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
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	12 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 hours
Tuner (radio)	In Progress	Andrevan (t)	8 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 14 hours	Kvng (t)	1 days, 16 hours
Wolf	In Progress	Nagging Prawn (t)	3 days, 21 hours	NotAGenious (t)	16 hours	Nagging Prawn (t)	3 hours
Barb horse	Closed	TahaKahi (t)	2 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 8 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	New	Randomstaplers (t)	1 hours	None	n/a	Randomstaplers (t)	1 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 05:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

PragerU

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Noteduck on 07:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute PragerU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Noteduck (talk · contribs) Shinealittlelight (talk · contribs) Springee (talk · contribs) MasterTriangle12 (talk · contribs) Hipal (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Unflattering facts repeatedly questioned and deleted, result is false balance and whitewashing by omission. "Critiques of videos" Prager controversies repeatedly deleted: PragerU vids with Owen Benjamin backed by 3 journalistic sources [1] PragerU vid on Robert E. Lee, backed by 2 journalistic sources[2] PragerU vid with Douglas Murray backed by 4 sources[3] PragerU's known[4] links to far right repeatedly deleted despite 2 academic sources[5]. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC) The 3 eds often deleting material-Springee, Shinealittlelight and Hipal (formerly User:Ronz)-have edited this page since May 2017(Hipal/Ronz)[6], (Feb 2019) Shinealittlelight[7], Sep 2019 (Springee)[8] Hipal clearly has preoccupation with editing [[PragerU and Dennis Prager pages. Their talk page history has many mentions of PragerU,eg one of many here[9][10] Nearly 200 edits of PragerU page by Hipal (and 100+ on Dennis Prager page) much of it revs of new material. False balance is real problem. I contend there's partisan desire to remove unflattering facts. Can provide much more relevant evidence from talk page + archives How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Arbitration request, which was premature and I apologise,arbitrators suggested going to DRB[11] attempt at BRD compromise, but I maintain result was very unsatisfactory[12] endless to and fro on page, see [13] many revisions, counter-revisions eg[14] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? This page is unsalvageable - there is endless debate about what is due weight for inclusion, what sources are reliable, why material shouldn't be included. I believe result is status quo stonewalling, misunderstanding of consensus policy, whitewashing of PragerU controversies by omission. I believe mediators will agree when presented with full range of evidence. I believe controversial page like this have full admin protection if consensus cannot be reached, which unfortunately is likely Summary of dispute by Shinealittlelight I'm happy to participate, but I don't see a content proposal here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Springee Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with Hipal. Coming here with the assumption that a content dispute is due to issues other than RS, WEIGTH etc will make it hard to reach an amicable resolution. Springee (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MasterTriangle12 This dispute is about what is considered DUE and what is considered a RS. There are many specific additions that are caught up in this but it is primarily a dispute about whether criticism of the content produced by PragerU from widely respected sources is notable enough to be added to the page. PragerU is a highly controversial entity and has garnered massive criticism for their content, I do not believe that the extent of this should be diminished on their Wikipedia page. The addition I was attempting to make was a single sentence in the introduction referencing the large amount of criticism that has been levied at PragerU for the content they produce, the discussion of this is found here. In this discussion the only reasonable issues I (self) identified was a possible problem with synthesis since I was making the claim that criticism was widespread by referencing several respectable sources, although a few specifically mentioned the claim I was synthesising, and the wording possibly being too harsh. But these were not why it was blocked, there was a belief that all the sources were either of "low quality" or their commentary could not be used due to bias, I believed the claims to that effect were poorly supported, but my refutation of these claims was barely engaged with. I have only had a little engagement with some of the other content discussions that were mentioned by Noteduck, but despite the different content it seems the disputes are very similar in scope and extent. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Hipal Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not sure if I'll participate if Noteduck cannot more closely follow our behavioral policies. I've found it an incredible waste of time to try to educate new editors on content policy when behavior policy is not being followed first. If Noteduck's opening comments here are not heavily refactored, I don't see how we can make any progress. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and witchhunts tend to end poorly. So far, what I can make of the dispute is that a new editor, Noteduck, is unhappy with the PragerU and related articles, and is having a very difficult time understanding how Wikipedia works (eg the roles of admins, what are reliable sources, how to work to create consensus). I'm happy to refactor this statement to more focus on the content issues, but at this point I don't see how we can move beyond behavior. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC) PragerU discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (Prager) As we and the arbitrators have agreed, I will mediate this dispute. This does not mean that I will decide on content; I will not decide on content, which will be decided in one of two ways by consensus. I will address one comment by the filing party up front. The filing party writes: "I believe controversial page like this have full admin protection if consensus cannot be reached, which unfortunately is likely". The article will not be locked. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We will try to achieve consensus in either of two ways. The preferred way is by compromise. The alternate way is by a Request for Comments. Read the usual rules. I will repeat some of them. Do not reply to each other, except in the space marked Back-and-forth discussion, and we will not necessarily pay any attention to back-and-forth discussion. Reply to me and to the community (and I am the spokesman for the community and for the arbitrators). Be civil and concise. Some of the statements made have been too long to understand. Very long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so we will talk about the article. