. Recommend a better criteria for who's allowed on the page. Summary of dispute by Prcc27 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Earthcent Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by IOnlyKnowFiveWords Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Vote 4 DJH2036 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:United States_presidential_election,_2020#RFC_Jeremy_Gable_as_a_candidate.3F discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document

– Discussion in progress.

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy theory#Spirit cooking and leaked FBI document (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Terrorist96 (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• Eggishorn (talk · contribs)
• NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)
• Objective3000 (talk · contribs)
• MjolnirPants (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Dispute on whether or not to include the origin of theories mentioned in the article. The article mentions conspiracy theorist claims of things such as satanic ritual abuse, pedophile symbols used in company logos, and handkerchief codes. However, the article fails to mention the origin or the reason behind these claims, except for the handkerchief codes claim. It explains that the handkerchief code claim arose from "a widely-cited email mentioning a handkerchief with a "pizza-related map" however excludes any explanation for the satanic ritual abuse claim and pedophile symbols claim. This leaves a reader wondering whence the claims arose and any explanation of their origin is being opposed on the talk page.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Participated in good faith discussion on the talk page to understand users' objections to including the explanations. Rebuttals ranged from asserting the source as unreliable (though could link to no RSN consensus indicating as such), and avoiding giving the claim any explanation so as to avoid lending it legitimacy. Though no WP policy could be cited for objections raised despite repeated requests.

How do you think we can help?

Please determine if statements included in reliable sources like the NYT can be included in the article. And if not, what specific WP policy supports their exclusion.

Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek

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

Summary of dispute by Eggishorn

It is my understanding that DR is for cases where a genuine question of policy applicability exists, not a content issue that has been extensively discussed on the article talk page. All the information that Terrorist96 seeks is already available there and in talk page archives. It has yet to be established that there is a need for proceedings here. Especially as every other editor to comment has rejected T96's attempted changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NorthBySouthBaranof

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

There's extensive discussion of this matter on the article talk page, and there's no need to move this to another, longer, more complicated venue. An editor has proposed a change; other editors have objected, and the editor proposing the change doesn't appear to have a consensus (or anything resembling it) to make their proposed change. As far as I'm concerned, that's as far as we need to go. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

I will address what the OP said, and not it's procedural validity.

I do not think things are as clear cut as the OP suggests, his initial testament read like he wanted the article to say that pizzagate was based upon evidence from an FBI document (for example), and this is what people responded to. He subsequently explained that is not what he meant, and that he just wanted to mention that they had used an FBI document as a starting point. This may have been a poor choice of words on his part, but may have led to some users thinking he may not have been wholly honest about what he wanted or why.

However some of the subsequent reasons for exclusion given by other edds read more like "I don't like it" then policy based, or an attempt at honest consensus building.

But having said that the material does not (I think) improve one jot our understanding of how pizzagate came about, as it does not explain how they got from X to Y, only that they tried to claim that X is the same as Y (because it looks very similar). Thus I find that reasone for inclusion questionable.

I tried to arrange a compromise (which the OP accepted but others rejected for the above (spurious) reasons) not because I felt it should be there but to try and arrive at a compromise.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Objective3000

I don’t think this is the proper venue. But, since we’ve been brought here:

Many people believe that pedophilia is among the most heinous of crimes. Here we have a conspiracy theory where numerous people are falsely accused, not only of personal pedophilia, but of operating a child-trafficking ring. Further, a major political party, its candidate for President, and its leaders are named as principles. Harassment and death threats have spread to other restaurants as far as NY and Texas. Bands that have played at the restaurant and even an artist whose murals are displayed there have been objects of harassment. And, of course, there was gunfire. This is partly why WP:BLP exists.

This is clearly a fringe conspiracy debunked by all news RS. We must be very careful in such an article lest we lend any credence to the conspiracy theory. Mentioning an FBI report (which hasn’t even been authenticated) may give the reader some basis for belief in the theory. Mention is also WP:UNDUE since it is unauthenticated.

I think the filer wishes to examine how the theorists came to their conclusions. We don’t even know if they believed what they claimed. We don’t know who they were. This is a rumor that grew on 4chan’s far-right messages boards, YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, and other social media and conspiracy sites. The theories have even gone so far to claim Assange was assassinated by the CIA to protect the accused and WikiLinks is now government controlled.

