Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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
Sales data dispute on Chris Brown article	Closed	Instantwatym (t)	10 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	In Progress	Avi8tor (t)	8 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 11 hours	Avi8tor (t)	20 hours
shakshuka	Closed	LEvalyn (t)	4 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours
Norse Deity pages	New	Dots321 (t)	1 days, 2 hours	None	n/a	VeryRarelyStable (t)	2 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	New	98Tigerius (t)	21 hours	None	n/a	Ravinglogician (t)	8 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	New	Banedon (t)	2 hours	None	n/a	Banedon (t)	2 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 03:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Britannia (TV series)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Tvcameraop on 17:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Britannia (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Tvcameraop (talk · contribs) SethRuebens (talk · contribs) Schazjmd (talk · contribs) PAVA11 (talk · contribs) CantBbought (talk · contribs) IdreamofJeanie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There are claims by an author named Ben Krushkoff that the work being discussed in the article is an unauthorised adaption of his work. A section about this controversy was added by user SethRuebens in December 2019 and has been removed and re-added repeatedly, and has now been discussed at length on various talk pages. There is little consensus as to whether the sources provided are reliable secondary sources, as various users claim they are and other uses are of the opinion that they are not. There is also a dispute as to whether the article is neutral (as per WP:NPOV) in a state where it does not mention the controversy. Please note this not quite how I would describe events, which specifically include the above user who is against what I consider totally justifiable edits. I did post the original changes in Dec and then re-added the edit after I had seen Krushkoff had actually published the letters and further written statements of support about his claims, from academics and subject-experts, on his website. The edits were in place for around two months and seen by every editor who visited that page. They were suddenly removed after, I believe, Sky were informed of the Wikipedia article by Krushkoff himself (I have been following the case) by an editor who had produced (almost exclusively, it seemed) articles for Sky on Wikipedia. So they weren't 'repeatedly re-added' for a considerable period of time. I am also raising the fact that the warning tags on the top of page (put there by a bot and another editor, initially) keep being removed by people in this dispute. I have not reverted my edits, but in no way is there any consensus that they should remain offline until this dispute is properly resolved. The tags should be in place, as per Wiki protocol SethRuebens (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Britannia_(TV_series)#Controversy User_talk:SethRuebens#July_2020_2 Wikipedia:Teahouse#Academic_and_expert_reference_being_disputed How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Conclusion as to whether the article is neutral in the current state without mentioning the controversy - if it is not, are the sources provided reliable secondary sources as per WP:RELIABLE? Summary of dispute by SethRuebens Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Some context prior to a list of questions for those who are opposed to my edits, or any one else who cares to step: I made the original edit two months prior to them being reverted by, I believe, TVCameraop (the person who started this thread - at least they reverted them at some point during the start of this dispute). The edits are about a Sky UK drama that cost multiple-millions of pounds. I later noticed that the majority of articles that TVCameraop had created were about Sky TV and its presenters, pointed this out and then they deleted a reference to them on their talk page (although note I am grateful they have raised this matter for debate/discussion here - I only mentioned this as it seemed relevant to the dispute as a whole!). Furthermore, all of the users - and a ‘senior editor’ - who were against my edits, seemed to discuss a strategy on one of their talk pages (how the other users were drawn to it I have no idea). I have every right to be suspicious of bias and potential collusion. But let's focus on other facts: I provided multiple references, from secondary source subject experts and academics (one of whom has written for a number of the UK’s most watched TV shows and co-wrote an academy award nominated film), who agree with the primary source (Ben Krushkoff) that the all-important pilot ep of Britannia was based on unauthorised adaptation of his work. According to the Wikipedia guidelines the inclusion of these references should be permissible within the body of the article, whether or not you agree they are notable. I am not trying to start an article here. Also note that videos about the controversy have been seen by 45,000+ viewers, a petition supporting Krushkoff’s claim signed by 1,500+ people on Change.Org and a lecture about the disputed origins of this show made at Westminter University’s Law School (which is also referenced on their online newsletter). So, the questions: Is it just Krushkoff who is saying his work has been plagiarised (an accusation levelled by one of the editors below)? Is the case known by a significant number of people (nearly half of Britannia’s viewers from their season 2 opener) and ergo in the public domain? Is the claim being made reasonably plausible to be true? Assuming that the claims were indeed true, could this (or something that "this" might plausibly imply) cause the subject (possibly with other plausible information added) to be notable? Or, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability? Can self-published sources (i.e. by the academics mentioned above) be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article in Wiki) when produced by an established subject-matter experts, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? How can the article be neutral when it does not include the opinions of those who have publicly supported Kruskoff (the academics) and 1,500 signatories, and those who acknowledge that he is disputing the origins of the show: Westminster University & nearly 50k viewers? (nb: I had informed users that I was not able to post yesterday due to a pressing private matter; apologies for the delay in the above) Summary of dispute by Schazjmd Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ben Krushkoff claims Britannia plagiarized his work, Tribus. I have searched and been unable to find any independent sources that have taken any notice of these claims. The sources offered for including his claim in the article are: an announcement that he gave a talk on scriptwriting, Krushkoff's YouTube video, and letters which Krushkoff posted to his own website here, here, and here. I believe Krushkoff's self-published sources are insufficient to support a statement in the article, and without any independent, reliable recognition of those claims, it is undue to mention them. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Adding a diff to the specific text and refs in dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC) Please note that page includes a number of secondary sources from both subject-experts and within academia. Please explain below how they are not independent of Krushkoff, as you have claimed (he did not write them himself and was not the person who initially published them)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethRuebens (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC) SethRuebens, I listed all of the references cited in the diff that I linked to. Please feel free to point out any reliable sources that were not included in that edit. Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I would like you to answer my questions, above, directly please. That would really help me change my mind about this, if I am wrong (which I am pretty sure I'm not, having read lots of Wiki guidelines). Thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC) The onus to provide reliable, independent sources is on you. Krushkoff and his associates are not independent, even if they are reliable (although the nature of the sources you're providing is still in dispute). PAVA11 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Please see Talk:Britannia (TV series) for the multiple times that I explained why I believe these are not independent, reliable sources and that the claim is not WP:DUE. edit to add: The matter being brought here gives uninvolved editors the opportunity to weigh the sources and arguments and help find a resolution; it's not for us to continue debating the same talk page disagreement. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I do not believe you answered those questions there. And for the sake of others new to the dispute, please summarise your answers in this dispute page (or copy and paste them). This is exactly why we are here, to present our arguments to the wider Wiki community. It shouldn't take you more than a couple of minutes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethRuebens (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I'm satisfied with providing the sources that have been offered and letting uninvolved editors come to their own conclusions. If they come to the conclusion that those are adequate sources to support adding the content to the article, fine. If they don't, fine. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC) OK, let's see. But for the record, it's those specific questions which are at the heart of why I think you and a couple of others have been wrong to oppose the edits (I haven't seen them clearly answered). As mentioned, it's not about starting a new article here: if the wider media pick up on the case (tough here in the UK as many are connected to Sky, who were owned in the majority by News Int at the time, then surely it would warrant it's own article under the notability guidelines. Rgds, SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by PAVA11 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I too have searched extensively for reliable, independent sources addressing the claim and have been unable to find any, thus concluding it is inappropriate for inclusion. Even if a token reference were found, it would likely be undue weight. This has been explained extensively to the user on the talk page by several editors, by several uninvoled editors at TEAHOUSE, and by uninvolved administrators. The only users who want the content added appear to be single purpose accounts coming to Wikipedia solely to push this dubious claim, as indicated by their edit histories and in one case professed on their user page. PAVA11 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC) See my first answer, above and kindly explain below how they are not independent of Krushkoff and why they are not reliable. Are you a Doctor of Creative Writing at what was described as 'the leading course of its kind in the country'? Have you written for a number of major TV shows? Who initially published the references? Why are there opinions and of 1,500 people any less important than yours and the small clique of users opposing my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethRuebens (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC) PAVA11. Please do not keep removing the tags (which I did not put there) on the top of the Britannia page. There are very specific guideliness from Wiki about this (linked to on the tags) which you are not following: 'Is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid, unless it truly did not belong in the first place'. [[Help:Maintenance_template_removal|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal]SethRuebens (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC) The lead rewrite tag was not a part of this issue and there were no specific issues with the lead outlined on the talkpage by the user who added it or anyone else. It's consistent with lead standards and several other TV shows I reviewed to make sure. Let's focus on the actual issue instead of making everything a battle. PAVA11 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Of course it is! The lead section of the article is being disputed by myself and others and may need a re-write!?! It was added by an 'autobot' not by a physical user (at least that's what it looked like to me). I look forward to your answers to my questions above, as mentioned with an open mind. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC) The lead-rewrite template was added by IP 5.173.98.96 on 15 July. (The bot just adds a date to templates when editors fail to do so themselves.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Ahh, OK. But even still, it wasn't me who put it there, and there is clearly no concensus to have it removed. I'd rather anyone who originally opposed my edits, or new to this case, to the answer the questions I've posted above. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Language like "anyone who opposed me" is part of the problem. Nobody is opposing you, we've merely presented explanations why the content you want to add is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. PAVA11 (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I have been mindful of my language, and have changed 'opposed me' to 'opposed my edits', if it is upset somehow (note this is a debate not an article page). However, while we're on the subject of semantics, unless you know the other people who are opposed to my edits (which is exactly what this debate is about), kindly do not use the 'we' pronoun: you have no right to talk about how and why other people make their decisions. I note that you have found the time to criticise the wording of a post here, but have still not answered the above questions. Kindly do so, SR SethRuebens (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Britannia (TV series) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I asked a simple question, do any RS back up this claim, none have been provided. It seems to rely wholly and solely on Ben Krushkoff view his work has been plagiarised. There appears to have been no court case, or any reporting of the claim. It fails wp:undue, wp:blp, wp:primary, and maybe wp:not. About the only thing it does not fail is wp:v, we can at least all see he as claimed this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven I have been tied up over the last 36 hours, so apologise for the delay in the response. The statement that 'It seems to rely wholly and solely on Ben Krushkoff view his work has been plagiarised' is simply not true. He has re-published letters of support from a number of subject experts and academics on his web page (most of which can be found elsewhere on the internet). His opinion is shared by 1,500 signatories, including a number of other academics and professionals (as well members of the public). 45,000+ people know about the controversy via YouTube. The University of Westminster has published a link to his videos and acknowledged his lecture on the dispute, on a newsletter on their website. He has announced, in public, that he has served Sky with an official Cease and Desist Letter that he has published. They have acknowledged this in a letter also published on his website, and analysed in a video which clearly shows they have either lied to him or the general public. To say it is only Ben Krushfoff who is making this claim could not be further from the truth. More people know about it than the entire populations of 25+ countries. The fact that the views of those who support him are not being afforded a single mention on Britannia's page means it is clearly not fairly weighted. (nb I am not starting an article about the controversy, which would require notability, even though I think it's clear that the case has already been noted by many). Thanks for your interest in this page and dispute. Kind Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Can you please link to one of the WP:RSs if they are online? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC) A collection of these have been re-published by Krushkoff on his webpage: linked to here; the University of Westminster newsletter referencing his talk on the controversy (described as 'very well received' and linking to his 'illuminating' video which clearly accusses the official creators of lying) is linked to here - note in their case I am only saying they have refernced that a dispute exists; the Change Petition signed by 1,500 here can be found by searching 'change org britannia tv series' on google: their views are not represented in the article without my, or other edits, making it clearly unfairly weighted in Sky's favour; the videos detailing the alleged plagiarism, seen by tens of thousands, with almost exclusive positive response are linked to here. I believe the other channel he has made is called Britannia TV News, with videos referencing the controversy also seen 6 or 7 thousand times. Combined, I really can't understand how editors are saying 'it's one persons views'. Oh, and Google 'Biggest Fraud in TV' and see if the top few links are the same as I'm getting! Thanks, SethRuebens (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC) You say references have been "re-published by Krushkoff"...where were they originally published? You only provide one link not owned by Krushkoff, the newsletter that only says, in its entirety: "Ben Krushkoff gave a very well received talk to our LLB Entertainment Law Students on scriptwriting; Creativity and conflict on 4 December. This illuminating video was used as part of his talk." PAVA11 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I will address these points later, following the facilitator's response and instructions, below (happy to discuss in private/away from this dispute). I hope you will afford me the same courtesy, by answering the questions I've asked time and again (and posted above). But for now, let's do what we've been asked to do and stop the back and forth. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC) First Statement by Moderator I am willing to try to facilitate discussion. First, however, stop the back-and-forth discussion. Read the rules. These rules include that you are not to respond to each other, only to me. Be civil and concise. The above discussions are civil, but are not concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I have not yet read your statements, because they are long. Each of you: Please state, in one paragraph, what you think the issues are. Then, when we get concise statements of the issues, we can figure out how to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Please state specifically what you think that the article should say about the claim of plagiarism by Krushkoff. Be concise. Also, if there are any other issues, please state in one sentence what the other issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you. I have just seen this and will add my paragraph early this PM. SR SethRuebens (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC) First Statements by Editors "Please state specifically what you think that the article should say about the claim of plagiarism by Krushkoff." Based on the sources provided to date, nothing. There are no reliable, independent sources regarding the claim. Inclusion would introduce WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for righting great wrongs. Other issues: a brand new user (demonstrating a significant familiarity with the discussion) account added a POV tag claiming that if the claim is not included the article cannot be neutral. This too is an incorrect assumption, because WP:NPOV concerns reliable, independent sources, of which there are none. PAVA11 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC) We should say exactly what reliable independant sources say: which is nothing at all. (not named above, but i have made a few edits in the dispute) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Do not engage in back-and-forth. Respond to the moderator, not to each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Then the article should say: "Blatant plagiarism" (McGann, A, 2020), "Staggering" (Mukerhejee, 2019), "Having seen the evidence (about the similarities) I support Krushkoff's demands" (Dr. Ryall, 2020). All are independent and reliable, unless you're saying they've been fabricated which is slanderous CantBbought (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC) "Please state ... what you think the issues are": whether the article can be considered neutral without mentioning the controversy - if it cannot be, are the sources provided by SethRuebens reliable secondary sources and hence suitable for inclusion? "Please state specifically what you think that the article should say about the claim of plagiarism by Krushkoff": my opinion is that there should be no mention of the claims at the moment. I have, throughout the process, tried to find appropriate independent and reliable sources but I have not succeeded because as far as I can tell, there aren't any. If independent reliable sources are published, then there is a case for them being included in the article. Tvcameraop (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I do not think it should say anything about it given its all sourced to a primary source. If one secondary source, I.E. not published by him, (that actually repeats the claim he was plagiarised) is provided I might change that view.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC). Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) There are a number of secondary sources published from university professors and professional writers that were referenced in the original edits. How can this be denied? Unless you're suggesting the editor or the author disputing the show has made these up himself, then they have to be considered as independent and reliable. Otherwise what use is a degree or a doctorate? I've also checked and they do not need to have been covered in the press or anywhere else in order to be included inside an article. The original edits should remain imho CantBbought (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) The issue is whether to include any mention of Ben Krushkoff's accusation of plagiarism. The Lead and POV tags were added to the article because that information is not in the article, so a resolution on the plagiarism question will resolve the tags as well. My view is that the article should not include mention of the plagiarism accusation until a reliable, independent source covers it. All significant coverage of the issue is sourced to Krushkoff's own website and Krushkoff's YouTube channel. No independent sources have even mentioned his accusation against the TV show, not even Wikipedia-unacceptable tabloids, and so inclusion in the article is WP:UNDUE. The neutrality policy states fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources — Krushkoff's viewpoint has not been published by reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) It is a fact, not opinion, that a former student of Bath Spa University (described as the UK’s ‘flagship writing course’ at the time), Ben Krushkoff, has accused the creators of Britannia of adapting his original, academically submitted work in what is the #1 listed result for the Google search ‘biggest fraud in TV history’. Krushkoff is the primary source. It is also a fact that a number of secondary sources, from subject experts and academics - reliable and independent of Krushkoff - have been re-published by him on his web page in support of his claims. These include: an open letter, originally published by an acclaimed writer (Krushkoff’s former tutor) - someone who co-wrote an Academy Award award nominated film and has written for a number of the UK’s biggest shows (Mukherjee); a social media post made by another former tutor, familiar with Krushkoff’s work, a former stage manager at the Royal Shakespeare company (McGann); alongside other independently published quotes from academics from different institutions. These are all in the public domain. They have used words and phrases like ‘blatant plagiarism’, ‘staggering’ and ‘non-coincidental’. Krushkoff has also referenced the Head of Faculty at Bath Spa, who has spoken in support of his claims, and I have provided a link to the Uni of Westminster’s website, who have published a link to the video/s showcasing the similarities and called his talk on the alleged plagiarism ‘very well received’ and the videos ‘illuminating’. All of these have been written by subject experts, independently of Krushkoff,ergo, according to Wiki guidelines can be considered as worthy of inclusion in an article (which carries a different set of requirements than if I was trying to create a new article on the scandal- ultimately this is one of the main areas of dispute). That 1,500+ people publicly support Krushkoff's claims (via the online petition) and 45,000+ know about the controversy through his videos, means that this controversy is known by a substantial number of people and remains in the public domain. It has received almost exclusive support from those who have responded. I have asked a number of questions (provided above) that have never been addressed by the editors who are opposed to mentioning this controversy in Britannia’s article. These relate to Wiki guidelines. Until they are addressed or Wiki changes its guidelines, this area of the dispute will surely continue. I believe I have the right to question whether a small group of editors are acting as a collective or on behalf of Sky and am genuinely concerned that two corporations (Sky and News Int), and individuals representing other entities in this matter, will want to stop the article fairly representing all views (I can post screenshots if required which have fuelled my concerns). That so many people’s views, including a number of subject experts and academics familiar with Krushkoff's work, are not even mentioned, means that it cannot be considered as neutral, according to Wiki policies. Failure to mention them is not being bold, according to Wiki’s suggestions on how we should edit pages. Ignoring, or obfuscating the questions above will not resolve the matter or the opinion of myself - and the other editors - who do support the inclusion of my edits. Thank you for considering my position. SR SethRuebens (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Please note, I have not attempted to make any changes to the body of the article at all today, and have been civil in the talk page (pointing people to this dispute). Yet for some reason, I have banned from making any edits (which I wasn't going to do) by someone who seems totally new to the debate. They have not explained why I have been 'disruptive', as they have accused me of being. I do not believe there is any cause to have taken this action (other than to somehow make it appear to people here that I have been disruptive), and considering it seems that it's only me that's been banned, it reeks of the bias/collective attempt to prevent the article representing the views of those which are different to Sky's. Just wanted to raise it here, as it totally supports what I've said above. SethRuebens (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statement by Moderator I said to respond only to the moderator, not to each other. Back-and-forth discussion will be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I apologize for missing that and will not repeat the mistake CantBbought (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Three editors have said that no reliable secondary sources have agreed with the claim of plagiarism. This seems to be a rough consensus of the editors participating in this discussion. The question then is whether secondary sources have given enough attention to the claim, and to refuting or dismissing it, that the claim should be mentioned, with some sort of statement that it is not accepted, or something like that. If secondary sources have discussed the claim, then mentioning them is likely the best way to resolve the dispute. By the way, the article will not be tagged when this dispute is resolved. Tagging the article is not a satisfactory compromise. The purpose of this discussion is, among other things, to resolve any tagging issues. (It will be tagged if discussion fails, but we don't want discussion to fail, do we?) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC) In response to the moderator: that three editors have said no reliable secondary sources have agreed with the claim of plagiarism does not mean that they're right. I would therefore like them (and, with respect you) to see my second statement below, which specifically addresses this point. If three people said that grass was purple would it automatically be true? Thanks, SethRuebens (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Color inside the lines. Respond to the moderator in the section for statements by the editors (and it appears that you did, at length.) Color inside the lines. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Hang on a minute. The three users who were all opposed to the edits are naturally going to disagree with every argument put forward here. You can't just say their in the majority, so let's move on, or else what's the point in having this debate? If you allow the discussion to move forward before they have answered SethRubens' questions or acknowledge Wiki policy on reliable sources, then there really is no point in having a discussion. CantBbought (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Second Statements by Editors (maybe bullets will help keep statements separated) Actually, it's five editors that recommended no inclusion due to the lack of secondary, reliable sources: me, PAVA11, IdreamofJeanie, Tvcameraop, and Slatersteven. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Please note that the questions in my opening statement have either been ignored, obfuscated or not sufficiently answered by any of the users I am debating with (both on the original talk page or in this dispute section). With respect, none of them (to my knowledge), are experts in the field with an authoritative understanding of creating a television show, when compared to the subject experts and academic sources that they claim are neither reliable or independent or worthy of inclusion in the article. Wikipedia's page on reliable sources WP:RS specifically states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Mukherjee's letter was self-published by himself - Krushkoff did not write it (at least, I don't think anybody has accused him of doing so); he is an established expert on the subject matter in the sense that he has written a number of TV shows and was Krushkoff's lecturer (so was familiar with his script) and would have surely analysed Britannia's first episode and the body of work in question, before writing that the 'staggering' similarities between the two shows were 'non-coincidental', in his opinion; his work in the relevant field (writing scripts) has been published by numerous, reliable and independent publications (Google him). Therefore his letter, alone, could be described as reliable (forget all the other references at this stage). Wiki repeat these guidelines on WP:SPS. Furthermore, the letter is a secondary source: he has clearly peer-reviewed Krushkoff's academically submitted work, see WP:USEPRIMARY; and can be considered independent as he has no vested 'financial or legal relationship to the topic'. Can any of the five editors explain how I'm wrong here or would they care to edit the guidelines provided by Wikipedia which I have quoted (after they have addressed my original questions). It's all very well saying the sources I've quoted aren't reliable, secondary or independent, but I believe I have proved that this letter (alone) meets Wiki's requirements in each of these areas and have yet to hear a valid counter-argument from anybody, that would dissuade me. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I'm not sure what we're supposed to respond to now, but I think it's clear the burden of providing reliable secondary sources has not be met, no matter how many circular questions are supposedly unanswered (they aren't). PAVA11 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) As I see it, the only source for the claims there are sources is the subjects own blog, and nothing else. He can claim what he likes (and so can I), that does not make it true. Now does it mean we should include it, what would is other people giving a damn about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Third Statement by Moderator Please identify any reliable secondary sources that have either concurred with Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism or reported on Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC) User:SethRuebens - This is a content forum. We are here to discuss article content. We are not here to discuss your indefinite partial block from the article, and the rules say not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress; however, cooperating in this content discussion is probably the best way to persuade an administrator to lift the partial block. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Do not ask questions of the other editors. This is moderated discussion. That means that the moderator is in charge for now. I get to ask the questions. If any of you want to ask me any questions or to propose that I ask any questions, you may include them in your statement below, but be concise, and I will decide whether I will ask or answer them. Any overly long statements from this point on will be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC) See the reliable source policy and the policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for an introduction to what are reliable secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Third Statements by Editors Can you clarify for everyone what is and is not considered a reliable secondary source? Can an individual associated with Krushkoff be considered secondary? Can an individual commenting in their own capacity on the matter be considered secondary (as compared to in a greater published work)? PAVA11 (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Krushkoff is the primary source. The academic and experts are secondary. They are reliable and independent. Nobody has provided a clear justification as why they are not, they've just said they aren't. Any suggesting that the sources I've referenced are biased towards Krushkoff is akin to questioning their academic and professional credibility, and would be slanderous. Even still, the links posted by the moderator in their third statement, above, specifically state that 'secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources' WP:SECONDARY; 'Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources' WP:SECONDARY; and that 'self-published expert sources may be considered reliable' WP:RSSELF. If the decision here is to just ignore the guidelines, then the guidelines should be changed. SethRuebens (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Slanderous is an interesting choice of words by both editors in favor of the content, yet they don't seem to hold the same concern with regards to WP:BLP of accusing others of fraud. How can sources which Krushkoff describes as his tutors be considered neutral? Of course they are inclined to take his side. But also look at the nature of these "sources" - a screenshot of Facebook comment and a screenshot of a letter seemingly published nowhere other than Krushkoff's website. Those are neither reliable nor secondary. If either had, for example, done an interview about the issue that was reported in media sources this discussion would be entirely different. But even still, we've glossed over BLP issues. Even if the sources provided were acceptable in general, they aren't acceptable for BLP and they would be WP:UNDUE. PAVA11 (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC) I have not accused anybody of fraud in my edits to the article, which is not a BLP. I wrote that the origins of the show are disputed by another screenwriter, a fact that's known by many, many people and a claim that is supported by experts, academics and 1,500+ people POV. SR SethRuebens (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Tens of thousands know about this: it's not a controversy that will just disappear. But little point in expecting a balanced and fair moderation process if the moderator (and other editors) won't address or answer one side's valid questions CantBbought (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Interesting that according to WP:FIXBIAS the encyclopedic neutrality that Wikipedia strives for means 'the consensus of experts in a subject will be treated as a fact (e.g the two university faculties I have referenced, inc. a truly respected screenwriter, who have acknowledged the controversy exists and/or support Kruskoff's claims), whereas theories with much less acceptance among experts, or with acceptance only among non-experts (e.g. as far as I know, the small clique of editors who are again the edits, I'm not being disrespectful but none have presented themselves as subject experts) will be presented as inaccurate and untrue. And thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC) There are no reliable sources independent of Krushkoff that even mention this accusation. On Krushkoff's website, he posts a scan of a letter from his main tutor (not independent); he "quotes" a statement supposedly made in a meeting (not verifiable); he screen-caps several tweets from unverified Twitter accounts (Twitter is only permitted as a source for WP:ABOUTSELF); and he screen-caps his own change.org petition and YouTube channel views. None of these are independent sources. If any reliable, independent sources take notice of his campaign, it should be mentioned in the Britannia (TV series) article, but until then, Wikipedia is not a channel to be used to further a cause (for which Krushkoff recently started a gofundme page; can't link due to blacklist) that has had no recognition by independent sources. edit to add: IdreamofJeanie has an important point below that I had not been considering properly, and that's the BLP aspect. WP:BLP is about adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, not just to biography articles, and WP:BLP requires high-quality sources, not a personal website. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC) 'A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them' WP:SECONDARY. A university tutor must surely be deemed independent of the students under his/her tutelage, anyway, otherwise there'd be an academic conflict of interest and wouldn't be allowed to teach them? Primary = Krushkoff; Secondary = Mukherjee and others. 'If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article WP:NOTE (not trying to start a separate article); they 'do not limit the content of an article' WP:NOTE. 'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published' (does not include the word independent) WP:DUE. If Wikipedia guidelines are changed, then the word 'independent' becomes important. Until then, it does not apply to the inclusion of my original edits which were about content and not article creation. SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC) WP:BLP leaves no room for doubt:contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. calling the writers and producers of a major TV series plagiartists and thieves is contentious, and this material is pooorly sourced (to the man maiking the alegation)IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC) This dispute is not about a biography of a living person article, though, it is about a TV programme and the section concerning its origins. Neither the dispute overview, nor the first statements of those involved, make any mention about a biography of a living person. The reference isn't unsourced (clearly) and according to Wiki guidelines, as I've clearly demonstrated above, can not be described as poorly sourced, as it's been written by a verified expert in the field, whose work on screenwriting and creating scripts has been published elsewhere. Without referencing the dispute and the substantial number of people who support it , it clearly does not take a neutral POV. Thanks, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) As IdreamofJeanie points out, claiming that Krushkoff actually created the show is tantamount to saying the creditors (as cited in actual reliable secondary sources) did not. Such a claim requires proper, indisputable sources or it should be removed, no discussion required. Unless such sources can be provided, there is nowhere else for this discussion to go. PAVA11 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC) There is absolutely no reason to doubt that a signed letter, from a subject expert, isn't authentic. Ergo it is a reliable secondary source, and acceptable according to the very specific Wikipedia guidelines as given above. Also, it's not like I'm trying to use Wikipedia to promote a controversy that isn't already 'out there' in the public domain - as has been established, Krushkoff's claims are already known by tens of thousands of people (probably more) and supported by many. I've not even said that the Butterworths didn't write the show. I'm just pointing out a well-known fact, that a former university student has accused the creators of Britannia of an unauthorised adaptation of his academically submitted work, and that this is supported by his former tutors, subject-experts, the head of faculty (at the UK's flagship writing course) and a number of other academics and writers (as well as the general public). All of these facts can't be denied. The controversy has been noted by a second university faculty, who are experts in entertainment law, and comes up as the number one search result for 'biggest fraud in TV history'. Wikipedia isn't being used to promote the claims, rather it's being encyclopedic by referencing them. SethRuebens (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC) As I see it an individual associated with Krushkoff cannot be considered secondary (its a clear COI)? Can an individual commenting in their own capacity on the matter be considered secondary, that depends on where they say it as (say) if its a blog by Krushkoff its not really independent. At its heart to be third party it has to have no association with Krushkoff when it is published. At its heart undue comes into it. If Krushkoff is the only person who cares why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Moderator Again. Please identify any reliable secondary sources that have agreed with Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism. Please also identify any reliable secondary sources that have reported on Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism. Do not argue about or comment on identified sources. We can do that later, if this discussion gets back on track. Do not give arguments about sourcing policy, at this time. Just identify any sources. Do not quote or expound on the biographies of living persons policy. This is not primarily a BLP dispute. The BLP policy merely makes it more important to follow the basic policy of verifiability. Do not reply to other editors. I will give you a chance to reply later, if this discussion gets back on track. If you do not want to identify any sources, you may make a one-paragraph reply to anything that was said above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC) User:SethRuebens, User:CantBbought - You have both already been partially blocked. Complying with my instructions is the best way to get your block reconsidered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statements by Editors Fourth Statement by SethRuebens Thanks to CantBbought below, who has added another subject-expert, reliable and independent reference about the controversy, alongside listing the others I've already mentioned (in their statement below). I will therefore add a paragraph as the moderator has allowed. We now know that: Industrial Scripts referenced secondary source (Mukherjee et al's) quotes, about the primary source (Krushkoff's work and allegations), to their 53,000 subscribers; Krushkoff's videos have been watched around 45,000 times; 1,500+ people have signed the petition in support of the claims; hundreds of people have written messages in outrage (proper research will show you this); and websites/videos detailing the alleged plagiarism are ranked number 1,2,3,4 & 5 out of a search string with 39,500,000 results ('biggest fraud in TV history'). That a small amount of editors (above and below) can't find reliable references to this controversy, or have said it's just one person's views, should tell any neutral reading this enough. SethRuebens (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statement by PAVA11 Despite searching, I have been unable to find any RS. PAVA11 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC) ETA: To be clear, I'm not claiming that the sources presented to date don't exist, just that they aren't sufficient in accordance with Wikipedia policies (since the question asked for reliable sources). PAVA11 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Tvcameraop I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that have either agreed with or reported on Krushkoff's claims. Tvcameraop (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statement by CantBbought Reliable secondary sources in agreement with Krushkoff’s claim of plagiarism: (Mukherjee, 2019), (McGann, 2020), (Meyer, 2019), (De Volder, 2020) - all of these have been cited by SethReubens, I think. Reliable secondary sources that have reported on Krushkoff’s claim of plagiarism: (University of Westminster, Centre for Law, Society and Popular Culture, 2019). (Industrial Scripts*, 2020) . Here’s a screenshot of the post they published, in case it mysteriously disappears! (*The world’s leading script development company for writers & filmmakers published a post about the controversy to their 53,000 followers). Also note that Google give pages about the controversy 1st-5th place (at least in my geographical location) for ‘biggest fraud in TV history’, which is pretty relevant to this debate. Here’s another screenshot that evidences the fact. . CantBbought (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statement by IdreamofJeanie Nothing to add at the moment, thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Fourth Statement by Schazjmd I have no reliable sources to offer. edit to add I notice that the new source mentioned (Industrial Scripts) is a Facebook post, which is only acceptable as a WP:RS when it's the official page of a subject being used as a self-published primary source and per WP:SPS, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Schazjmd (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kamala Harris