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. (If you edit the article while discussion is in progress, I may request that you be partially blocked, locked from editing the article.) Each editor is asked to state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same. If you need more than one paragraph to say how you want to improve the article, you may create a subpage, or you may explain on your talk page. Keep your statements here concise. Make your statements in First statements by editors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Collapsed to save space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC) First statements by editors (Prager) The bare bones of my complaint are that that this page is a whitewashing of controversial aspects of PragerU by omission. For ease of reading I won't add links to specific past talk page discussions or edit histories at this point but will happily do so upon request. I believe core issues here are false balance, status quo stonewalling and misuse of principles of undue weight and consensus - yes I have read said principles. Inclusion of material in the "critiques of videos" section of PragerU seems completely arbitrary. References to Prager vid on Douglas Murray greatly shortened without basis. References to PragerU vids with Owen Benjamin removed unjustly. References to PragerU Robert E. Lee vid removed unjustly. References to PragerU links to far-right removed without basis. "Reception" and "critiques of videos" far too short. Note that "Conflicts with YouTube and Facebook" subheading more sympathetic to Prager is 7290 characters (493 words) (per character count tool). By contrast "critiques of videos" section is just 3635 characters (370 words), "reception" is 5121 characters (465 words). Sources removed include references to: Journalistic sources: Washington Post, Mother Jones, The Australian, Los Angeles Times, VPM radio interview with renowned political scientist Larry Sabato Think tank or academic sources: Southern Poverty Law Center, academic journal Interface: A Journal on Social Movements, extensive reports by University of North Carolina professor Francesca Tripodi at non-profit research project (something like a think think tank) Data & Society, Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative (an extensively-staffed academic research project intended to discuss Islamophobia And yes, I note that SOME material from Tripodi's reports has survived on the page, but too little. Good journalistic and academic sources removed on seemingly arbitrary basis - eg I can't see any reason why reference to Snopes is on PragerU page while above sources aren't. Only consistent feature of material removed is that it could be perceived as unflattering to PragerU. I fail to see why widely reported criticisms of PragerU from reliable journalistic or academic sources don't belong on this page. Removal of material so arbitrary that partisan bias only realistic basis. Looking forward to responses Noteduck (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Prager) User:Noteduck, User:Hipal - Both of you! Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. A discussion at another noticeboard about another article is not important here. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article in question, not to discuss other editors. User:Noteduck - What you said above appears to be a long complaint. Can you state, in one paragraph, what you want changed or left the same? If you have a long list of changes, please create a subpage, or a section on your talk page. What do you want changed? User:Hipal - What do you want changed, or left the same? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Prager) Third statement by moderator (Prager) User:Noteduck - Your statement is one thousand words shorter than your statement to the ArbCom. It is still hard to tell what you want changed. We know that you think that there is false balance. We know that you either think that material should be removed or that material should be added. So: Put everything in bullet-point fashion. Make a list of items that you think should be changed. Put it in a form such as: 1. Change X to Y. 2. Delete A. 3. Add B. Put it in list form. Do not cite policies and guidelines. The objective is to improve the article, not to discuss how to improve articles in the future. If you can't explain what specific changes you want made, the rest of us can't figure out what changes you want made. So provide a list of items. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Third statements by editors (Prager) This is the minimum I believe needs to be done in terms of content: restore paragraph on Douglas Murray "The Suicide of Europe" Prager vid in full restore paragraph based on PragerU vid "The Charlottesville Lie" in full restore material on PragerU platforming far-right activists restore material based on Data & Society think tank in full restore paragraph on Owen Benjamin vids restore paragraph on Robert E. Lee vid Note that this is without links to previous versions of the page or talk page content history, all of which can be provided on request. My other problem relates to ongoing problems on page regarding stonewalling, false balance, undue weight and consensus not being unanimity - but perhaps these are outside the scope of the current complaint Noteduck (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Prager) User:Noteduck has identified six specific items that they would like restored or added to the article. (It doesn't matter whether they were deleted or were never in the article.) If other editors agree to restore the material, then we have agreement. If not, then the question is whether Noteduck wants a multi-point RFC on whether to restore or add the items. Do you want an RFC on whether to restore the items? User:Noteduck raises general questions about undue weight, false balance, and other concerns. We don't discuss such concerns in general form at DRN. Please see Be Specific at DRN. If you think that another editor's conduct is problematic, you can report them at a conduct forum, such as WP:ANI (but be careful going to conduct forums). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Prager) Statement by Hipal Without better indication of exactly what changes are being proposed and what discussion has been made around those changes, then I don't see how we can make any progress as far as content is concerned. This is basic consensus making. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC) . Statement by Shinealittlelight I agree with Hipal that "better indication of exactly what changes are being proposed" is needed, including proposed text and sourcing. If the paragraphs that Noteduck wants added were reverted, then please provide diffs. If they are new text, then please provide the proposed text with sources. Otherwise I have no idea what is being proposed, and I do not agree with Robert's statement that Noteduck has identified six specific items that they would like restored or added to the article. There is no specificity here as I see it, so I can't say whether I agree or not. There was a whirlwind of edits over the days before this drn case, and some proposals were made as compromises. So it's really hard to tell what Noteduck has in mind without specifics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator (Prager) Noteduck has asked to restore or add six items. Other editors have asked for details as to what the six items are. So Noteduck is requested to provide links showing exactly what the six items are. Diffs are not required, except that a diff is sometimes the best way to provide a link. Putting the six items on a subpage or in paragraphs on a user page or user talk page would be one way to do this. After the six items are provided, I will determine where we go from here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Prager) Statement by Noteduck Note that I've added a seventh point - that a header for PragerU addressing its controversial nature be restored. The text underneath the following 7 subheadings has all been copied without any changes directly from the PragerU page history. I believe this is the MINIMUM I believe needs to be done. Virtually every one of these has been fought over extensively in the talk page or in reversals, so there may be a deluge of contestations. Note 1: I've observed that (5) and (7) need to be amended. (5) should be amended as to all appearances PragerU was not aware of Benjamin's neo-Nazi tendencies when he made those videos and this should be mentioned. As for (7), the statement is accurate and a header is essential but additional sources need to be added. A bevy of good sources, both academic and non-academic, link Prager to the far-right[15], in addition to propaganda and disinformation, so there's no reason to restrict it to the one source. PragerU is extremely controversial and is a target of frequent criticism from journalistic and academic sources, and there's no reason to excise material just because it's unflattering. Note 2: I suspect (6) might be most contested. Note that HillReporter is a journalistic source with editorship[16] and that several other sources reported similar things about the Robert E. Lee video[17][18][19] 1. Restore paragraph on Douglas Murray "The Suicide of Europe" Prager vid in full A 2018 video about immigration to Europe presented by author Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'. Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric" but that the video wasn't fascist or white nationalist. The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right", while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right". Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[20]. For discussion on talk page see References 2. Restore paragraph on video "The Charlottesville Lie" in full The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. Tim Murphy in Mother Jones called the video an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected Cortes' notion, saying that "Anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand". Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump. Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[21] References 3. Restore material on PragerU platforming far-right activists PragerU has drawn scrutiny for platforming controversial figures including the far-right activists Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos and Stefan Molyneux. Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[22] References 4. Restore material from Data & Society /> PragerU's videos are often highly visible and accessible, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute finding that a YouTube search for the keywords "social justice" returned a PragerU video that was highly critical of the concept as the first result. Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[23] References 5. Restore, but alter material about PragerU's videos with Owen Benjamin PragerU produced two videos featuring comedian, conspiracy monger, and holocaust denier Owen Benjamin in spring 2018. One video has Benjamin suggesting that right-wingers not argue with left-wingers. Varied parties have criticized PragerU for spreading Benjamin's views, including conservative writer Bethany Mandel and writers at Media Matters and the Southern Poverty Law Center. By early 2019, the videos had accumulated over five million views. Revision as of 02:38, 19 November 2020 (view source) (thank)[24]. For discussion on talk page References 6. Restore material about PragerU's Robert E. Lee video In November 2020, PragerU uploaded a video titled "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine.[25] Note that while this wording is mine[26] this was not unilateral but a synthesis of contributions by myself and other editors on the talk page, see[27] References 7. Restore, but reword header including some of the criticisms frequently directed at PragerU The company has been frequently criticised for the content they produce, being accusing of flawed historical revisionism, propagandistic teaching style, and misrepresentation of facts and concepts. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=989318856&oldid=989182802 References Statement by Shinealittlelight Maybe we can take these one at a time? The first item (the one about Murray) misquotes Pitcavage, fails to summarize the Murray video under discussion, and uses a redundant Bridge reference. Kotch is also apparently misquoted, and the quote of Kotch's opinion is not attributed to him. I do not think that the opinion of Kotch, a mostly unknown journalist writing for a website ("Sludge") that few people have heard of, is DUE. So I think the quote from him--even if it were corrected to be an accurate quote and attributed--should not be included. Finally, the proposed content misquotes Halper's piece in LAT. It never says "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right". Those words do not occur in the piece. We need to be careful to understand how quotation marks work! On the talk page, I had suggested the following version in light of these points: A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate.[LAT] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that although he does not regard the video as being fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric."[SLUDGE] The SPLC described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right."[SPLC] Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The second item (about the Cortes video). This is awkwardly written. It slightly mischaracterizes Cortes's claim about "journalistic malfeasance" (the piece in this context refers only to neo-Nazis, not white supremacists). It attributes the headline of the MJ piece to the author of the piece; this is just incorrect since authors rarely write their own headlines. In fact, the MJ piece says very little about the video itself; it just characterizes the video as a part of a broader attempt on the part of Trump's allies to "delegitimize “the media,” defend his most militant supporters, and cast the president’s opponents as violent radicals." The quote from Sabato does not refer to Cortes specifically, but says that "Anybody who tries to pretend that he wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand." Our previous source does not have Cortes talking about "white nationalists" but only about "neo-Nazis". Are we to assume that these are the same? Seems SYNTHy to me. The reference to Prager is a primary source; the Washington Examiner is not RS. I'm not opposed to including something about the Cortes video, but this proposal is a non-starter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The third item (about platforming alt-right figures) uses two sources, one by Kriegal and the D&S piece by Tripodi. The Kriegal piece simply refers to the Tripodi piece, so it is redundant. The Tripodi piece never says that PragerU "platformed" these figures. That's entirely made up. What it says is that "Prager’s amplification strategy also regularly promotes the ideas of white nationalist thinkers". I think what she's getting at is something our article already contains: her claim that there are "algorithmic connections" (whatever that means) between PragerU and the alt-right on Youtube. It seems to me that what Noteduck is trying to say here is just the same thing as this, which is already in the article. I do think that "algorithmic connections" could use some clarification. What Tripodi means is that Youtube's programming ends up suggesting alt-right videos to people who watch PragerU videos. I don't know why we don't just say that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The fourth item (about YouTube search results) seems to me more about YouTube than about PragerU. In any case, the proposal mischaracterizes the source. What the source says is The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video... Ok, so "highly critical" is not in the source, nor is "first result". Again, I don't know why this is due anyway, but if it is DUE, we have to accurately summarize the source, which basically just says that the Goldberg video came up one time when the author searched "social Justice" on YouTube. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The fifth item (about Owen Benjamin) appeals to Media Matters, Jewish Telegraph Agency, and Rightwing Watch. This sourcing could hardly be weaker: these sources do not seem like RS for this content, and do not demonstrate that the material is DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The sixth item (about Lee) is not DUE, per the talk page. As explained there, the Hill Reporter (the proposed source for this content) does not appear to be RS, the author in question does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree. Finally, in any case, the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish DUE weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC) The seventh item (an addition to the lead) is something we can return to after we finish the changes to the body. The lead should follow the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Springee I think Shinealittlelight really hit on the issues here. This isn't a case of good content kept out because editors just don't like it. In every case there was a reasonable amount of talk page discussion explaining issues with the content. Springee (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Since sourcing has come up as one of the issues, I will note there is an on going RSN discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative which is one of the sources proposed for the PragerU article.[[28]] My read is the discussion is NOCONSENSUS regarding if the Bridge Initiative is a self published/primary source or a secondary RS. Noteduck feels consensus has been reached. Springee (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hipal I don't know why poor and outright unusable references are still being considered after they have been rejected, but no consensus is going to happen if this cannot be corrected. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (Prager) It is not necessary for other editors to refute any of the points that an editor has requested be included in the RFC. Discussion of the merits of those points can be done in discussion of the RFC after the RFC starts running. (If you have made a lengthy refutation here that you think will be useful when the RFC is started, you can copy your comments.) Please check whether any references are being rendered correctly. If there are Reference Errors, please either correct or delete the malformed references. If anyone wants to identify any more points to go in the RFC, please list them, and be specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors Statement by Hipal Multiple references have been argued to be poor if not outright unusable, and they are not confined to just what's currently at RSN. I expect editors to do more than simply repeat their previous comments without regard to rebuttals or other relevant discussion. Perhaps that's too much to expect, but in my experience rehashing like that is a serious behavior problem that stifles consensus-making. --Hipal (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (PragerU) One editor says that there is a behavior problem that stifles consensus-making. This appears to be in reply to my statement that it is not necessary to refute any requests with which you disagree. There is no harm done in disagreeing with the edit requests, but there is, in my opinion, no good done either. The Bold Revert Discuss cycle has not resulted in consensus, and further discussion does not appear to be likely to result in consensus. That is why the dispute will be resolved by a Request for Comments, which does establish consensus. We do not discuss behavior at DRN, or in an RFC, and ArbCom has agreed that resolving the content issue should mitigate the conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC) The draft of the RFC is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/PragerU RFC. If there are any other article changes to be addressed in the RFC, please identify them as soon as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (PragerU) Statement by Shinealittlelight So we're going to keep obvious errors (like for example the inaccurate quotes I pointed out) in the RfC, and no changes will be made to the proposals based on the points I made above? No changes to the proposed text from Noteduck whatsoever? Robert, I feel that I genuinely don't understand what we're doing here. Are you not charged with applying policy to the content of these RfCs at all? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by MasterTriangle12 Those quotes need to be fixed, but I'm sure Noteduck can do so easily since the meaning was not altered. Some of these additions seem quite necessary to me, others are a little tangential but are not out of place and might as well be considered. Bringing this to RFC seems most appropriate, it really needs wider input to sort this out. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hipal So we're moving on to preparing a huge RfC? RfC's of that size tend to be problematic in general. A number of small RfCs would go much better. Regardless, links to past discussions on the topics should be included. Basic verification and reliability issues should be addressed prior to any RfC. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Eighth statement by moderator (PragerU) User:Hipal asks whether we are planning on a large RFC or multiple smaller RFCs. I have prepared a draft for one large RFC because User:Noteduck provided me with a long list of changes that they want. Does User:Hipal have an idea for how to submit the RFC or RFCs? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC) User:Shinealittlelight says that some of the items in the RFC have errors. Please identify any correctible erros in the RFC that can be edited before the RFC is posted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC) It appears that the editors who oppose the changes to the article want me to act as a gatekeeper as to what changes can be discussed. That isn't my concept of how DRN works. Do the editors who oppose the additions want to stage the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Eighth statements by editors (PragerU) Sure, see my above comments where I identified the errors. I don't want you to be a gatekeeper. I want you to apply policy to formulating a reasonable RfC. I also want you to read my comments which frankly it appears you did not do. Shinealittlelight (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC) I don't see an issue with one big RfC. The alternative is the article gets flooded with RfCs. Conversely, if Noteduck would prefer to create their own RfCs rather than having Robert McClenon do it that is also fine with me. That doesn't mean I support the content, only that RfCs are, per typical content dispute resolutions, the way to move forward here. Springee (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC) We're already being flooded, while it's unclear if past discussions are being read or policy is being followed. I suggest we focus on one item of Noteduck's choice, and work on it until we agree that basic policy is being followed and relevant background identified. Then move on to others as we build the RfC. --Hipal (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Ninth statement by moderator (Prager) I acknowledge that I didn't initially read the comments by Shinealittlelight in detail. The comments were a combination of general disagreement and specific issues, and we should not be wasting preliminary time in restating the general issues. I have read them in more detail and will respond to them. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC) One editor wrote: "Quotes must be exact. Misquoting could be seen as evidence of serious behavioral problems." The first sentence is correct. Misquoting can have several causes, including various sorts of copying errors, or sloppiness. This noticeboard does not discuss editor behavior, and participants are expected to assume good faith. You may not reword text in a direct quotation. You may not, in this discussion, use errors in quotes to imply bad faith. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC) The first item needs to be reworded to be an exact quotation. Is Shine asking to reword the second through fourth items, or only disagreeing with them? Shine's comments on the fifth through seventh items are disagreements that can be addressed by disagreeing. Hipal wants to work on one of Noteduck's items and ensure that basic policy is followed. Which one? If you think that one of them can be improved, please offer a change. (Otherwise it seems that I am being asked to be a gatekeeper of discussion, and my plan is to let the RFC through the gate.) So. The quote in the first point must be corrected. Are there specific rewordings being requested for 2 through 4? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Ninth statements by editors (Prager) The quotations in item 1 have been amended as requested. I have (with help from MasterTriangle) written up edited versions of all 7 points of complaint that I believe are balanced, due and detailed (though there may still be revisions required) on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/PragerU RFC. The last item alone has several dozen references. Hipal has made vague complaints about policy not being followed but hasn't made substantive requests for changes. I find it quite baffling that some of the editors who are parties to this debate are not contributing but continue to actively post on the PragerU talk page.[29] The aim in taking this to the DRB was to improve the page and I've worked hard at that. If there are complaints about any of the 7 items, please voice them, and let's focus on working to make this a better page Noteduck (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shinealittlelight It's my understanding that I can continue to comment on the talk page during this; if that's not the case, let me know and I will withdraw from this process. In any case, I am unclear on the distinction you are drawing, Robert, between "disagreement" and (let's call it) useful feedback on the RfC. You seem to agree with me that we don't need an RfC to determine how quotation marks work. Great, that's progress I guess! I would tend to agree with you that the question of whether (for example) an opinion from Kotch--a journalist that most people have never heard of--is DUE might arguably be an RfC sort of question. So I can accept that if that's what you think, even though I think it isn't really hard to see that this is not DUE. But (again, for example) the claim that Kotch's opinion must be attributed to him in text seems to me an obvious point about policy that does not need an RfC. So shouldn't we be asking about a version of the material about Pitcavage that attributes to Kotch? I see that Noteduck has proposed such a version. As the moderator, would you like to weigh in on whether that's the version that's going to be used? I also proposed (following a suggestion from Springee) that we should include a summary of the content of the video drawn from the LAT piece. Should that be included? Again, this does not seem like an RfC dispute; it seems obvious that it's just an improvement in the proposal to include a description of the content of the video following such a source as the LAT. If I'm right about all this, the first RfC just needs to ask whether the Kotch quote is DUE. The rest would not then be in dispute, and should not be part of the RfC. I've got more to say about the other items, but I'm going to wait and see how you respond to this before spending more time. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hipal I repeat my request to Noteduck: Please pick one item that you feel best meets the basic policies of WP:V and WP:RS so we can review it in depth against those policies and all relevant discussion and consensus. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Tenth statement by moderator (Prager) There seem to be a few questions now about what overall approach we are taking to mediating this content dispute. This mediation began when Noteduck made some edits to the article which were reverted. Noteduck then made a good-faith but mistaken request for arbitration, and I offered to mediate the content dispute. Noteduck has the right (as does any editor) to file a Request for Comments. Noteduck then proposed seven changes to the article, and I put these proposed changes into the form of a draft RFC. Questions were then raised about the accuracy of the points in the draft RFC, and some editing has been done on the draft RFC. Now there seem to be different ideas as to how to continue with the mediation. Hipal wants to select one item and work on it and be sure that policy is followed. I am willing to work on one item at a time in putting together the RFC if Noteduck is willing to take this approach. However, Noteduck has the right to have their proposed changes sent forward as an RFC if they wish. Shinealittlelight: Are there now any items in the draft RFC that you are ready to have published in an RFC? Noteduck: Are you withdrawing item 3? So are we down to six items? What I will do at this point is to step back for three days and allow the editors to talk back-and-forth and see if they can agree on how to go forward. There can be back-and-forth discussion in the Tenth Statements section. Editing the draft RFC is also permitted. If this works, then it works. If this does not result in agreement as to how to go forward, I will take control again. Tenth statements by editors (Prager) No, I do not think any of the RfCs are currently well-formed. I tried to engage with the moderator about why the first one is not well-formed and he has decided not to engage with me. Thus, I do not know what I am doing here. If Noteduck would like to respond to my last statement, I would be glad to try to make progress. I sure am glad that I didn't spend more time on my last comment, since it seems to have been disregarded. If I'm just going to be talking to Noteduck, I don't know why we aren't just on the article talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I'm OK with either. A series of RfCs is a bit of a pain and tended to flood the uninvolved editors but it also helps keep the discussion more focused. The alternative is the big all in one. That could result in a messy close but it's also less likely to get a consensus for inclusion. Since I think all of these edits were problematic I have a perverse incentive to say go for all at once then as it's likely to not result in a consensus to include the whole mess. Perhaps the best option would be for Robert McClenon to help Noteduck learn how to write a single, focused, RfC. Once that one is going then Noteduck would be able to add more RfCs as needed. This is a content dispute but also a dispute due to Noteduck's lack of experience. One thing that helps build experience is going through the RfC process. Springee (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I am not sure what the etiquette with RfCs is but I think Noteduck might be able to correct the problems with the quotes directly rather than just add suggestions? Please correct this if I am wrong though. Shinealittlelight should put forward some sort of proposed content about a "summary of the content of the video drawn from the LAT piece", either here to discuss it's insertion into the RfC, or into the discussion on the RfC page, I looked around in the previous statements and the article and but don't know what this is talking about, sorry if it was brought up earlier but I can't comment. This proposals are disparate enough that multiple RfCs are certainly needed, but I could see a few of them being combined without conflicting them, maybe next time since it's not too critical here. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I don't want multiple RfCs. The aim in bringing this dispute forward was improving the PragerU page by ending what I contend is a pattern of partisan deletions and stonewalling on the page, and I don't want to get dragged down in extended arguments over minor points. There was an attempt by Robert to build consensus at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/PragerU RFC but several of the involved editors showed no interest in contributing despite continuing to post here and on the PragerU talk page. Here are some of the revised versions of the items presented on that RfC based on contributions by MasterTriangle and myself (I don't believe anybody else contributed, though Hipal offered criticisms). Note that item 3 has been discarded for now. I am not saying that each of these items is perfect and may not warrant further revisions, but there is a huge body of worthy source material here based on mainstream (mostly)journalistic assessments of PragerU's work which warrants inclusion on the page. Yes, the quotes in the Douglas Murray passage have been rearranged. Remember, it's not enough to simply assert that there is no consensus or that a source is unusable - let's work together to improve the PragerU page please. The revised edits so far: Revised item 1 The 2018 video "The Suicide of Europe" about immigration to Europe, presented by author Douglas Murray drew criticism in the media, with Sludge's Alex Kotch contending that the video's "rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'". Kotch interviewed Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, who said that while he didn't consider the video fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right", while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right. Revised item 2 The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. The Forward's Aiden Pink and Mother Jones' Tim Murphy criticised the video, with Murphy calling it an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected the notion that Trump was not referring to the far right with his "both sides" remark, saying that "anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists [at Charlottesville] is simply putting their head in the sand". Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump. Revised item 4 PragerU's videos on controversial topics are often highly visible and accessible through YouTube's search engine, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute noting that a YouTube search for "social justice" returned the PragerU video "What is social justice?" that was highly critical of the concept as the first result. Revised item 5 PragerU received criticism for producing two videos in 2018 featuring comedian Owen Benjamin, who had attracted controversy for mocking Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg, making racist and homophobic slurs in his material, and promoting conspiracy theories. In February 2019, Benjamin attracted negative publicity for making anti-semitic remarks, and in April 2019 the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Bethany Mandel reported that he had made a "full-blown descent into Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism", while noting that his appearances on PragerU had helped him "maintain a limited degree of visibility in the conservative world. PragerU later removed their videos with Benjamin from their website and from YouTube. Revised item 6 In November 2020, PragerU attracted criticism for its video "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine.[30] Revised item 7 The accuracy and reliability of PragerU's videos has been extensively questioned, with several sources referring to PragerU videos as containing propaganda and misinformation. Specific criticisms levelled at PragerU videos have included the claims that they perpetuate views associated with the far-right or alt-right, contain controversial speakers, including those linked to the far right, promote racism and Islamophobia, promote misleading information related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and contain misleading information related to climate change. Noteduck (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to make my comments here as per Robert's instructions. Given that the JTA is a well-established mainstream media source and Bethany Mandel is an experienced and accomplished journalist,[31] I think substantive arguments are needed as to why this source should not be included. There are three additional sources referring to the PragerU videos with Owen Benjamin, by the way. For those who didn't see it, this was my previous response to Hipal: :I don't accept that the JTA piece is poor and I don't believe the rebuttals on the talk page established that it is. Can you make your case as to why it shouldn't be included? Noteduck Noteduck (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Hipal, the Jewish Telegraph Agency is a storied and credible source and Bethany Mandel is a highly experienced journalist with a formidable resume who has written for multiple high-profile publications[32], and she is particularly known for her work on Jewish issues and anti-semitism. Yes it's an opinion piece, but all the Mandel source is used for is making two fairly incontrovertible points (1) that Owen Benjamin is an anti-semite (2) that his appearances on PragerU helped him maintain some visibility in the conservative world. The piece is highly detailed and coherently written, extensively sourced, and actually reached out to Benjamin for comment. The source is clearly attributed and not in Wiki's voice, and there are four other sources in the paragraph, each of which aligns with the Mandel article. Benjamin's videos for PragerU received 5.4 million views.[33] I'm not sure what universe we're in if PragerU making videos in spring 2018 with someone who was exposed as an anti-semite in October of that year[34] and later as a holocaust denier(!) doesn't belong on their page, especially when 5 sources have reported on it. Anyway, your turn to offer a substantive rebuttal Noteduck (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hipal Please remove the opinion piece published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency per the article talk page discussions and comments here. What other references are similarly poor and need removal before this can move on? --Hipal (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I don't accept that the JTA piece is poor and I don't believe the rebuttals on the talk page established that it is. Can you make your case as to why it shouldn't be included? Noteduck (talk) 01:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC) I've made my case based upon policy multiple times. Why am I asked to do so again? This is a waste of time. If there's no policy-based reason for inclusion, it should not be. If the RfC is so weakly based upon following policy, it will be rejected. --Hipal (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Statement by Springee In reply to Hipal's comment above, I agree the use of an OpEd from the JTA was a problem. However, as I said before this simply makes the RfC question weaker and more likely to be rejected. If I were on the other side of this content dispute I would want to make my RfC's as strong as possible. Springee (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Eleventh statement by moderator I have prepared a revised draft RFC. I am prepared to post it, so that we can then see if there are any other issues, or I can make it available for one final review. I don't want what happened with the last draft RFC, which was a premature argument about the merits of the points in the RFC. Do you want me to go ahead and post the RFC, or to provide a draft copy of the RFC for comments, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Eleventh statements by editors Noteduck Hi Robert - yep, I'm happy to see the new revised draft RfC. Noteduck (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Shinealittlelight Springee Hipal I'm against the RfC because poor if not unreliable sources are still being used and the basic policy of WP:RS appears to be ignored, as have the basic instructions for behavior here. [35][36] [37]. If we can't agree on references, we're not going to agree on anything that's based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC) MasterTriangle . Twelfth Statement by Moderator (Prager) One editor objects to the RFC because they state that the sources are unreliable. The reliability of the sources is one of the issues to be determined by the RFC. If the community agrees to accept the additions, that implies that the community is accepting the reliability of the sources. Conversely, other editors can argue that the sources are unreliable as a reason to omit the proposed additions. I will be adding a draft of the revised RFC for information purposes only. Please do not !vote in the Survey until it is moved to the talk page and becomes a real RFC. It will be at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Draft Prager RFC (which is presently the header only) . Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Twelfth Statements by Editors (Prager) Noteduck Hipal As presented, this will be a typical, if lengthy RfC not focused on discussion but on simple approval/disapproval of each proposal. We can expect superficial voting and little discussion. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. This attempt at moderated dispute resolution demonstrates behavioral problems that continue [38] that are likely to undermine collaboration to reach policy-based consensus. Each and every reference should be individually identified in the RfC for discussion, so we can properly address reliability issues. The RfC should identify all relevant past discussions. The RfC should identify the specific content policies of concern. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Springee Shinealittlelight MasterTriangle Thirteenth statement by moderator (Prager) The RFC is running at Talk:Prager University. User:Hipal - You have the right to identify all past discussions, and to identify the specific content policies. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC) User:Noteduck had the right to put their own RFC forward, with or without my involvement. Behavioral problems may be reported at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Thirteenth statements by editors (Prager) Back-and-forth discussion You can continue back-and-forth outside the brackets if you want to. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon thank you for agreeing to moderate. If my initial statement needs rewording or needs to be more concise I am happy to amend it. Regarding Hipal's statement, I find the particular contention that I don't understand the reliable sources and consensus policies to be patronizing and unhelpful for resolving the dispute. I am actively trying to resolve this dispute constructively and was directed here by Arbitration Committee Noteduck (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Like before, [39], I'll refactor if it helps. The facts remain. This comment was made by you just today. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC) @Noteduck:, you've asked for content to be restored, which assumes it was added then removed. Could you provide relevant diffs, minimally of the last time the material was removed? Could you also indicate what discussion(s) on the talk page are relevant, if any? --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I haven't said much but my view is that the proposed changes were not improvements to the article. I think there are two different types of changes in question. One of the proposed changes was high level and stating that PragerU has been subject to widespread criticism. The problem is this became OR since we don't have RSs saying this. [[40]]. The other questions related to specific video commentary/criticism. That applies to the material critical of the PragerU videos which covered Robert E Lee, Benjamin Owens, and Douglas Murray (exists in article already, dispute is over a substantial expansion). So here at a high level the PragerU wiki article shouldn't be a collection of every criticism we can find about any PragerU video. Enough editors have weighed in on these questions to say there isn't a consensus of editors supporting any specific criticism topic. Other than simply editor opinion how else might we decide if the criticism of a specific video is due? The most obvious might be to cover videos discussed by RS articles about PragerU. Note this isn't RSs about Owens or about Murray as that would tend to lend weight for inclusion in those articles. A second issue has been that many of the sources presented to support inclusion are marginal in terms of and/or reliability/weight. For example, the Owen's material was supported by three sources[[41]], Business Insider, an opinion article in The Jewish Telegraph Service and Mediamatters. Thus we have weak sourcing trying to support a specific video criticism that doesn't really contribute to the high level article which is supposed to be about PragerU as a whole. We have similar disagreements regarding the quality of sourcing that has been proposed for other content. For this reason several experienced editors have rejected these changes. While it might be hard to claim consensus against inclusion, consensus for inclusion certainly isn't there. Springee (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC) In response to Shinealittlelight, I'm not against some of the material I've suggested being amended or discussed. However, what has repeatedly taken place on this page is the wholesale deletion of material. Point by point: Point 1: The direct quote from the Kotch article is "The rhetoric of “suicide” and “annihilation” [in the PragerU video] evokes the common white nationalist trope of “white genocide” - hardly a misquote. Pitcavage was quoted accurately. Alex Kotch is not a "mostly-unknown journalist". He's written for The Guardian, Newsweek, Salon, VICE etc.[42] The Sludge source has been extensively discussed and justified as reliable on the RS noticeboard[43] The direct quotation marks should be removed for the Halper article, but otherwise, your point about the LA Times article is pedantic. Halper's point is clearly that some Prager vids echo the talking points of the alt-right...[including] the Dinesh D'Souza and Douglas Murrray vids. Point 2: Your point about the difference between "neo-Nazis" or "white supremacists" is pedantic and somebody could have made a quick revision to this paragraph to clarify the terminology, but instead it was repeatedly deleted in its entirety.[44][45] Regarding the Sabato quote, VPM Radio interview makes it sound like Sabato was interviewed for a response to the PragerU video, but again this could have been amended to something like "Sabato rejected the contention Trump wasn't referring to neo-Nazis..." . You've mischaracterized the Washington Examiner as an outright non-RS, see here[46] Point 3: It's possible that we could work this in to a different part of the article. "Promoting" instead of "platforming" does indeed sound like a more appropriate term in this instance. Note that there are other sources that explicitly mention platforming of controversial far-right figures by Prager[47][48]. The source material should be kept but may belong in another section. It may be worth having a separate paragraph on "platforming of controversial speakers". Point 5: Regarding the Owen Benjamin content, I'm not sure on what basis Jewish Telegraph Agency and Media Matters for America are sources that "could hardly be weaker". Business Insider is not the best but is not deprecated. Benjamin's videos for PragerU have been mentioned by other sources including The Forward[49] and by another Media Matters article[50] Point 6: You can't just assert HillReporter is not an RS - the fact that it has editorship and has been used on other Wiki pages has been discussed on the talk page. You haven't addressed the fact that other sources (which I previously referred to) also supported its contentions. I partially retract point 3 of my complaint and maintain all my other points of complaint about the page. I am not averse to discussion and compromise, but note that large blocks of material are frequently deleted wholesale without any substantive discussion from this page.