Basically, this theory is a collection of the ramblings of anonymous folk on social media. Yes, we need an article basically describing the accusations. We should not add to their theories our own or others’ theories of their thinking processes or motivations. This piles conspiracy atop conspiracy. Delving layers deep into each of the many claims of a thoroughly debunked theory is WP:UNDUE, and presents WP:BLP issues. Objective3000 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants

This is straight up forum shopping. This proposal has been shot down by every editor to have commented on it, for valid policy-based reasons. The only editor in support of this is the OP. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document discussion

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

•  Volunteer note: there's considerable discussion on the talk page for a dispute here. Filer is required to notify all concerned parties about the dispute on their talk pages individually. Optionally, the template {{DRN-notice}} could be used for this purpose. All participants must file a statement above within 48 hours of notification in at most one paragraph. Failure to do so will be taken as an indication that the editor does not wish to participate in this discussion. Participation is completely voluntary though. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I pinged them all on the article's talk page, but I'll post on each individual's talk page as well.Terrorist96 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The filing party has notified the other parties on their talk pages. It should be noted that participation here is voluntary. It should also be noted that this topic is subject to ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions. Also, no reliable source has attached any value to any version of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, so the only question is how to report on debunked statements and the fallacious backstories behind them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, thank you for seeing the distinction. My intent is to solely include information on the origins of the theories so as to explain why they were claimed to begin with. I have no intention of arguing in favor or against the theories themselves.Terrorist96 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Other views

IMO this has no merit, the article cannot use bad sources to try to explain or normalize a conspiracy theory. TheValeyard (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Can you please link to RSN consensus that says The New York Times, Snopes, and The Inquisitor are "bad" sources? Thanks. Also please note that the handkerchief code claim is explained using the same NYT article I am trying to use.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Just a suggestion. You would do better here if you put up-front the changes you wanted and didn’t exaggerate comments by other editors. No one in the discussion has suggested that the New York Times and Snopes are bad sources. Inquisitor is an aggregator and not an RS. Objective3000 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) @Terrorist96: I understand this to be a good faith attempt to resolve something you wish to dispute, but your comments/questions are moving in the direction of forum shopping. Please read this policy and consider how best to move on from here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: All participants are requested to refrain from any discussion until all parties have filed their opening statement above and a volunteer has opened the dispute. Yashovardhan (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Acceptance and condition

•  Note to participants: I'd be taking this case up. Please read through these rules and recommendations which is a pre condition for my acceptance. If any party has any objection to any rule listed there, please state so within 24 hours after which I'll start the proceedings. Also, it must be noted that some editors have not yet filed their opening summary. If they do so within this 24 hours, they'll be considered a part of the dispute else I'll consider them not willing to participate. Participation is completely voluntary. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

First statement by moderator

There have been allegations of forum shopping. Has this matter been raised at any forum (whether conduct or content) before? Note that talk page discussion is a perquisite for a case at DRN and talk page discussion isn't considered forum shopping. Please reply below with a 'yes' or'no' providing a link to any other discussion that took place or is taking place at another forum. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Participants reply

No. Only Pizzagate talk page and here; nowhere else. Thus, forum shopping seems to be an invalid objection.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

No.Slatersteven (talk) 07:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification

Is the dispute primarily about the sources of the origins or on how to include the origins of the conspiracy theories? Please reply in one sentence below using a '*' to bullet your point. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Participants reply

• Not sure it is about sources of the origins so much as if this is even really how the theory originated, as I said inclusion of (say) the FBI document tells us nothing about how they cam to the conclusion Logo A looked like Logo B (and why they did not think logo C did). Much of this (such as the logos came about)looks like proponents tried to fish for more "evidence" and looked for anything that they could cram into it).Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• The filer appears to want to explain the reasoning behind the conspiracy theory when there is no “reasoning”; only invented, absurd connections to back their claim that a major U.S. political party and its candidate for President were running a child-trafficking ring during an election. Objective3000 (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• The dispute seems to be on including the origins whatsoever, despite being covered in NYT and Snopes.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• The dispute is about the level of detail we should delve into with this CS. Specifically, whether the article benefits from the addition of narrative about the earliest formation of the CS. Since this is not a widely held belief (it is confined almost exclusively to far-right circles, and even then, only those who are conspiracy-minded to begin with), and is not extensively covered in RSes, there's no need to go into detail. Meanwhile, the implication of us describing the origin implies a level of legitimacy to it which damages the article, even if peppered with negative adjectives, as proposed. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

More clarification

•  Volunteer note: @MjolnirPants: Can you be more specific and concise please? You seem to be talking about a bigger issue in general for which an RFC is a better alternative. Can you please refactor your comment above to be precise and to the point. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence directly answered the posed question. The next two contextualize that answer. I thought this was supposed to be a moderated discussion, not a moderated Q&A. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'd rather have it in an organized Q and A form than having to moderate a non chronological discussion. You're free to use the threaded discussion section below for ' moderate discussion'. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The dispute

•  Volunteer note: The dispute is primarily on the origins of the conspiracy theories and how to report on them. Thus, actually discussing the level of detail to report in the conspiracy theories. Participants are reminded that I'm just a volunteer and my decisions are not binding but are mere suggestions. They're also reminded that sometimes compromise is necessary to reach a consensus.