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jab73 on 07:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Kamala Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jab73 (talk · contribs) Calton (talk · contribs) Rklahn (talk · contribs) Manicjedi (talk · contribs) ValarianB (talk · contribs) Nbauman (talk · contribs) jpgordon (talk · contribs) Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) PrimaPrime (talk · contribs) Neutrality (talk · contribs) Gandydancer (talk · contribs) Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) HollerithPunchCard (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Kamala Harris is a United States senator. There is a "2019" subsection to her Wikipedia article. I added the following text on 05:21, 22 July 2020: "In 2019, Harris missed 61.9 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis. Harris's missed votes included an April 1st vote on H.R. 268, a disaster aid package to help California rebuild after wildfires." I supported these contentions with reliable sources, including GovTrack.us, Politico, and a Stanford University publication. "Missed votes"/"voting participation" is a standard metric of performance of members of Congress -- how many votes are missed in a particular year. "Congressional Quarterly," for example, has calculated this metric for all members of Congress since the 1940s. However, other Wikipedia editors will not permit me to post any of this. User Calton, for example, removed my entire post just 20 minutes later (05:41, 22 July 2020‎) with an edit note: "Not this garbage again. How many times do you have to be told: YOU DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS". User Calton and others on the Talk page make no effort to reach consensus, but rather threaten me: e.g., from Calton: "At this point, it's becoming pure disruption, and a topic ban/page block for you is perfectly justified." I have been studying Congress intensively for more than 25 years. Congressional scholars would almost uniformly agree that "Missed Votes"/"Voting Participation" is an objective benchmark. I believe that it's highly salient that Senator Harris missed 62% of all Senate votes in 2019, regardless of the reason. But to "scrub" this highly relevant, objective benchmark (commented upon by numerous reliable sources) from a Wikipedia article, just because other editors do not want readers to see it, is outrageous. There are other issues that concern me about the Kamala Harris Wikipedia page, but I will proceed with dispute resolution about those separately. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[1]] See "Attendance" section of Kamala Harris Talk page How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like to see a Wikipedia consensus that objective benchmarks of performance of members of Congress (e.g., "Missed Votes" by GovTrack.us and "Voting Participation" by Congressional Quarterly) be permitted in articles about members of Congress. When a U.S. senator has a Wikipedia article that discusses that senator's activities, year by year, it's highly relevant to state that GovTrack.us found that senator missed 62% of votes that year. Summary of dispute by Calton Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rklahn I believe mention of this without additional context is prejudicial. Parliamentary rules in both houses of Congress tilt to permit absenteeism to run for higher office. The vast majority of votes in the Senate are procedural, mainly cloture votes. I also think that without context, it looks like results would have changed with the presence of Sen. Harris, that does not appear to be the case. Rklahn (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC) The "Missed Votes" benchmark by GovTrack.us (just like "Congressional Quarterly"'s "Voting Participation" benchmark) is what it is -- an objective metric applied to all members of Congress. It is highly relevant that Senator Harris missed 62% of all Senate votes in 2019 -- she was present and voting for just 38% of votes in 2019 -- any explanation is secondary. (1) Please cite the precise "Parliamentary rules in both houses of Congress" that "permit absenteeism to run for higher office." I believe that such a "Parliamentary rule" does not exist in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senate Rule VI.2 states, "No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave." That is the default rule. It is not a Wikipedia editor's duty to confirm that Senator Harris had "leave" when she missed 62% of all votes in 2019. (2) Please justify your contention that "[t]he vast majority of votes in the Senate are procedural" and I cannot cite the GovTrack.us "Missed Votes" or CQ "Voting Participation" metrics just because they include "procedural" votes. (3) Please explain why a Wikipedia editor is permitted to cite the GovTrack.us "Missed Votes" and CQ "Voting Participation" metrics only if that editor researches hundreds of votes and further explains that on specific votes "results would have changed with the presence of Sen. XXX." Jab73 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC) I think this is a microcosm of what is going on with the Talk page section. There has been a proposed edit. Several editors, including myself, have raised objections. We are asked to produce lengthy citations and analysis of our objections, and make citations in opposition. Thats basically asking us to prove why the original edit should not be there with the presumption that it should. IMHO, a complete reversal of the way it should work. At this point, absent dispute resolution, the onus is on the original editor to propose an edit that incorporates some of the objections, and seek consensus on that. Instead, the editor makes the same edit, someone does an undo, and we go for another round, which gets us nowhere. Im not going to go down the road of answering these questions. I tried that before to achieve some consensus, it failed, Im not going to try again. I think we have two ways forward. Continue to try and work it out on the talk page, or wait for dispute resolution to work its way out. I really have no opinion on which would be best. Rklahn (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC) The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC) I have stated my specific objections many times, and will not repeat. This is nowhere close to a compromise. It's a thinly disguised rehash of your original edit, and gets us nowhere. If you want to propose a serious compromise, Im all ears. Im not a horribly experienced editor here, but I think some intervention is called for. I am, however, happy that you finally engaged in this process, which Ill remind you, you started. Rklahn (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Ive read the Dispute Summaries with interest, including my own. I think it boils down to this. Yes, there is a dispute. Yes, there is an impasse. But I think it's of the Filer's own making. The Filer wants to make an edit. Several editors, including myself, have reasonable objections. The Filer is unfazed. They want their edit. All of the objections are similar, or at least there is a pattern. It should be somewhat trivial to come up with an edit in compromise. The compromise is, to date, unseen. Im not sure how to get that compromise produced. Should it be Jab73 or a volunteer who produces it? Rklahn (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC) The Filer has made time demands of others in this dispute in the past. The Filer has been online, even made edits to the subject page after the Volunteer's question was posed. How long must we wait for a response to a reasonable Volunteer question, so that this can move forward, and we can get beyond it? Rklahn (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Manicjedi Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by ValarianB Seems like a Request for Comment would have been a better choice. ValarianB (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC) I said in my edit, above, that I had no opinion about how this should go forward. Having read this, I now have an opinion. ValarianB is right. A Request for Comment would have been better. Rklahn (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC) The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC) That's not a "solution", that is simply your initial demand, to which I have already raised an objection to on the Harris talk page. Thus far, you have introduced no new info and have offered no compelling reason to change my mind. ValarianB (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) A message to someone authoritative : What exactly are we supposed to be doing here? I'm not sure I really like this discussion format or perhaps everyone's just doing it wrong, are we supposed to maintain threaded discussions in each other's sections? Stay in our lane and interact with the volunteer morderator's questions? All that is transpiring at the moment is the repeating of the OP's lengthy arguments. ValarianB (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Y Strongly agree. Im personally not at all clear what the rules are here. Do we need to solicit a volunteer? This is a little meta, but I think I might be out of my lane on this very comment. All that has seem to have happened is that some of the discussion has moved from the Talk page to here. I dont think thats either the goal, or getting us anywhere. Rklahn (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Nbauman No one has given a reason based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines why "Missed Votes" and "Voting Participation" are not permitted in articles about members of Congress. I judge this based on WP:RS WP:WEIGHT, which say that text should be in proportion to its appearance in WP:RS. Since many WP:RS have mentioned this, it belongs in the article. Since nobody has asserted such things are not permitted, this is a pure straw man. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 00:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by jpgordon Without context, it's just a deliberately prejudicial piece of information. I say "deliberately prejudicial" because of the repeated insistence on "Harris's missed votes included an April 1st vote on H.R. 268, a disaster aid package to help California rebuild after wildfires"; I don't imagine the editor is unaware that the April 1 votes were cloture motions that didn't come anywhere the 60 votes required to pass. (One failed 48-44, the other 46-48.) --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Also: this is entirely the wrong place for this: I would like to see a Wikipedia consensus that objective benchmarks of performance of members of Congress (e.g., "Missed Votes" by GovTrack.us and "Voting Participation" by Congressional Quarterly) be permitted in articles about members of Congress. That's not an issue for this forum, and it's not even the point. Of course such information is _permitted_ in the article; nobody has suggested that it is somehow against any rules. The user has failed to gain consensus for their edits; that's the sole content of this dispute. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 03:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC) User jpgordon is placing unreasonable demands on other editors. The undisputed fact is that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of votes in 2019. This fact alone is worthy of inclusion in the article. (Only two senators missed more votes in 2019. That's important context, but not essential.) It's User jpgordon's personal judgment that this is "deliberately prejudicial." Most objective readers who learned that an elected official was absent without leave three-fifths of the time would find that an important fact to know. The reader might have more questions and might want a short explanation why the elected official is unavailable to fulfill official duties, but that's no excuse for deliberately withholding important, accurate information from the reader. Jab73 (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC) The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC) I don't need to raise objections to keep anything out; you need to gain consensus for your desired inclusions, and you have failed to do so. The WP:ONUS is on you to do so. I'm not placing any demands on other editors besides "gain consensus". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 17:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Volunteer Marek; PrimaPrime; Neutrality The consensus at talk so far is that since missed votes are rarely consequential and Harris is far from unique in this regard, it's not inherently notable, even if it can be verified by primary sources. And the proposed wording around the vote on wildfires is certainly misleading without further context. The fact that consensus has not yet changed does not mean nobody has made an effort; during the discussion, I suggested that Jab73 consult secondary sources that could better ascertain notability, nor have I personally reverted any of their edits. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly added disputed content to the article against consensus, even though the WP:ONUS to seek it out remains on them. This de facto edit warring is not productive, and suggests to me an unfortunate desire to add "unflattering" trivia to the article. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC) Senate Rule VI.2 states, "No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave." There is no evidence that Senator Harris had "leave" when she missed 62 percent of votes in 2019. "Voting Participation" (Congressional Quarterly) or "Missed Votes" (GovTrack.us) is an objective performance metric that is calculated for all members of Congress. In the case of Senator Harris, her "Missed Votes" in 2019 was 62 percent -- she has absent from her fundamental duty as a U.S. senator more than three-fifths of the time. This benchmark is not "trivia." It might be trivia to note that a senator had a "Voting Participation" score of 95 percent (missed just 5 percent of votes) or a "Missed Votes" score of 3 percent (voted 97 percent of the time), but when a senator is an "outlier," that merits disclosure in a Wikipedia article. In 2019, just two senators had higher "Missed Votes" scores. That places Senator Harris in the top three percent of senators for "Missed Votes." The Kamala Harris article, as currently written, gives undue weight (WP:RSUW) to minor aspects of her career as California Attorney General. Wikipedia editors may have their own viewpoint on an article subject matter, but they are supposed to write article text with a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). User "PrimaPrime" is making great presumptions in asserting "since missed votes are rarely consequential." How is that relevant? Why should other editors be able to "veto" all discussion about a controversy merely because they believe that another editor has a duty to sift through hundreds of votes and identify that a particular senator's vote allegedly would have been outcome-determinative at least once? Also, absence from voting strongly suggests that a senator was absent from debate. Who is to say that other senators wouldn't have changed their votes (esp. on the California wildfire/disaster aid vote that she missed) if Senator Harris had been present, looked at other senators in their eyes and said, "The people of California need this to pass"? As for the trite reference to WP:ONUS, other editors are using that as an excuse to create one unreasonable hurdle after another for other editors to add content to articles. A good example is this controversy about the "Missed Votes" benchmark. Some editors claim that disclosure of just the benchmark (62% missed votes) is "prejudicial" on its own; when I tried to accommodate them, the next objection was "other senators have higher scores" and "everyone knows that when senators run for president, they miss a lot of votes." Others objected that I hadn't found a sufficient number of Reliable Sources commenting on Harris's high "Missed Votes." When I tried to accommodate that objection, the next hurdle was an accusation that my sources were biased. Wikipedia editors should be permitted to simply state benchmark facts. Let others provide justification, explanation, excuses, etc. My observation so far is that many editors of the Kamala Harris article are using WP:ONUS and WP:CON to deliberately suppress and exclude what they deem "unflattering" material concerning the subject. Jab73 (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC) The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Your idea that any and all facts must be "disclosed" in a WP:BLP is sorely mistaken. Nor does anyone have veto power to "suppress" information; rather, you don't have consensus yet. It's a team effort——consensus can change if you meet others in the middle, instead of edit-warring and making demands of them, such as to repeatedly restate their arguments. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gandydancer Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Kamala Harris discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Question - The filing editor writes: 'I would like to see a Wikipedia consensus that objective benchmarks of performance of members of Congress (e.g., "Missed Votes" by GovTrack.us and "Voting Participation" by Congressional Quarterly) be permitted in articles about members of Congress. When a U.S. senator has a Wikipedia article that discusses that senator's activities, year by year, it's highly relevant to state that GovTrack.us found that senator missed 62% of votes that year.' Do they want a consensus about articles on politicians (which could go in the MOS or a statement by a WikiProject), or a consensus about the article on Kamala Harris? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC) I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia develops policies on a systemic level. I don't think this rises to a MOS issue, but if there are standards for articles about United States members of Congress and a community of Wikipedia editors that oversees such standards, then this dispute should be brought to their attention. I find it ridiculous that other editors can deliberately block from an article about a member of Congress a statement of relevant, undisputed fact, such as "Senator YYY missed 62 percent of votes in 2019, according to a GovTrack.us analysis." Objections to disclosure of this objective benchmark that I've received are that it's "deliberately prejudicial," "unflattering," and "trivia." I assume, for example, that Wikipedia generally permits editors to disclose population statistics (from the U.S. Census of Population) in article about U.S. cities. What if a handful of editors of the Detroit, Michigan article did not permit other editors to discuss Detroit's major population decline since 1950 (from 1.9 million in 1950 to 700,000 today) on the pretext that disclosure of such undisputed facts was "trivia," "deliberately prejudicial," and "unflattering"? The same could be said for a Wikipedia article about a U.S. county that is an international COVID-19 "hot spot;" Johns Hopkins University data and numerous news articles could be written about that county's COVID-19 "hot spot" status, but a couple of Wikipedia editors would have "veto power" over including such data in an article about that county because it's "trivia," "deliberately prejudicial," and "unflattering." Jab73 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC) I think the contention that the other editors are "deliberately block[ing]" or exerting "veto power" is false. Im not speaking for others, but as one of those editors, it's simply not true. We are engaged in editing in good faith. My objection revolves around this: presenting this statistic without context is prejudicial. I don't think "deliberately prejudicial." I don't know what is in Jab73's heart, I will not pretend to. I don't think anyone has said this. Saying that a cities population is X is saying nothing else about it. Saying that their COVID-19 rate is Y also says nothing else about it. (In this case, I think a little context would be useful as well. Its not commonly known what a good or bad COVID-19 rate is). Saying Sen. Harris' attendance record is the 3rd worst, or using some reasonably perceived low number, is saying Sen. Harris should not be a Senator, Vice President, or President. It implies that the Senator's effectiveness is poor, where it may or may not be. It's common for Senators to miss votes while campaigning, and in the particular case of Sen. Harris, changed nothing encyclopedic. Rklahn (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC) My proposed compromise edit is to add to the Kamala Harris article this sentence in the "2019" section: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." This sentence would cite to: " "Sen. Kamala Harris’s 2019 Report Card," GovTrack.us" with a link to https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678/report-card/2019 Note well that the proposed edit does not assert that "Sen. Harris' attendance record is the 3rd worst." It is a direct quote from GovTrack.us that Harris was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators." I agree with User Rklahn that "a little context would be useful," but it's not my responsibility to propose it. The fact is what it is -- an objective benchmark or metric calculated for all members of Congress. It's the responsibility of other editors to provide "context." If I must include "context," I would propose this sentence: "In 2019, the year when Harris ran for president, she missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." Jab73 (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Actually, it is your responsibility to propose a consensus. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I find your attempt does not address the concerns of any of the other editors, including myself, and is simply a rehash of your original edit. I think you might be confusing "compromise" and "consensus." Rklahn (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC) I just read my last comment. I think I may have left an incorrect impression of my thoughts on Jab73's tactics. I still don't know whats in their heart, but I do think they are engaged in Disruptive editing. It took me a while to reach this, others reached it long before I have. Ive gone into this at length in Talk:Kamala_Harris and there really is no need to repeat beyond what Ive said here. Rklahn (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC) I agree that voting participation is an important aspect of a parliamentarian's performance, that deserves mention in his/her article. However, the significance of that data should also be explained. The data that she is the third most absent senator, considered in isolation, suggests that she is negligent in carrying her duty to vote. However, I explored the govtrack.us website at and the source explained that "We don’t track why legislators miss votes, but it’s often due to medical absenses and major life events. Legislators running for president or vice president typically miss votes while on the campaign trail — that’s normal." I then looked at the pattern of Kamala's missed vote across the months on the website, and it shows that the vast majority of those missed votes happened between Jan-Dec 2019 . That period coincidences with Kamala's campaign to be elected president. I think this information is important to know. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC) @HollerithPunchCard: Im unclear on your role here. Are you responding as an editor, or as a volunteer? My response will vary based on the answer. Rklahn (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC) @Rklahn Responding as an editor (not sure if that matters). HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Conduct issue. Take conduct issues to WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC) HollerithPunchCard Thank you for the reply. Jab73 is a Disruptive editor. It looks innocent at first, maybe legitimate consensus building. Personally, I have gone from suggesting other editors step back and reflect to wanting to seek a Topic ban. Others reached that conclusion long before I did. If you do enter into this you will face demands for long winded defenses of your positions within short time periods of time, followed by edits without consensus, then more demands, and the cycle will begin again. My advice is this: Don't. Many are already engaged, you seem to hold similar views to many, and the whole thing is frustrating. No one else should have to go through this. What is needed now is intervention, and in particular, the attention of a volunteer. Rklahn (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swaminarayan Sampradaya