Moving on, please share your opinion guided by the relevant policies on why/why not the origins should be reported. Any participant who comes in late and has not replied to the previous discussion may do so as well if they think they have a distinct point to make. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why/Why not should the origin be reported

A short paragraph will help. Policies cited should support the point you make and not just weakly relate to the issue. Any references can be included using the template {{reflist-talk}} immediately following your paragraph.

• Unless and until someone can make a case that describing -in this level of detail- the origins of the theory provide some benefit to the article, then there's no policy-based reason for inclusion. It has been pointed out numerous times that there's nothing wrong with the article the way it stands. The filer has not disagreed with that at any point. Instead, the filer keeps trying to frame this in terms of the majority of editors trying to exclude reliably sourced information as if that exclusion is part of a POV push. In truth, the majority of editors have been entirely unconvinced by the filer that this information belongs. Those editors have also raised numerous questions about the sourcing and implications of this proposed addition, concerns which go unaddressed by anything but sarcasm. Right now, there's an argument to exclude this material (presented in my answer to the volunteer's last question), and no argument to include other than "I want to include it". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• The origin of the theories should be reported because: they are noted in WP:RS (see: NYT mentioning the FBI document as the basis of the pedophile symbols claim, Snopes mentioning spirit cooking as the basis of the satanic ritual abuse claim and they would make the article more in-line with WP:NPOV by explaining the sides. Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought the purpose of a Wikipedia article was to explain the subject of said article. The sentiment that I'm perceiving by those objecting is that yes, we should have an article about Pizzagate because it is WP:Notable, but we should avoid explaining the subject itself because it is WP:FRINGE. Instead, the article is primarily devoted to debunking the theory and people's reactions/responses to it, which is fine. Such information should be in the article as it is pertinent. But just one paragraph of the entire article is devoted to the actual theory itself. And that one paragraph does a cursory mention of the theory and claims without any explanation (except for the handkerchief code claim, which somehow merits explanation, but the other claims don't). Because of this, I think that WP:DUE also supports its inclusion because it is the main subject of the article.Terrorist96 (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• The filer points to WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. But, fringe states: The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. However, it also requires that they not be given undue weight.. We are not here to promulgate and in any manner lend credence to fringe theories. There simply are no “significant-minority positions”. We do not need to explain in detail the reasoning behind flat-Earth beliefs. (Hey, it looks flat to me.) The Earth is not flat. This conspiracy theory is supported by zero RS and the supporters are anonymous folk on social media. Not only do we not know who they are, we don’t even know if they actually believe their own statements. Anonymous, clearly nonsensical, conspiracy theories unsupported by any RS add undue weight, and could cause, and have already caused, damage to a very large number of living people WP:BLP. The article already contains a great deal of detail. Adding more nonsensical rumors is not useful to an encyclopedia. I see no purpose in additional detail other than to suggest in the minds of the reader that "where there's smoke there's fire." Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the addon, but I had thought of bringing up WP:FRINGE earlier, but didn’t for a reason. Fringe speaks to theories that actually have historical and/or academic proponents. Flat-Earth, creationism, homeopathy, all manner of medical theories, etc. all have famous proponents. There is value in the understanding of the progression from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Einstein. But, WP:FRINGE warns about undue weight. In this situation, there is zero historical or academic support. This is beyond fringe. Objective3000 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• The problem it seems to me is that does not "discus the origin" of the theory, it merely lists what they misrepresented. This (to my mind) adds nothing to out understanding of how and why they cam to their conclusions. As such I think it may well violate fringe as it is clear that is just what this theory is, no one but a few (anonymous) online "investigators" think that this is real (and there is a suggestion even they did not). Thus all we need to do is report what RS have said about their conclusions, not what they misrepresented. Also BLP means we have to be very careful about wording, and whilst the text I suggested was I think it might still give a tad to much weight to what is (after all) not even a verified document. We need to make clear these are unproven and indeed prooven to be wr5ong allegations, not repeat slander, even if we try to waesle word it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Final statement

•  Note to participants: Thank you for the time spent in this DRN. The question whether the origins should be included is dependent on WP:FRINGE. Accordingly, the origins can be reported if reliable sources are available and it does not violate WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BLPFRINGE. However, Wikipedia functions on consensus and here the consensus seems to be against the inclusion. So, the origins shall not be included or should be trimmed down/expanded to a significant portion which is acceptable by consensus. If normal talk page discussions fail to discuss all majority view points, an RFC is the best way forward. Hence, in my humble opinion, the origins should not be included as per community consensus but, if the filer/any participant is still not satisfied, an RFC could be held and the respected projects notified to obtain the consensus of the community at large. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Objections/Comments

If you're satisfied with the current resolution, please state so. Otherwise, point out your objections in a clear concise statement. If no comments are received in 24 hours, the case will be deemed to have been resolved. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe: "the consensus seems to be against the inclusion." is entirely accurate. I recognize the need for diplomatic language by DRN volunteers and I particularly commend @Yashovardhan: for their even-handedness here. That said, it is clear that there is a consensus aside from one hold-out, the OP. So the resolution:"the origins shall not be included or should be trimmed down/expanded to a significant portion which is acceptable by consensus..." is an invitation for further time wasting. Despite the efforts of the moderating volunteer, it leaves the article back in the same place it started. The second clause in the resolution should be dropped. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• I understand what Eggishorn is saying, we must also AGF and hope that the OP will understand what is being said and will now drop the matter. I am happy to abide by the suggested solution here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the mod's summary, as well. No matter what they say, this discussion is either going to be over (the way it's supposed to work), or it's just going to keep going (the way it's not supposed to work). For what it's worth, I suspect the filer will abide by the consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:09, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• I will note that WP:NPOV states: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." With that being said, I have no further desire to continue litigating this. But I still fail to understand the logic of deeming the handkerchief code claim worthy of explanation, but other claims not worthy, as no one has attempted to explain such inconsistency.Terrorist96 (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Since when was this an NPOV issue? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Since I mentioned it in my reasoning for why the claim should be included, and since our volunteer noted that this falls under compliance with WP:FRINGE, which is under the NPOV umbrella. But please continue to ignore your cognitive dissonance of retaining the explanation of the handkerchief code claim, but not other claims.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

So remove the explanation of the handkerchief code. Objective3000 (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If this is an NPOV problem in your view, then implicit in that is that the article is not presenting a fair interpretation of the CS. Since the article dismisses it as pure BS, the only logical conclusion is that you are asserting that this CS is not pure BS. If that's the case, then we should be dealing with this elsewhere and in a different manner. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Participants may continue threaded discussion here. This section won't however be considered by the DRN volunteer while meditating the dispute. Uncivil comments and personal attacks will be collapsed or removed without notice. Engaging in uncivil discussion will lead to warnings and may even lead to blocks/bans. Please refrain from discussing elsewhere. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:United States presidential election, 2020

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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

Closed discussion

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

Talk:Judaism and sexuality

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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

Closed discussion

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

User talk:Bbb23#Edits_to_The_Mary_Tyler_Moore_Show_page_were_reverted.3B_I_disagree

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Msr69er on 19:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute User talk:Bbb23#Edits to The Mary Tyler Moore Show page were reverted.3B I disagree (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Msr69er (talk · contribs) Bbb23 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I made edits to a section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mary_Tyler_Moore_Show#Production with the editor citing WP:UNDUE. I noted my disagreement on the editor's talk page and on the talk page of the article. I also added an expert needed template to the beginning of the section, which was also reverted. I left a response indicating that I would refrain from any further edits to the article, and that such an experience was negatively impacting my experience on Wikipedia. I can understand the need for proper protocol, but such blatant deletions of good faith efforts to improve articles detract from user experience. Have you tried to resolve this previously? None at the moment. How do you think we can help? Provide a third-party opinion on 1) the validity/correctness of my efforts to improve the article (was I correct? incorrect? what should I have done differently?) and 2) editor's efforts to maintain protocol and order. Summary of dispute by Bbb23 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Bbb23#Edits_to_The_Mary_Tyler_Moore_Show_page_were_reverted.3B_I_disagree discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment: Msr69er, have you considered WP:3O? That may be a better place for what you requested. ProgrammingGeek talktome 20:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.