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Kbhatt22 on 10:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Swaminarayan Sampradaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs)
• Apollo1203 (talk · contribs)
• Moksha88 (talk · contribs)
• TheNDNman224 (talk · contribs)
• Harshmellow717 (talk · contribs)
• Skubydoo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello, I don't know where to start. First off thank you for the time. I have been trying to bring neutral consensus for over 2 weeks now and am requesting outside assistant. I myself have remained civil and am trying to stick to WIKI policies. I asked peaceray for direction and he sent me here. basically 2 weeks ago, some IPs came and removed content they claimed was bias, Edit warring ensued. The IPs made roughly 16 edits. No discussion at that point, both sides were just undoing each other. I stepped in and tried to be neutral and outlined the 4 points I found that had merit and I corroborated 4 of the 16 edits with more sources, my changes were also undone.

I have tried to stay neutral in all this and respectful. I see merit on both sides but the one side is removing anything they don't like that the IP adds and the IP is removing stuff they feel is BAPS/branch specific specific. I proposed a neutral consensus/resolution. I proposed that the page remain strictly to temples, idols and scriptures created by religion founder and then it link off to each branch where that branches ideology can be outlined. This page is currently dominated by one branch, using a lot of one branches documents for support which would violate the (Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources) policy as well is the independent sources policy by my understanding as they have a vested interest being one branch within the Swaminarayan family. Even from imagery, there is 9 images on that page and 8 are from BAPS and 3 specifically highlight their leader even tho the image is suppose to be about something else. These red flags are acknowledged but no consensus on a lot of the proposed changes is able to be reached.

I proposed edits on my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox I can link almost 90% of the images and a large amount of sources originate exclusively from one branch that is attempting to represent the entire religion when that branch wasn't founded for 100 years after the religions origin. I am simply suggesting diversification of sources and images on the page. I have proposed replacement images with reasoning that diversify and simplify the page.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox

I have provided sources, and ample reasoning and logic for my proposed changes. Consistently, the users who have a history of working together on this content as well as the similar IPs either ignore certain points I make or take turns responding so I am constantly making the same points with limited counter discussion. I feel like an independent entity with no bias to the subject would benefit this dispute.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I didn't start this dispute. I just tried to help both sides reach a consensus and this has turned into a 3 week drag along. I am just hoping someone with no outside bias or no history of work in the section but a veteran of wiki could help. I have been respectful, neutral, and tried to be logical. If I am wrong, I will take it from someone who has the neutral viewpoint. I just do not see what is wrong with my proposed edits pushing for diversification and equal inclusion of all branches.

Summary of dispute by Apollo1203

Hi all. I got involved as I had followed the discussion on the proposed photo edits. I agreed with some of Kbhatt’s points, like updating the leadership details of one group and reordering the links. I also agreed with him and other users to change the photos to be more inclusive. However, there were inconsistencies in what Kbhatt proposed, like taking issue with images with religious leaders of specific branches yet then proposing an image with a religious leader of a specific branch. I suggested more viable photos needed to be proposed and copyright permissions acquired to resolve the picture discussion. I had actually already reached out for copyright permission for certain photos that should have led to more diversity, but I was waiting for a reply from the copyright owner, when Kbhatt apparently decided that it was taking “too long” and escalated the discussion to this forum (prematurely, in my opinion). Another issue was whether reliable sources were being used. I believe I clearly outlined how the sources I had used are reliable and how they meet all the requirements as per Wikipedia policies. As the sources follow the criteria, I don’t understand on what legitimate basis Kbhatt is questioning those sources. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Moksha88

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

I am surprised Kbhatt22 escalated this here, particularly because we had reached consensus on several edits, like updating details on leadership (Edit 2) and not misrepresenting the author’s words (Edit 3).1 However, I feel the points of disagreement arise from inconsistent reasoning. For instance, he has now changed his mind on Edit 3.1 On one hand, he claimed to want to be inclusive of all traditions within this religion yet initially framed issues on his sandbox by assigning sides.1 In addition, even when sources fully meet WP:RS, 12 he complains sources are not reliable 1234 yet produces 3 sources as supporting evidence, of which 2 are primary sources.1 2 Moreover, I feel that a general lack of organization in Kbhatt22’s posts and keeping things clear on Kbhatt22’s sandbox, led to confusion for other editors and contributed to the delay in reaching consensus (which is what he says led him to this forum). For example, he spoke about introducing diversity in the pictures.1 While it seemed that most editors agreed with him in principle,123 his proposed solutions were a bit disorganized so that editors’ views on each point did not always lead to clarity regarding consensus. I attempted to organize things on the sandbox so editors would be able to properly discuss each point,1 and rather than everyone trying to further clarify there, Kbhatt22 escalated this issue on this forum. For content, I don’t see any dispute that has arisen on this article, that a more committed effort at organized, collaborative discussion will not resolve. Moksha88 (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TheNDNman224

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

It should be noted that this discussion was initially instigated by unregistered users, all of whom were later proven to be sockpuppets of User:Applebutter221. I had recommended using the sandbox to facilitate this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=next&oldid=968054112) as it was hard to follow the discussion for all the edits proposed by Kbhatt22. From my perspective, at the core of this disagreement is the validity of sources used. Kbhatt22 raised concerns about whether the sources in the article were reliable. I looked into the sources used in the article and realized that the sources undergirding the points Kbhatt22 is questioning are not unreliable, but in fact, are academic secondary sources according to WP:RS, which has been pointed out in the talk page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya&diff=prev&oldid=969913712). Once this is accepted, I don’t think there is too much left to dispute, as the points in the article are written for the most part as per these reliable sources. The issue of the Lekh seems to be a sticking point for Kbhatt22, but I think it has been explained by other editors, which makes sense to me, so I will not belabor that point here. Also, Kbhatt22 raised the question of changing some of the pictures, and I think the general consensus in the talk page was on changing some of them. There was an ongoing discussion as to both the particulars of the change as well as apparently some efforts to get appropriate copyright permissions by some editors according to Kbhatt22’s suggestion, which takes time. Before allowing for these issues to be resolved, the discussion was frozen by the escalation to this noticeboard. Further complicating matters was the disruptive behavior of the sockpuppet. Now, I think the best resolution to this issue would be to restart the discussion on the talk page without the disruptive sock puppet, and have all the interested editors work through the details of the pictures patiently. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Harshmellow717

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

I initially became involved in this discussion when I attempted to engage with an unregistered user (who later turned out to be an indefinitely banned sockpuppet) who was edit warring (1). Since then many of the edits Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) proposed have reached consensus (2). I have attempted to facilitate discussion over some of the proposed edits by formatting the talk page so that each edit can be discussed independently (3, 4). As I understand it the current unresolved discussion is surrounding 1) the classification of the Lekh as an administrative document or a scripture (see diff). 2) Whether the phrase “Akshar-Purushottam Darshan” and its underlying ideology is branch specific (see diff). As I indicated on the talk page according to the secondary sources (see in more detail here), in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, the Lekh is a legal administrative document accepted by only two branches, and not a scripture accepted by all branches of the sampradaya. Moreover, the academic sources indicate “Akshar-Purushottam Darshan” to be branch agnostic as it is philosophy propounded by Swaminarayan (the founder of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya) in his primary theological text, the Vachanamrut. While Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) disagrees with me on these points, I appreciate Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs)’s willingness to engage in discussion.

It should be noted that once the talk page discussion was initiated, Applebutter221 (talk · contribs) joined the discussion and in conjunction with unregistered users attempted to force their viewpoint. To this end Applebutter221 (talk · contribs) also tried to convince several users (see some examples - 1, 2, 3, 4) to push consensus in their favor (WP:CANVAS). The unregistered users and Applebutter221 (talk · contribs) were part of an sockpuppet investigation and have been subsequently banned. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Skubydoo

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

Hello, I came across this page last week from the NPOV Noticeboard and figured the users could benefit from a neutral third party’s involvement. The main issue appears to be that an IP address made disruptive edits on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article which started the still ongoing discussion on the talk page. There seems to be assumptions by some users about other users’ perspectives , which is making things personal.

I’m not sure why this matter was escalated here amidst an already productive discussion, other than for Kbhatt22 to get their own way. Kbhatt22 has proposed edits to the page which have guided the discussion. On their sandbox and the article’s talk page, there was unanimous consensus reached over two edits. Those in the discussion are currently working to reach consensus on other proposed edits about chronology of links, scriptures, and image use. I think since the consensus for a few of these issues appears to be against Kbhatt22's proposed edits in the article talk page, Kbhatt22 seems to want to circumvent further discussion instead of accepting the consensus.

Kbhatt22 seems to be crusading for a specific point of view (WP:POVFIGHTER) which I have already warned them against. I have already asked Kbhatt22 to consider making their own original contributions instead of trying to police the contributions of other users. Kbhatt22 states that the content in the article is based on biased sources, but from the evidence presented , almost all of the sources seem to be reliable academic, secondary sources.

I would encourage Kbhatt22 to continue to do the hard work of collaborating with others and making original contributions. Not every edit that one proposes is going to be agreed with by the larger Wikipedia community, even if one feels strongly about it. I will continue to moderate the discussion, and can bring the discussion back here if they reach an impasse.

Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Swaminarayan Sampradaya discussion

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

I would like to keep the topic of this dispute focused on the 4 edits proposed in my sandbox if we can. Individual comments can be whatever you feel is pertinent but I'd rather the reviewer of the dispute only have to focus on these 4 edits tied to this request. Thanks! Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, with all due respect this is not the forum for this. This is the policy for this section "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." Please refrain from making this dispute about the people. If you feel their is bias by any users then their is probably a forum for that. This is about finding resolution simply of the edits proposed in my sandbox. Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel the need to respond to Skubydoo since he made this a personal attack. Please stick to the merit of the edits proposed per the policy of this dispute forum. Another user apparently has stated he represents the swaminarayan branch, and you are going to say I have a biased and POV perspective for saying I am not a part the branches so can be subjective? I was not aware of this at the time but was clicking through the things Applebutter mentioned above and found it disheartening that one user has admitted to bias, and that despite me outlining the sources being scholarly, they originate entirely from one branch (Almost 90% of images arer branch specific) and are promoting ideology for that branch as if it represents all branches and their is a pattern of removal of anything that falls outside that branch. I beg the Moderator to skim through the entire dialog. Yes I may have made a mistake or two in wording, but remained civil and constructive the entire way through and neutral. I was not proposing removing everything, simply diversification of sources and images. of the 16 edits, I only saw merit in 4 and brought it too the talk page and bolstered it with sources. For you to say I am leading a crusade to get my way is hurtful when others seem to have shown a bias and you are targeting me over suggesting we need diversification. This is not a crusade for me to get what I want. I did independent research and proposed a mix of revisions and original contributions and the points we reached consensus on were both in my favor and not in my favor. I am literally the only one who can say that. We did reach an impasse because the dialog has stopped for days and no one is willing to address the valid red flags I have raised and this NEEDS a neutral admin to review what is happening here. I would like us to continue focusing on the merit of the edits and not make this personal. This will make it clearer and hopefully save the admin some time reviewing this Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kbhatt22, I didn’t mean for my observations to feel like a personal attack, and so I am sorry that you feel this way. I have been following along on the talk page and saw that you assigned sides for users in your replies and in your sandbox when it was unnecessary, even after I called attention to it. This didn’t signal to me that you are looking for collaboration but for a way of diverting collaboration. If that was not your intention, I really do apologize. I am not clear on how reimagining this conversation as a dispute is going to help foster the collective thinking and dialogue that a strong Wikipedia article needs. Rather than trying to understand the evidence and policies presented by other users, It really does appear to me that you are attempting to bring intervention into a discussion because all of your ideas are not being favored. This is not a personal attack, but an observation I am making about this course of action. I hope that helps clarify my intentions. Let me know if I can clarify anything else. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey. I stopped assigning sides once you told me too. If i did accidentally do it, I apologize as well. And even before I did, it was never specific users. I did however establish sources were one sided. I have always strived for collaboration and neutral consensus. I still have respect for you and all the users involved so far. The reason why this was raised here is because we were all going along in discussion and things seemed to have escalated across dozens of pages among almost a dozen users and some users previous statements of representing a specific branches were raised and it felt like a true neutral moderator was needed. Especially on edit 1. I bowed out every place where consensus was against me and agreed with everyones logic but that is one edit that I feel is being strongly objected for no valid reason. It doesn't help that the comments from the now blocked user were removed from the discussion as we have dozens of orphaned responses that add to the confusion. A admin moderator would strongly help on edit 1 especially. Kbhatt22 (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible Statement by Moderator

I am willing to try to moderate this dispute, but I have a few comments and questions. First, I know nothing of the dispute up until now. Second, read the usual ground rules, which will be in effect if we begin discussion. Third, is this strictly a content dispute, or is this about user conduct also? If this is about both content and conduct, is everyone willing to put conduct issues aside, and try to resolve the content? Fourth, will every editor please provide a one-paragraph summary of what they think the issue is. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible First Statements by Editors

Hi Robert McClenon. Thank you so much for for taking the time to moderate this. I am excited and happy to have you. I will try to be concise. I do not wish for this do be about conduct of anyone or about users. Simply the merit of the content. The best way I can summarize this dispute is it is about the inclusion of a scripture under the "Scriptural Traditions" section on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page. The excerpt from page 208 of this book (sourced dozens of times already on the page) perfectly captures this dispute.

"The original Ahmedabad and Vadtal dioceses value the Lekh, where as those groups that emphasis the authority of the sadhus over the acharya and different lineages of gurus downplay or ignore the lekh as simply an administrative document for temporary application and not as sacred scripture. Baps emphasizes the Swamini Vato, which contains the sayings of Gunatitanand."

• https://www.google.com/books/edition/Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/ODdqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=lekh

Currently the page lists the scripture "Swamini vato" under that section. Someone proposed removing that scripture and replacing it with the "Desh Vibhah Lekh". Some users do not want to include the "Desh Vibhah Lekh" under the scriptures section claiming the same reasoning as outlined above and wish to continue to only list "Swamini Vato" under scriptures. My proposal is that since both have fundamental importance to the tradition of various branches, and this page represents the faith as a whole, we simply include both. This is a simple summary of the first proposed edit in dispute. I am not sure what is wrong with this approach and why including both is so objected. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), I Just posted my summary of dispute above, is this what you were referring to? Or am I supposed to post a one paragraph summary here under the "first statements" section? Thanks, Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I know it says I have 48 hour to respond to anything. I don't believe their is anything for me specifically to respond too yet but want to make sure I am showing that I am still engaged in this request. Thank you Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator

If you have already made a one-paragraph statement, you may repeat it, or you may explain in one paragraph why you disagree with a previous statement. If you have made a statement that is longer than one paragraph, please summarize it in one paragraph, focusing only on what will be in the article. Remember that I don't understand the details (unlike the periodic table dispute) and I don't expect to understand the details. It appears that the dispute has to do with what writings should be considered scriptures. If that is the issue, focus on that. If there is another issue also, please identify it. Be civil and concise. Some of you have only been civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors

You are correct Robert McClenon. I will mostly echo my earlier statement. The excerpt from page 208 of this book (sourced dozens of times already on the page) perfectly captures this dispute.

"The original Ahmedabad and Vadtal dioceses value the Lekh, where as those groups that emphasis the authority of the sadhus over the acharya and different lineages of gurus downplay or ignore the lekh as simply an administrative document for temporary application and not as sacred scripture. Baps emphasizes the Swamini Vato, which contains the sayings of Gunatitanand." -https://www.google.com/books/edition/Introduction_to_Swaminarayan_Hinduism/ODdqDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=lekh

Currently the page lists the scripture "Swamini vato" under that section. Someone proposed removing that scripture and replacing it with the "Desh Vibhah Lekh". Some users do not want to include the "Desh Vibhah Lekh" under the scriptures section claiming it as an "administrative document" as outlined above. My proposal is both have fundamental importance to the tradition of various branches. This page represents the faith as a whole. We should include both. We already list texts that originate and are accepted strictly by one branch i.e "swaminarayan bhashyam" so why not list one accepted by most branches but at the very least acknowledged by all. The section merely lists scriptures and then links to their landing page. By pushing the notion that it is an "administrative document" and should not be included in scriptures, we as Wikipedia contributors are taking sides in an ideological difference within the faith. The branches that accepts the lekh have existed since the origin of the faith and were established under the founder. The branch that downplays the lekh didn't officially exist until almost a century later. Regardless we should not be taking sides in this ideological difference. We are merely listing it and linking to its Wiki page like the rest of the texts in that section.

Just for clarification. This is the only issue raised on the dispute board. It is the only one I wish to exhaust any of Robert McClenon time on. 88% of the images originate from the same branch that downplays the lekh but once this Lekh dispute is resolved, I will make another attempt to continuing that discussion with the other users on the talk page to avoid occupying the moderators time. Thank you! Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) for moderating. As I indicated on the talk page according to the secondary sources, in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, the “Lekh” is a legal administrative document accepted by only two branches, and not a scripture accepted by all branches of the sampradaya. Williams makes it clear that the “Lekh” is only accepted by two branches, but not by others. While he states the Swamini Vato is a primary text for one branch, Williams doesn’t say that it is not accepted as a scripture by other branches. In fact, the Swamini Vato is published and accepted as a scripture by all the branches of the sampradaya, [here are a few examples 1, 2, 3, 4]. Regarding the “Lekh”, the most authoritative scholarly source I found on this topic was by a Prof. Dave - where he wrote a ten page chapter focused solely on the “Lekh” titled “Reappraisal of the ‘Lekh’” in New Dimensions of Indology (1997). He states that the “Lekh” is “the constitution of the acarya parampara” laying out the legal distribution of property and rights of the two acharyas (the heads of the two dioceses). Thus, it is “considered an important document” for the Nar-Narayan and Laxmi-Narayan branches. However, he notes that other branches, like the “Swaminarayan Gadi of Maninagar...totally reject the ‘Lekh’” and BAPS, Anoopam Mission, Yogi Divine Society, Gunatit Samaj, etc. consider it only an “administrative document” that has no “philosophical importance”. The rest of the chapter is mainly focused on how the “Lekh” submitted by the Nar-Narayan and Laxmi-Narayan branches to the court are not the same documents, raising questions about the validity and historicity of the document itself. But the point I got from this source is that the “Lekh” is not accepted as a scripture by the majority of the branches of the Sampradaya, and the two branches that do accept it see it primarily as a legal document about splitting property and rights between two cousins. Interestingly, the official website of the Nar-Narayan branch does not list the “Lekh” in its scriptures section [5]. They further write, “At Vadtal, Shreeji Maharaj established the dual Acharyaship, in direct succession to Himself. This He did by means of a legal document (known as Desh Vibhagno Lekh), which He dictated and got written by Shukanand Swami” [6]. The official website of the Laxmi-Narayan branch also states the “Lekh”, “describes in detail the functions of the Acharyas” and “has proved to be the basis upon which most judicial rulings are made” [7]. Therefore based on the secondary sources cited and the official websites of these organizations, I believe that the “Lekh” should not be included in the scriptures section as it is purely a legal document, while the Swamini Vato should be included, as it is a scripture accepted by all branches. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hi @Robert McClenon, I came across this dispute as a third party a few weeks ago when the article was posted on the NPOV noticeboard by an unregistered user who later was proven as a sockpuppet of Applebutter221. I reviewed the references provided by all the parties, which state that the Lekh is a document outlining successorship for the Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses, two branches within the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. These two groups regard it as a sacred document. However, numerous sources cite that other groups within this tradition, such as the Yogi Divine Society, BAPS, and Anoopam Mission, acknowledge the validity of the Lekh administratively, but do not recognize it as a scripture. One way I am thinking of this is that including the Lekh in the scripture section would be like including the Book of Mormon as a scripture for all of the Christian religion, rather than being specific to a denomination. This Lekh document is already adequately described in the article under the ‘Major Branches’ section. It would not belong in the scriptural tradition section. Thanks, Skubydoo (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), I appreciate your assistance in this matter. I was surprised to find this article escalated here because we had reached consensus on several edits already (see 'Resolved') 1. I entered the discussion later than the other editors, and it felt like we were working towards consensus for the other edits. The discussion was mostly civil and could have been better if the issues were framed around policy versus assigning sides. For instance, the introduction in the sandbox reads, “The goal here is to reach Consensus between the back and forth between the IP's and Baps” 1. The IP’s, or unregistered users, initiated this dispute which were subsequently furthered by Applebutter221’s bad faith accusations of conspiracy - all of whom were proven to be sockpuppets of Swamiblue who had been indefinitely banned in 2016 for similar behavior 1. For the question of Lekh, I think a better understanding of WP:RS is warranted, particularly when primary sources were being cited to support its inclusion as a scripture (a court case and a magazine published by one of the two dioceses). 12. Overall, I don’t see any dispute that has arisen on this article, that more civility and a deeper understanding of core policies can’t resolve. Moksha88 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), Thank you for your involvement in this discussion. In regards to the inclusion of the lekh, there is not much left to say that hasn't been said above. As far as I can tell looking at all the materials provided, the lekh does seem to be a legal document that is not widely accepted by all factions in the sampraday, and should not be included in a 'scriptures' section. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator

Some of you have made long statements in support of your positions. However, it is first necessary to define what your position is, and we are only interested in what should be in the article. Please identify specific sections of the article that you want to change. I see a section on Scriptures, which has some subsections. If these are the only areas of dispute, please indicate what you want those sections to say. If there are other sections of the article, please identify the sections of the article that you want to change (or keep the same). If I need to give each of you a subpage, I will do that, but I think that you should be able to explain what changes you want to make to the article. Remember to comment only on content, not on contributors. Be concise.

If you want to provide additional information, you may tell me where this school fits into the general breakdown and tradition of Hindu philosophy and theology.

Once again, be concise. Comment only on what should be in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors

Thank You Mr. Robert for providing direction and guidelines. I will try to be concise. Here is the addition being requested under the section of scriptures.

The Change (Addition)

=== Desh Vibhag Lekh ===

The Desh Vibhag Lekh was written under the directive of Swaminarayan in 1827 establishing the division of territory into two dioceses of Ahmedabad and Vartal It was dictated by Sahajanand Swami himself and written by Sadhu Shukmuni in the Darbar of Khachar Dada Ebhal at Gadhada in the year 1826. It was translated into English by Geo. P Taylor in 1903. It has been accepted as such by the Bombay High Court as valid document.

I feel some of the points above were slightly misleading. I will summarize my clarification with; this is a text that is acknowledged by almost all the branches but interpreted/valued differently among them. My addition simply lists it and links to its dedicated Wiki page like the other scriptures where the interpretation difference is already outlined. I suppose the entire counter argument is centered around the assumption that an "administrative document" cannot be a scripture but the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive to begin with. A scripture is defined by Merriam Webster as a sacred writing. This something fundamental to the mythos and origin story of the faith. It seems an unjust comparison to the Book of Mormon keeps being made. To address a major difference being neglected in that comparison, The Book of Mormons was authored centuries after the founding of Christianity while the Lekh was authored under the directive of the founder of the faith. Major difference.

This school within the Hindu philosophy at a very high level exists as such: Swaminarayan founded the faith in the early 1800s based of principles of Vaishnavism within the Hindu umbrella. In 1827 he directed the writings of the lekh to establish two branches, the Ahmadabad Branch(1827) and Vadtal Branch(1827). It also included guidelines/rules for members of the faith. Over the course of the faiths history, other branches were officially formed such as Baps(1907), Maninagar (1941), Gunatit Samaj(1986) and several other ones. They each weight the 'lekh' differently, some newer branches do disregard it. I am simply asking the above be added to the list/sections under scriptures to guide readers to its stand alone page like the rest of that section. The new counter-argument is it is not accepted by all branches. It is accepted by the branches founded during the creation of the faith by its founder. Also worth noting for the moderator, the scriptures section already lists texts that are not accepted by all branches. Thanks! Kbhatt22 (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hello Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), I do not want any changes made to the article regarding the “Lekh”. As the article stands, the “Lekh” is mentioned in the lead and major branches section, where it is appropriate given its administrative function. The scriptures section encompasses major scriptures accepted by all branches. As I previously outlined (see diff), the “Lekh” is not accepted as a scripture by all branches but is accepted as a legal and administrative document. To make my position clear, The “Lekh” has been adequately accommodated elsewhere in the article and is not appropriate for the scriptures section. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), I don’t think the current version of the article should be modified to include the Lekh as a scripture. The scholarly consensus outlined by Harshmellow717 does not characterize the Lekh document as a scripture accepted by all branches (1) nor does the reference cited in the proposed edit. As I mentioned previously, two other sources presented in the previous talk page discussion to support its inclusion were primary sources (12). Since this document pertains to successorship, it’s best addressed in the ‘Major branches’ section as found in the current article. Moksha88 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), To be very concise, I also believe the Lekh should not be included in the 'Scriptures' subsection. The editors above have already echoed my position and concerns surrounding this. I am adding this to remain in the conversation. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon, my position is, in short, that the ‘Lekh’ document should not be included in the scripture section. As I stated earlier, including the Lekh in the scripture section would be like including the Book of Mormon as a scripture for all of the Christian religion, rather than being specific to a denomination. It is not a scripture, sacred document, or administrative document for the sect as a whole, but is only considered one by specific branches. I agree with Harshmellow's summary of Dave's book which outlines which branches of the Swaminarayan sect specifically reject the Lekh. Its inclusion in the ‘major branches’ section, as it is now, is sufficient for the branches that do accept the Lekh. Thank you, Skubydoo (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Dreap3421 on 22:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Sharyl Attkisson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Dreap3421 (talk · contribs) Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) Philip Cross (talk · contribs) Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Sharyl Attkisson alleged bias on the part of CBS News favoring the Obama Administration. The president of CBS News at the time of her allegations was David Rhodes, whose brother (Ben Rhodes) was President Obama's deputy NSA. I did not write anything about the allegations being true, I just edited it to include it because it seems relevant that the head of the news bureau she is alleging bias of is related to a major figure in the administration. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sharyl_Attkisson Toa Nidhiki0 deleted the edit, I wrote to someone asking assistance, and an editor (Sphilbrick) said it sounded relevant, and reverted it back. Philip Cross stated it was "synthesis," and removed the edit again. I edited the source (which was one taken from the article), and reposted it. After a bit, of back-and-forth, I stated on the talk page why it is relevant. Toa Nidhiki0 stated something a "conspiracy theory," and that was it. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Revert the edit back. I do not know what "conspiracy theory" it is to state that two people are brothers. If they want to put no evidence of bias, then by all means do so. All users (with the exception of Sphilbrick), to include myself, should be looked at for any biased future edits. Thank you for any assistance. Summary of dispute by Toa Nidhiki05 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a frivolous request. The Sharyl Attkisson page has been under fairly constant duress from WP:TEND editors, including Mrs. Attkisson herself, for years now. This frequently involves trying to legitimize or downplay her conspiracy theories - including that vaccines cause autism and, in this case, that the Obama administration was spying on her. There is no evidence for this, and mentioning some sort of brother relation as proof of a conspiracy between CBS and the Obama administration is by definition a conspiracy theory. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Philip Cross Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Sphilbrick Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Sharyl Attkisson 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.

Elon Musk

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by QRep2020 on 08:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved QRep2020 (talk · contribs) David_Tornheim (talk · contribs) Andyjsmith (talk · contribs) Lklundin (talk · contribs) Isaidnoway (talk · contribs) Andrew_Davidson (talk · contribs) BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs) Rosbif73 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Currently in the lede of the article in question, Elon Musk is described as an engineer. There have been numerous Rfc's and related discussions on the article's Talk page regarding this attribution being bald and foremost (his status as an entrepeneur, etc. are listed afterwards) and there was an especially heated one very recently. I myself raised the latest Rfc and recommended that some sort of qualification be introduced to distinguish Musk's status as different from the likes of Steve Wozniak, who has a degree in engineering from completing a higher education program, and also others who hold licenses in engineering. Unlike them, Musk does not have any traditionally earned credentials besides honorary ones and readers might want to be aware of such distinctions. Furthermore, since this description is not a viewpoint represented anywhere in the body of the article and several editors across many discussions have voiced strong objections to describing Musk as an engineer first and foremost, one would think some modification would be in order. That said, some convincing and complex arguments have been presented as to why the description is legitimate as is based on third-party sources plainly stating Musk as such as well as references to diverse customs and mores highlighting how the title of engineer is not something that signifies the same thing to everyone. Needless to say, the end result of these previous exercises is nothing resembling a consensus. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[2]] [[3]] (thanks to David_Tornheim for tracking down all of the previous Rfc's listed in the linked section) How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please help us determine if adding some qualification to the engineer description in the lede is warranted or not by perhaps uncovering some precedent to how Wikipedia has in the past dealt with similar disputes. Summary of dispute by David_Tornheim Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Andyjsmith Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Lklundin Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Isaidnoway Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Andrew_Davidson Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by BetsyRMadison Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Rosbif73 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Elon Musk discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Comment - First, there are eleven editors listed. That is more than is usually feasible for moderated discussion, which is intended to result in compromise. With this many editors, a Request for Comments is usually a better approach. Second, the editors have not been notified of this filing. That is only a problem if a volunteer wants to try to facilitate moderated discussion. I don't intend to try to moderate a discussion with eleven editors. Third, there has been a Request for Comments. It has run for 30 days, and is ready for formal closure, and has not been formally closed. I am willing to close it for you. However, it is correct that the result of the RFC will be No Consensus. I am willing to provide a formal closure saying that there is No Consensus. The next step will be either discussion on the talk page, or another RFC. So: Do you want me to close the RFC as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC) I didn't know I had to list everyone who commented in the Rfc as the instructions don't specify as such. Also, I see that the Periodic Table Dispute below has 10 participants so I am not sure why 11 is too much then. Oh, the form doesn't automatically notify them? That's odd for a system that appears so sophisticated otherwise. My apologies. I'm happy to do another Rfc and would appreciate the closure gesture, but this discussion has happened time and time again on the Elon Musk Talk page. How many Rfc's resulting in No Consensus are warranted before a Dispute resolution? QRep2020 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Reply - First, how do you think that moderated Dispute Resolution would resolve a dispute that cannot be resolved by RFC? Maybe there is an idea that Dispute Resolution will adjudicate the question by acting as a referee or an editorial board. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you actually expect a moderator to help arrive at a compromise, you are welcome to ask for a volunteer who will lead discussion to try to arrive at a conclusion. Second, did you notice that I also said that the Periodic Table discussion has too many editors? Third, if you want me to ask for a volunteer to mediate, we can ask for a volunteer to mediate, but it is likely that we won't get a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Sorry, I think I was referring to an old version of this page that I had open in another tab and did not see your comment on the Periodic Table dispute. Is requesting a moderator to volunteer part of a Rfc or a different process? What makes you skeptical that a moderator will want to join the fray? (Kidding about that last one.) QRep2020 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Note - I've closed the RFC as No Consensus. I will not moderate a discussion, and probably would now be considered involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC) As a parting note, I will likely initiate a new Rfc at some point after a cool-down period and may ask for help with requesting a volunteer moderator. Thank you for your guidance and participation, Robert McClenon. 21:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Periodic table

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Double sharp on 08:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Periodic table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Double sharp (talk · contribs)
• Sandbh (talk · contribs)
• Droog Andrey (talk · contribs)
• YBG (talk · contribs)
• ComplexRational (talk · contribs)
• R8R (talk · contribs)
• Дрейгорич (talk · contribs)
• Michael D. Turnbull (talk · contribs)
• Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs)
• DePiep (talk · contribs)
• Officer781 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Some authors think group 3 contains Sc, Y, La, and Ac (short: the La form); others Sc, Y, Lu, and Lr (the Lu form); and some give a compromise form where all 30 lanthanides and actinides are put under yttrium (the * form). WP currently shows La as a default. This has been argued about for a while this year.

On WP, all significant options in reliable sources must be considered. But putting 3 different periodic table templates everywhere is awkward. University textbooks from the 2010s gives percentages of 48% La, 18% Lu, 33% *, Google shows 2/3 majority for * and equal 1/6 for La and Lu, and most articles arguing about the issue (since 1921) conclude in favour of Lu. Complicating matters is that we currently show both 18 column (e.g. {{Periodic table}} [4]) and 32 column (e.g. {{Periodic table (navbox)}} [5]) periodic tables.

I believe this impasse can be resolved by appealing to the relevant organisation: the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). They currently show a compromise form of * under Y on their website, although they do not endorse it. In the 2005 Red Book this is the only form presented, in 18 column. In the 1990 form the same 18 column form appear, but also a 32 column form is presented which shows Lu under Y instead.

IUPAC currently has a project looking at this since 2015, but we have no information about when they'll be done, and we need something in the meantime. The chair of this project (Eric Scerri) called this 1988 statement in a IUPAC report an endorsement of the Lu form.

“ The Elements of the Scandium Group

In the "Red Book" which will appear in 1988 the same arrangement was chosen for the elements of the scandium group as in the periodic table as originally proposed by CNIC and subsequently published by VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim.

It is a compromise. According to the electron configurations of the elements, the scandium group consists of the elements

Sc, Y, Lu, Lr.

This was pointed out as early as 1959 by L.D. Landau (ref. 20) and later by other authors (ref. 13, 14, 20 to 25). Most periodic tables in textbooks and classrooms, however, list Sc, Y, La, and Ac as elements of the scandium group and designate the elements Ce to Lu and Th to Lr as lanthanides and actinides, respectively. The historical background for this arrangement is given in a paper by W.B. Jensen (ref. 21). Based upon their electronic configurations and their chemical and physical properties, the elements La to Yb and Ac to No should be inserted between barium and lutetium and between radium and lawrencium or for practical reasons be listed at the bottom of the table. The series La to Yb and Ac to No then, however, cannot be named correctly as lanthanides and actinides since they contain the elements lanthanum and actinium and not only elements similar to lanthanum and actinium as is purported by the ending -ide (or -oid according to an earlier IUPAC recommendation).

”

There is some unclarity, because despite talking about Lu under Y, justifying it with sources and from properties of the elements, and explaining how to contract the form to 18 column by taking about La-Yb and Ac-No, the arrangement referred to in the Weinheim table is * under Y. However, Scerri is on the current IUPAC project and calls it an endorsement of Lu under Y, and it is very possible that he has access to some documents we do not that leads him to this conclusion.

As such, either Lu under Y or * under Y would seem acceptable for 18-column tables. For 32-column tables, such as the one in {{Periodic table (navbox)}}, the 1990 Red Book shows Lu under Y. So any of three solutions as default seem justifiable by referring to IUPAC.

1. Placeholder * under Y in 18 column, and avoid 32 column completely (internally consistent, and not against the 1990 or 2005 Red Books);
2. Placeholder * under Y in 18 column, Lu under Y in 32 column (exactly following the 1990 Red Book, albeit kind of inconsistent, and not against the 2005 Red Book);
3. Lu under Y in both 18 and 32 column form (consistency with Scerri's interpretation of the 1988 report).

I would prefer #3 for some other reasons (mostly because that is what most articles in the literature focusing on this issue support, and it avoids contradicting ourselves when it comes to explaining the Madelung rule; the latter would especially improve the periodic table article when it explains chemical periodicity), but in the interest of compromise and getting back to something more productive I am more than happy to support #1 or #2.

Of course, when the current IUPAC project makes a decision, we can relook at it.

In previous discussions the majority of users involved either supported changing WP to default Lu on this or other bases (me, DA, CR, Dreigorich, Officer781, YBG) or, even if they opposed Lu, seem at least fine with the * compromise (Michael D. Turnbull and Graeme Bartlett). As mentioned above I would be fine with any of the three options above.

Sandbh has so far been unwilling to compromise on anything but the La form.

I was directed at WP:ANI to bring the issue here.

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

• Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements (archives 42, 44, 46, and 48): initially about an article Sandbh was writing externally about this issue (which he asked for a peer review of by members of our project), but then spiralled into considering what should be done on WP
• Latest discussion at Talk:Periodic table. First RFC was started by me and then closed to try to resolve the issue with Sandbh first, as I did go overboard, and I didn't yet know that IUPAC had endorsed the Lu under Y form in 1988.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

More perspectives and building towards a consensus.

Summary of dispute by Sandbh

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

I don’t understand why we are here. Our Periodic table article shows La in Group 3. This is the most popular form of table in the literature. A few members of our small WP:ELEMENTS project would like to change the table so that Group 3 has Lu in it. I don’t. An rfc was called by Double sharp. It was withdrawn by him the next day after being strongly opposed by a member of WP:CHEMISTRY and myself (I described the rfc as illegitimate). Like all people who contribute to Wikipedia talk pages, I express my opinions. Sometimes others agree; sometimes they don’t. So it goes. Now then, why are we here? Sandbh (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Objection: @Robert McClenon and Double sharp: I object to Double sharp's multiple (biased and out of context) postings in this forum, as he seeks to successively refine his arguments. Sandbh (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• And I strongly object to your non-stop biased misrepresentation of reliable sources too, but again: we have been advised that DRN is not the place for conduct disputes but rather for content disputes. Double sharp (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Incivil behaviour: @Robert McClenon: Another example of incivil behaviour by Double Sharp, posting to my comments section. One more for WP:ANI.

Acknowledgement: I thank other contributors here for their concise and interesting perspectives. Sandbh (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

IUPAC: Noting the calibre of the folk on the IUPAC Group 3 Project (including Scerri, Jensen, Lavelle, Restrepo, Ball) I will very likely accept their recommendation, whether La or Lu. I understand Double sharp will do this too, although he has said he will grumble about an La outcome. Sandbh (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Droog Andrey

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

I'm sure that was a sad mistake to change Sc-Y-Lu-Lr to Sc-Y-La-Ac here on WP. The periodic table is not a chart to describe elements, but a system where they are naturally organized. The literature that focus on the point confirms that Sc-Y-La-Ac was just a historical misunderstanding. Double sharp is honestly trying to fix the consequences of his own fault. He collated a heavy lot of primary and secondary sources and presented a deep and transparent analysis of the problem. His approach looks elegant since it is based on consistence, verifiability and logic. The key points of disagreement with Sandbh are explained here. As a chemist and high-school chemistry teacher, I strongly support Double sharp's position here. Droog Andrey (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by YBG

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

Summary of dispute by ComplexRational

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

Summary of dispute by R8R

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

The discussion is about whether the periodic table used in English Wikipedia should change its composition or not. There are different proposals in the scientific community what element group 3 of the periodic table should be made of. None of them is right or wrong; it's more about more or less fit for purpose, and the purpose can vary.

It appears most chemists don't really care whether it is one way or another; this is a rather niche dispute in itself, though it is sometimes seen as a part of a larger important topic.

Most editors, including myself, have a preference for the -Lu-Lr layout. Sandbh has a preference for the -La-Ac layout. However, he also notes that most sources also use this format. I think this is the decisive argument for the English Wikipedia. This could be countered if this version was wrong but as I said, there is no right or wrong here; it boils down to preference of what you want to emphasize.

This problem has been discussed in enormous length at WT:ELEM.

Like Sandbh, I see no strong case for a change in the English Wikipedia. One potential turning point in the future may be a decision by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) to recommend a specific composition of group 3; IUPAC is often seen as the ultimate body governing chemical nomenclature. IUPAC is currently tackling the problem. I am not sure whether we should automatically accept whatever they propose but their recommendation will certainly have a great value in a future discussion.--R8R (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Дрейгорич

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

The periodic table as it is usually presented has eighteen columns, or groups, numbered from left to right. The composition of the third of these groups, or Group 3, is the subject of intense debate. Directly below yttrium (Y), the thirty-ninth element, which elements should be slotted in? Lanthanum and actinium below (the La form)? Or lutetium and lawrencium (the Lu form)? The periodic table has been drawn both ways over the decades and the issue is still unresolved to this day. IUPAC has no position on the issue at present (they draw it as a * table with 30 elements removed from the main table and not 28, which both Double sharp and I consider unacceptable - why must only one group terminate early? Double sharp wrote to me to correct this. He said he would accept it as a compromise. I would reluctantly accept if it came to that, but it wouldn't be my first choice.). Wikipedia currently presents the La form, and the question is whether this should stand or be edited to the Lu form of the table.

The discussion, primarily on the talk page of WP:ELEM (I will not even attempt to summarize it as it was spread out over the course of seven months and multiple archives!), led to overwhelming support of the Lu form (7-1 if I remember correctly 5-1 for the change, 7-1 for the arguments of the lone person against the change as being unconvincing). This prompted the RFC between the members that was quickly withdrawn as "illegitimate" and eventually resulted in the same points being repeated bordering into ad hominem territory.

As for me, I'm one of the seven five who fall into team Lu, supporting pretty much what Double sharp has previously said. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 09:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Michael D. Turnbull

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

I was unaware of the Group 3 dispute either in the chemistry literature or on Wikipedia until late July this year, when Sandbh raised a question on a page I was watching, WT:WikiProject Chemistry and subsequently Double sharp commented at length in that thread. I then read some of their extensive discussion at WT:ELEM and responded by saying I thought it was "Enough already!". My analysis was "that you both think that you are discussing the periodic table whereas in fact you are each discussing a periodic table: unfortunately not the same one! Your only focus should be "how can we improve the periodic table article?" (on Wikipedia there is only one)".

In fact, the participants all agree that the periodic table article should discuss the various historic forms of the periodic table and the Group 3 debate, using reliable sources, in a WP:NPOV way and I think this is already done well. The problem is that Wikipedia has to settle on a single consistent version of the table for its various templates, such as {{periodic table}}, {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)}} and {{Periodic table (18 columns, micro)}} which are widely used in chemistry articles about the elements. This is partly what has caused the dispute and has been difficult to resolve despite months of discussion. My own position is neutral on which version should be adopted, but the continuing bickering has meant it has become more difficult to proceed with other suggestions to improve the encyclopaedia, such as my idea in a thread "here". which became so entangled in multiple issues that it has had to be closed. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Graeme Bartlett

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

I also don't think it needs discussion here, as not enough time has been given for a discussion on the talk pages. More discussion about what to do can take place at the same venue. I think that we need to describe the differences in point of view in the article, but that we use traditional tables with * and ** (or the like) to have lanthanides and actinides in the drop down rows. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DePiep

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

• #DePiep01: Please cut the 18-vs-32-column-issue out of the question. By all means. -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Officer781

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

I am part of team Lu, Lr to be included into Group 3. To be honest I understand that this is controversial and that is precisely why there is an IUPAC committee drawn up to decide on this. The key question in this I feel is which elements use their f-orbitals in bonding. La and Ac, with their f-orbitals being empty, would probably be more likely to use them in bonding (be it in molecules, the pure metal, semiconductor compounds, etc) than Lu, Lr since the latter have full f-orbitals (but these orbitals would also have to be sufficiently lowered in energy; compare the situation with zinc, cadmium and mercury with their core-like d-orbitals. I'm not sure if Lu, Lr use their f-orbitals, someone can help to clarify this). I agree that Lu, Lr should nonetheless still be considered Lanthanides and Actinides (which span 15 elements each and also includes Lanthanum and Actinium). I am actually an experimental materials scientist so I am not very informed about the pure chemistry stuff pertaining to this. Other than the main argument above I defer to Eric Scerri.--Officer781 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Periodic table discussion

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

Extended inappropriate content Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Why we are here, since Sandbh asked. Misuse of sources by Sandbh Just one example. I feel that if sources are being misrepresented this way, outside dispute resolution is needed. What Landau and Lifshitz give What Sandbh in his own analysis calls a "Landau and Lifshitz periodic table" Sources discussing the topic Here is a table of all sources in the literature I'm aware of that give some arguments about the issue. I consider them to have some weight, since for issues like this textbooks may not be up-to-date with the latest knowledge, just as they are not with hypervalent molecules: the literature is well aware that there is no d orbital participation on phosphorus in PCl5, but many textbooks will tell you that there is. Supports Lu Supports La Supports * Bury (1921) Shemyakin (1932) Zh. Obshch. Khim. 2, 62 (1932) (Russian) Landau and Lifshitz (1958) Seel (1961) Hamilton and Jensen (1963), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.205 Hamilton (1965), doi:10.1119/1.1972042 Luder (1967) "The Electron Repulsion Theory of the Chemical Bond", Chapter 2 Matthias et al. (1967) Merz and Ulmer (1967), doi:10.1016/0375-9601(67)90527-0 Chistyakov (1968) Zh. Obshch. Khim. 38, 209 (1968) (Russian) Seel (1969) Chistyakov (1970) Luder (1970) Wittig (1973), doi:10.1007/BFb0108579 Jensen (1982) Holden (1985) Fluck and Rumpf (1986): doi:10.1002/ciuz.19860200403 (German) Seel (1987) Kulsha (1999?): available on the author's website, pages 1, 2, 3, 4 (Russian) Fang et al. (2000) Wulfsberg (2000) Horovitz and Sârbu (2005), doi:10.1021/ed082p473 Wulfsberg (2006) Ouyang et al. (2008), doi:10.1063/1.2831506 Jensen (2008) Scerri (2009) Scerri (2011) Scerri (2012) Nelson (2013) Settouti and Aourag (2014), doi:10.1007/s11837-014-1247-x Imyanitov (2014) Jensen (2015) Scerri and Parsons (2018) Tsimmerman (2018) Scerri (2019) Tsimmerman and Boyce (2019) Alvárez (2020) Scerri (2020) Smith (1927) Trifonov (1970) Shchukarev (1974) Atkins (2006) Lavelle (2008) Restrepo (2017), doi:10.1021/bk-2017-1263.ch005 Cao et al. (2020) Xu and Pyykkö (2016) Note that Andrey Kulsha is our User:Droog Andrey. I will add links and doi's gradually. I have tried to give fulltext links where possible. I encourage additions. ^_^ As you can see: when it comes to the literature that focuses on the issue, the support of the Lu form becomes extremely strong. P.S. I am not any of the authors listed above. Double sharp (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Comment - I have a few preliminary comments.

First, this dispute appears to have eleven editors. As such, it is really better suited for a Request for Comments than for moderated discussion. I haven't yet read why the RFC that was advanced briefly was then closed. Perhaps, after I read the background discussion in more detail, I might be able to help formulate the RFC properly.

Second, it isn't obvious to me why the issue has generated so much controversy, when any chemist should know that which form of the table is used is a matter of convention, and if all of the forms are described, that is what an encyclopedia should do, but that is only my opinion. (Some things in the physical sciences are matters of conventional representation, including how you list the elements.)

Third, I have collapsed much of the above for two reasons. It is far too long to be informative, and besides it comments on contributors rather than on content.

Fourth, is there a reason why an RFC is not appropriate?

Fifth, is there a reason why it makes a difference which form is used?

Sixth, do you want help with an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

---

• An RFC was attempted earlier by Double sharp (pro-Lu), but was quickly declared as an illegitimate, non-neutral RFC by Sandbh (pro-La, who I suspect viewed it more as an ad hominem attack against them) and thus was quickly closed. After the issue was escalated, it was recommended to post here on the DRN. The issue is how to present the periodic table, e.g. on an article on neon describing its position in the table. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 19:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Impartial comment: Thank you User:Дрейгорич. For the record, I did not interpret the RFC as an ad hominen attack. Sandbh (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Rewrote a shorter response below. Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The first RFC was closed because I wanted to de-escalate the situation at Sandbh's suggestion, and because I thought there wasn't a chance it could go through. However, now that I relook at it, it seems that IUPAC's position actually does give some argument in favour of Lu, and it seems to me now that the mass of reliable sources spanning a century arguing for Lu under Y is actually a good argument. (I thought it wasn't on the grounds that most sources arguing about helium ask for it to be moved over beryllium, but that is mostly significantly newer, and never got any IUPAC usage as far as I am aware.) So, I think there is actually a case that can be argued for WP now. I am looking for any way in which this issue can be discussed properly based on reliable sources. If that means a second RFC, yes, I would like help with that indeed. ^_^ Now, let me answer your questions. There is much controversy on Wikipedia just because, although most periodic tables in the textbook literature show La under Y, a huge number of sources spanning almost a century have been arguing that it should be Lu under Y (see the collapsed content above for a list of many; there are more). That is certainly a controversy: IUPAC has a project looking at it since 2015 (but we don't know when they'll be done and will need to show something in the meantime), and one of its members (Philip Ball) referred to "the fury that has been incited in arguments over group 3." Evidently, the fact that there is a controversy is completely verifiable and with this many articles for it, it would be a correct reflection of the sources to put Lu under Y instead. Some textbooks have followed and put Lu under Y (18% as of the 2010s), but others have not (33% show *, 48% still show La). This is not really unprecedented, since many textbooks continue to claim that molecules like PCl5 expand their octet with d orbitals, when it has been known for decades that it is not true (quite a few journal articles have demonstrated it); not to mention that most such textbooks do not really cover these heavy elements in detail. Moreover, IUPAC does not show La under Y in any form of the periodic table: when they show 18-column tables they compromise and put a placeholder * under Y, but in 32-column form when this is impossible they do show Lu under Y (1990 Red Book, p. 283). Indeed, when the form of the periodic table is the issue being described, all three forms should appear (La, Lu, compromise placeholder *). But it seems rather silly to show all three forms when that's not the issue, e.g. the article on neon. That element is nowhere near the disputed region, and it's irrelevant to discuss the dispute on its article. Yet we still need to show where it is on the periodic table to describe what that means for its physical and chemical properties (very inert gas at room temperature, etc.). So we need to show one, and there needs to be a default. Now, why does it matter? Because it's more than a matter of convention. The La form makes a statement about the elements in question: that lanthanum is a d block element and that lutetium is an f block element. But doing so actually does not improve the Wikipedia article because it forces us into some contradictions: The Madelung rule. This is well-known to give us the basis for the periodic table's layout, and would have to be explained on the periodic table article. But it says 4f comes before 5d. With a Lu table, there isn't a contradiction, as that's exactly what is shown. If we show a La table, we have to go into a tangent explaining why the Madelung rule says 4f comes before 5d but the table we show gives one 5d electron first. It ends up looking like what I had to write at Electron configuration#Periodic table. And then it ends up contradicting reliable sources that note that lanthanum already has the involvement of the 4f orbitals characteristic of f block elements, but lutetium doesn't have it. I tried to be neutral there, but the fact remains that with a Lu table the reader would not have to face an internal contradiction. The significance of gas-phase ground-state electron configurations for the d and f block elements. Reliable sources agree this isn't very important because such elements have very many different configurations very close in energy, and in chemical environments their configuration can be different. But this is a large part of the basis for the La table in the first place, as noted already in the periodic table article. Even sources that show a La table often make generalisations that contradict it. Examples can be found when looking at what the lanthanide contraction means for the succeeding elements. Zumdahl and Zumdahl's Chemistry (2006 edition, p. 959), for example, says "This lanthanide contraction just offsets the normal increase in size due to going from one principal quantum level to another. Thus the 5d elements, instead of being significantly larger than the 4d elements, are almost identical to them in size. This leads to a great similarity in the chemistry of the 4d and 5d elements in a given vertical group." Greenwood and Earnshaw's Chemistry of the Elements (1997 edition, p. 1234) says something similar: "The interpolation of the lanthanides in fact almost exactly cancels this anticipated increase with the result, noted in previous chapters, that in each group of transition elements the second and third elements have very similar sizes and properties." Both sources show a La table. But the problem is that what they said is only true with a Lu table (they give a La one): Y is indeed very similar to Lu in size and properties (see The Heavy Transition Elements), but not to La. So I think it is rather an important thing because the La form actually makes it difficult to improve the article on the periodic table with the general understandings of chemical periodicity found in reliable sources. Does that help? If it is too long I can try to shorten it. Double sharp (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

---

@Robert McClenon:

1. The "dispute"/difference of opinion has been discussed or raised in WP:ELEMENTS (four separate occasions IIRC); the Periodic table talk page; an RFC (not by me); WP:ANI (twice; not by me); and now here.

2. There is no controversy in the literature. In a 2020 Nature article on "The periodic table and the physics that drives it", the authors note that, "Fuzzy concepts like chemical similarity often lead to unnecessary disputes concerning the PTE." This is one of those disputes.

You are on message, in my opinion, when you said any chemist should know that which form of the table is used is a matter of convention. Scerri, who is chair of the IUPAC project looking at Group 3, said effectively the same thing: "We should accept that a degree of convention must be used in selecting a periodic table that can be presented as perhaps the best possible table that combines objective factors as well as interest dependence."

In 100 years there have been, say, 20 authors who suggested Lu should go in Group 3 rather than Lu. Jensen had a red hot go in 1983 by gathering together many of the previous arguments. His effort did not gain traction. Scerri referred to Jensen's argument as being too selective.

3. Thank you.

4. There is no reason why an rfc would be inappropriate if the relevant WP policies are observed including WP:NPOV; WP:VERIFY; WP:NOR and WP:CIVIL

5. Yes, we have to choose a form to show in the lead of our periodic table article, and in its main body. As an encyclopedia, we show the form that is most popular in the literature. We discuss the other variants in the main body of the article, and we go into a lot more detail in the Group 3 article.

6. I personally see no need for an RFC. --- Sandbh (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

---

@Robert McClenon: Here's my take. I responded above, but here's a more thorough answer.

1. Answered above. It was done a bit too hastily and a bit in an ad hominem manner.

2. There should be a neutral option for describing the position of, e.g. neon in the periodic table as Double sharp put it, or more controversially, something like lutetium. When referencing the periodic table, we don't need to draw out multiple forms each time unnecessarily.

3. Yes.

4. I would not be against a second attempt at a more neutrally-worded RFC.

5. I explained above in 2. This is a surprisingly controversial issue among chemists.

6. I'd be open to getting some help in formulating an RFC. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 12:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Extended content

@Robert McClenon: In keeping with Sandbh's and Dreigorich's answers, here is an attempt to shorten mine. 1. The first RFC was closed because I wanted to de-escalate the situation at Sandbh's suggestion, and because I thought there wasn't a chance it could go through. However, reanalysis of it on my part suggests that there is instead a strong policy-based and source-based case for the change. 2. The issue is very controversial, and it is not just a matter of convention but a big deal for understanding. Some people do think there is right and wrong here, as seen in an article from UCLA, and most famously this video from The Periodic Table of Videos. And some authors do think there is a definitive answer. In an article by Eric Scerri published in IUPAC in 2012 he calls the group 3 problem "a remaining issue that continues to confuse seasoned practitioners and novices alike". See 5. 3. I feel that the now collapsed list of reliable sources, spanning 1921 to 2020, is needed to show the vast amount of support there is for the change to Lu under Y. The sources focusing on the matter give what seems to me to be a strong case. IUPAC shows a compromise form, but even while justifying it in an 1988 report admitted that there were many arguments in favour of Lu, and show in their 1990 Red Book both the compromise * form (8 and 18 column) and the Lu form (32 column), but never La as we do now. While they do currently have a project relooking at this to make a ruling, we will need to show something while they still have not decided. While most general chemistry textbooks haven't followed, a significant number have, and anyway they mostly only superficially cover the heavy elements that are in question: there are multiple other things that textbooks get wrong in the face of authors in the journal literature having known better for decades (e.g. we've known there's no d involvement in hypervalent main group molecules since 1990, people have had the right explanation since the 1920s, yet it stubbornly persists in textbooks). I also feel that a productive discussion must involve accurate representation of sources without original research. 4. I certainly don't mind a neutrally-worded RFC and have begun drafting one at User:Double sharp/RFC (containing a draft of the question and my proposed !vote). I am willing to go through any standard process to get a clear consensus. 5. The periodic law is not only about just grouping similar elements together. It must also match the fundamental basis of chemistry. That is electronic structure and the valence orbitals involved. We have known since the 1960s and 1970s that the bases for the La form are against the facts. Keeping on with it requires self-contradiction about the Madelung rule that gives the structure of the periodic table (La table forces one 5d electron to fill before 4f, contradicting the standard Madelung rule that tells us 4f comes before 5d), prioritising ground-state configuration anomalies that reliable sources know are completely irrelevant for d and f block elements over valence orbitals, and in general makes it a lot more difficult to explain the periodic law. With the Lu form, none of this happens. 6. I would definitely like help constructing a neutrally-worded RFC, if it is decided that that is the best way to go. See 4. Double sharp (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Because I have real-life commitments, and because it is increasingly clear that the issues between myself and Sandbh are impossible to resolve: I withdraw the request for dispute resolution and the proposition for a new RFC. Although I still believe that the change I propose would be a good one, and I still absolutely disagree with Sandbh's views and interpretations, I think it is not worth arguing when it just makes me unhappy and will take time away from things I would much rather be doing.

So, I apologised to Sandbh on his talk page for going overboard again, and I leave the project instead. This should be resolved unless others want to follow up. Double sharp (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Although the guy who bought it up decided to withdraw it due to real-life commitments, I'd still like for us to continue and hopefully get the situation resolved between all of us. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 14:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Third or So Statement by Volunteer

I don't think that I am moderating so much as trying to wrap this up. However, read the usual rules. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Do the remaining editors want an RFC? If so, we will have an RFC. Otherwise, we will close this discussion.

Third or So Statements by Editors

Comment: @Дрейгорич: What did you have in mind? As I see it where we seem to be going is to retain the status quo—noting each of us may have differing views on the Group 3 question (which is fine)—and await the outcome of the IUPAC Group 3 project's deliberations. Sandbh (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

If it comes down to "agree to disagree", I'd be okay with that. I wonder if the most neutral option would be to remove all 15 from La-Lu and render them outside the table. I'd be okay with that, as much as I'd prefer an Lu table. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 03:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

That suggestion (a Sc-Y-*-** table in the terms we talk about here) seems like a reasonable compromise for now, as it is what both IUPAC and NIST ("here".) currently show on their websites. It is not, however, what WP currently uses (which is Sc-Y-La-Ac). Thus we may still need a WP:RfC, which could be phrased in very limited terms to say that the proposal for WP is to move to Sc-Y-*-** until IUPAC's project comes to a conclusion. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we can compromise and prefer moving to a Sc-Y-*-** table. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel there is no dispute. The current situation is an outcome of prolonged discussions at WP:ELEMENTS over many years, predating your involvement, Дрейгорич and Michael. Double sharp and I have the deepest knowledge of all the issues, including the history of the form of periodic table appearing on WP. I understand R8R followed our discussions closely. Your involvement is welcome, however.

Let us recall the table appearing on the IUAPC site is neither endorsed nor recommended by them. The PTs appearing on the Royal Society of Chemistry site and the German Chemical Society site are the La form.

Double sharp sought to change the current situation. There was an RFC. It was withdrawn the next day. Double sharp was considering another RFC. He has now said he will not proceed with it. The IUPAC Group 3 project will make a report. I have a feeling there will not be that long to wait.

Double sharp has withdrawn from WP:ELEMENTS. R8R commented above, "Like Sandbh, I see no strong case for a change in the English Wikipedia." I don't always agree with R8R but I respect, what seems to me, his always well-considered contributions.

As a relatively long-standing member of WP:ELEMENTS I've made (perhaps more than) my share of WP:BOLD suggestions for change; some get up; some don't.

Scerri recently (2020) acknowledged the La form is the most popular. He is the chair of the IUPAC group 3 project. That said, he personally supports Lu, most importantly noting he distinguishes between his role as the project chair, and his personal views.

At this time, I see no imminent need nor sufficient merit in changing the form of PT currently shown in the lead and main body of the our periodic table article. Sandbh (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps that is so. We might end up following Scerri here. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 16:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything further to say (unless I'm addressed directly for a question), so with that, I think we can agree to disagree and withdraw the dispute? ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 02:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be for the best for the time being.--R8R (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps so. Nice dealing with this issue and at least for us, deciding on "retain the status quo". ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 21:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Bob Crane

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 0mtwb9gd5wx on 03:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Bob Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk · contribs) David notMD (talk · contribs) FlightTime (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I researched and documented how Bob Crane became the biggest DJ in LA, prior to "Hogan's Heroes". This shows how he became "notable". Two users claim this is trivia, and repeatedly delete my researched improvements, while failing to discuss the details of my many additions. I wish to restore my improvements, and dissuade two users from block deletes. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? A recent extensive discussion is not possible because David notMD and FlightTime refuse to participate. See Talk:Bob Crane and User talk:0mtwb9gd5wx How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Encourage David notMD and FlightTime to discuss my improvements or insist they desist from block deletions on Bob Crane. Summary of dispute by David notMD Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by FlightTime Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Bob Crane 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.

Israel

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by TheEpicGhosty on 00:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheEpicGhosty (talk · contribs)
• HelpHelper (talk · contribs)
• Aroma Stylish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I made the following edit to the lede of the article page for Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&oldid=971386148

"The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons including: its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal, Israeli civilian settlements built on lands occupied by Israel, the Judaization of Jerusalem as observed by the United Nations under Israeli sovereignty of the city, its targeted killings program, widespread racism despite broad anti-discrimination laws within the country, observed human rights abuses and violations, and an alleged manifestation of an apartheid regime."

It lasted for just over two hours, before getting reverted due to apparent POV violations. I merely included information already present on Wikipedia within the main article further down and on other associated Wikipedia pages. In response, I was harassed and threatened by another user named HelpHelper (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Edit_war_attempts_being_made_by_Anti-Semetic_Websites_like_4chan). The harassment and threats are seen in the ibb screenshots that I included in the talk page (https://ibb.co/RDnmVD9, https://ibb.co/gFzBKyC, https://ibb.co/zRHPPd8, https://ibb.co/g90Rgm1, https://ibb.co/F7b7grw, https://ibb.co/rwvJf2d, https://ibb.co/M67Lpmr, https://ibb.co/N7twLNs). The last link shows proof that these posts came from HelpHelper.

In addition, my mention of criticisms of Saudi Arabia in the lede for that article also got reverted, after about a year of standing, with no doubt dozens of reviews within that timespan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&oldid=970828191

I would like to challenge both of these reverts. In particular, the revert of my paragraph on Israel's lede came right after a vicious stream of virulent harassment and hatred directed towards me, particularly because I am Muslim. Please review these incidents thoroughly. I will be happy to provide any additional info.

Thank you,

TheEpicGhosty

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Edit_war_attempts_being_made_by_Anti-Semetic_Websites_like_4chan

I attempted to reason with HelpHelper on 4chan, to no avail, and I was greeted with hateful comments and downright lies about my character and beliefs.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would much appreciate if my reverts were to be re-instated, or if at least a ruling was issued that would allow me to undo said reverts. I know this is nor the purview of this Noticeboard, but if HelpHelper could be referred to an administrator or moderator from this channel, I would be very grateful.

Summary of dispute by HelpHelper

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

Summary of dispute by Aroma Stylish

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

Israel discussion

Here is EpicGhostly's thread on 4chan that he is using to raid Wikipedia. You can see his true motives and calls for further vandalism https://boards.*chan.org/pol/thread/271298412 (replace * with 4) Wordbearer88 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I never called for vandalism in any capacity. You cannot attribute the actions of other people to me. This was never a raid. Any objective observer would determine that. I merely told them that I had made such an edit. Actually, I had made the post in RESPONSE to people talking about Wikipedia being biased. I hoped that if they saw that my post stayed up, they would at least reserve such judgement. Alas, it has been taken down.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

note from moderator

dont accuse other editors of making posts on other sites. that isnt our area. also i will volunteer to take this case. do you have any objections? PS have the other editors been notified on their talk pages? Clone commando sev (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I missed the template regarding informing them that this is here. I apologize for that. Where could I find it? And regarding your policy on posts on other sites- I understand, and I would assume it also applies to their accusations of a "raid", correct? Also, I have no objection to you taking the case.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

One last quick note: HelpHelper accused me of being an anti-semite ON Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Edit_war_attempts_being_made_by_Anti-Semetic_Websites_like_4chan "The fact that you've admitted to engaging in this war is very concerning. This seems like a deliberate attempt to spread your anti Semetic ideology."TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that it's really unnecessary for me to be involved in this. However, if my input is necessary I do not think this is a good faith edit. It suffers from severe one-sidededness. HelpHelper (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And your remark about me having an anti-semitic ideology was unnecessary. Alas, you can believe all you want about my intentions. But I made a similar edit to Saudi Arabia's lede, and was getting around to making one for Iran's lede.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

the template is at the top of the page. it is in the text box. just copy and paste that onto their talk page. as for the policy on raid accusations, yes. those are not good and are very serious. don't throw them around. and as for the anti semite accusation, this effectively becomes a conduct dispute of the accusers part if those are continued or any other insult is added. lets keep this strictly about the edit, @HelpHelper, do you have a reason for the revert other than "it is anti semetic"?. PS dont forget to indent your messages with : . Clone commando sev (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC) oh and here are the rules. note this is an essay so not all moderators will follow this. i personally do mostly so i should probably put this here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DRNA&redirect=no Clone commando sev (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Clone commando sev for your input. I shall wait for either party to post here- I have notified both via their talk pages, and they should be aware from the discussion on Israel's Talk Page.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative to edit the original lede edit's text for the Israel page. Here is my revised idea:

"The state has attracted criticism for its policy regarding territories occupied by it, its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal, and its targeted killings program among other reasons."

I hope this will be sufficient to quash the question of this particular edit. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Arameans

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MixedButHumann on 17:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Arameans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MixedButHumann (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Arameans are a still existing nation from the Middle East. There is an ongoing edit war with User:Mugsalot who rejects every single neutral academic source and rejects the Arameans to include information about their nowadays existence. On the discussion page, the user rejects to hold a further discussion and also rejects to reply to all the sources that are given. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I added a Wikipedia admin to the discussion page who unfortunetaly didn’t had a specific opinion on the issues. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? By allowing the page about Arameans to also include information about their modern identity. Arameans 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:Persecution of_Christians#Nazi_section

– New discussion.

Filed by Jenhawk777 on 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Persecution of Christians#Nazi section (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jenhawk777 (talk · contribs)
• Objective3000 (talk · contribs)
• Slatersteven (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This section is largely unsourced and does not accurately reflect what sources say fully. It gives undue weight by mentioning part of what sources say and omitting the rest. I want to add sources, and I want those sources represented with a more complete content. However, this entire discussion may be off-topic for this page. I get consistent opposition to anything I propose, without referencing sources, without offers of compromise or responses to my offer of compromise, and no efforts at collaboration. I am very frustrated and didn't know what else to do but ask for help. Help!

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

This is my first effort after the effort on the Talk page: [6]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am hoping for some direction to the others to make the effort to collaborate--or an opinion on whether this is off topic--or an opinion on what should be included--or anything that might break up the log jam. I'm getting nothing right now so anything you offer will be an improvement.

Summary of dispute by Objective3000

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

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven

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

Talk:Persecution of_Christians#Nazi_section discussion

Good day, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to volunteer for this case. To begin with- Each person involved needs to be notified on their talk page by the filing editor. Once that happens, we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nightenbelle: Thank you so much! Is there a template I am supposed to use for that, or do I just go to their talk age and tell them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

So I tried to answer my own question in an effort to be less of a nuisance, and couldn't find that such a template exists, so I just went and told them on their talk pages and gave them this link. I hope that's okay, I am still a relative newcomer and this is the first time I've attempted this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

TheDonald.win

– New discussion.

Filed by Adil3214 on 19:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• TheDonald.win (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Adil3214 (talk · contribs)
• Domeditrix (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing debate on the talk page over whether or not the website should be listed as "far-right."

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

[7]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you guys can help by simply deciding whether or not the article should be labeled as "far-right." The source Domeditrix used to justify the "far-right" label is paywalled, so I am unable to debate him properly. Also, he has not answered my request for a quote from the article to prove his point, which is odd, considering he typically replies very quickly.

Summary of dispute by Domeditrix

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

Not sure why I've been 'summoned' here, honestly, but I'll enter in good faith despite the fact that this user has not commented even once on my talk page (I have not been notified of this dispute resolution request), nor I on theirs. This 'dispute' has also been ongoing for less than 24 hours. So regardless of the substance, I think it extremely premature for this to end up here. Anyway, I gave a direct quote from the article in question on the talk page here (diff1). As we all know, a source being paywalled isn't enough to disqualify it – indeed, this is one of only two reliable sources talking about the subject in any detail, which has led to the article being nominated for deletion. Furthermore, I have already explained (albeit to a different user) on the same talk page that I am unable to assist editors in bypassing paywalls that websites have put up (diff2). There is clearly value in giving other users more than 24 hours to chime in, instead of rushing an administrator into making a conclusion. Domeditrix (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

TheDonald.win discussion

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

Nick Berg

– New discussion.

Filed by Grufo on 23:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Nick Berg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grufo (talk · contribs)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Vice regent has removed twice a direct quotation from the article, the first time using a misleading edit summary (“added The Guardian”), the second time, after my disagreement, stating that “it is not clear what the quotation adds that the paraphrase doesn't already include”.

Before their intervention (edit summary: “added The Guardian”) the paragraph looked like this:

During the video, the man reading the statement threatens further deaths: "We tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way." The video further threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Currently it looks like this:

During the video, the man reading the statement said the killing was in revenge for the abuse at Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and threatens further deaths. The video also threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

I believe that the removal of the sentence has the effect of impoverishing Wikipedia's accurate report of information. And, by reducing the space given to the “further threats”, has the apologetic effect of unbalancing the quotation towards America's Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, although the latter have no actual part in the death of Nick Berg.

Despite my concerns, user Vice regent has only presented as argument that he does not see what an original quotation would add to the page.

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

Talk:Nick Berg#Removal_of_direct_quotation

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you guys can help taking a balanced decision and participate in the discussion.

Summary of dispute by Vice regent

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

Nick Berg discussion

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