[51][52][53][54][55][56][57] The material I've pointed to should be restored as indicated. Noteduck (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC) just a short response to Springee's latest statement: I don't necessarily agree that consensus has been reached regarding Georgetown University's academic project Bridge Initiative on the RS noticeboard (discussion here)[58] but rather that the objections raised aren't strong and that your understanding of consensus policy is not entirely correct. It's peripheral to this discussion anyway Noteduck (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Just want to set the record straight on the misquotes: Noteduck's proposal attributes this quote to Kotch: "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'. Here is what Kotch actually said: The rhetoric of “suicide” and “annihilation” evokes the common white nationalist trope of “white genocide,”... Noteduck's proposal attributes this to Pitcavage: Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video"... Here is what Pitcavage actually said: “The video is “filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric. There is certainly prejudice inherent in the video…White supremacists are certainly almost all anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, so they would certainly agree with a lot of the things that [Murray] says.” Perhaps we need to start an RfC to see how people think we should use quotation marks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Regarding Pitcavage, adding the caveat "almost" certainly wasn't my intention but it looks like I did so in error. The Kotch quote is a minor rewording that would be perfectly acceptable in an academic context, but at any rate, these are extremely minor points and raise the question: if editors are focused on improving this page, why not make these minor amendments to material instead of deleting whole blocks of text? None of this justifies the Douglas Murray paragraph being repeatedly deleted wholesale [59][60][61] Noteduck (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC) No, you cannot reword what someone said and then put quotation marks around it as if it were a direct quote. I had plenty to say above beyond this, see above. I was just setting the record straight on this small matter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC) I would agree that quoted text must be exact. Taken as a rewording the first one is pretty accurate, the second one has an errant "almost", but these are quotes so if you need to do some work to make them fit then you do that outside of the quote marks, or with [text inserted for clarity]. I have had teachers that say you can reword text in a direct quotation so I get why you could think that, but Wikipedia and most serious academics are pretty absolute on it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Quotes must be exact. Misquoting could be seen as evidence of serious behavioral problems. --Hipal (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Regarding the JTA ref: What policy makes supports making this opinion piece reliable? --Hipal (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC) This thread looks like paid editing and advocacy. Or maybe it is just AP2 pov editing, but it sure looks crazy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC) There appears to be no policy-based argument now or forthcoming for the JTA ref. If this is indicative of the general approach to this dispute, then we're wasting time here. I hope editors will reconsider their approach. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC) What a disappointingly patronizing response. You've been given the chance to make your case repeatedly and have refused to do so (even though you've made close to 200 edits on the PragerU page in the past). Yes I am familiar with Wikipedia:Editing policy,Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, Wikipedia:Reliable sources etc and it's not enough to assert that I don't understand Wiki's editorial policies. I've presented a volume of good-faith attempts to improve the PragerU page and expect a constructive response Noteduck (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC) update in the interests of transparency: I put a strikethrough through my comment about Hipal's previous edits to the page, which is immaterial to the discussion at hand Noteduck (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2021 (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.

Baháʼí Faith in Azerbaijan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Serv181920 on 09:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Baháʼí Faith in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Serv181920 (talk · contribs)
• Tarikhejtemai (talk · contribs)
• Cuñado (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hello, i am engaged in a dispute at this page. Baha'i editors claim that one prominent Azerbaijani billionaire, Musa Nagiyev, was a Baha'i. The source they are citing is a website www.caucaz.com, which is now defunct and this website states in its about-us page (available on archive.org) that it accepts synopsis from individuals. Apart from this, the article on that website is written by one Baha'i, Azer Jafarov - and he cites his own book as a source for that claim. This person (Azer Jafarov) works in the National Office of the Baha'i faith in Azerbaijan and he does not have any academic record. In his book he does not provide any sources for his claims about Musa Nagiyev. Baha'i editors on the talk page insist that it should be kept because it has appeared in caucaz.com. I believe it should be removed because the source seem fishy and unacademic. Would appreciate assistance and guidance in this regard. Thank you.

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

Talk:Baháʼí_Faith_in_Azerbaijan#Musa_Nagiyev_was_a_Muslim, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_324#Is_www.caucaz.com_(now_defunct)_a_reliable_source?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please provide your opinion, if this claim about Musa Nagiyev deserves a place in the article or No.

Summary of dispute by Tarikhejtemai

In this edit Serv181920 claims that Nagiev was a Muslim without providing any evidence and his argument in the talk page here is just original research and synthesis in my opinion, he is inferring something from a few sources that is not clearly stated in any of them. On a different note accusing users of a religious affiliation (in this case Baha'i) in order to discredit them is against the no personal attacks rule. History of Serv181920's edits shows that his account is a single-purpose account pushing for a very specific/marginal point of view in Baha'i articles by adding undue weighted criticism sections and trying to delete many Baha'i-related articles. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cuñado

Serv181920 is leaving out a few key pieces of information:

1. Baha'is publishing have a requirement for peer-review through their national organization.
2. The reference to Musa Naghiyev is in a published book and claims that he was a member of a Baha'i local assembly and regarded himself as a Baha'i. The article on caucaz.com is merely the same author repeating the claim in another source that appears to have had its own review process.
3. It seems reasonable to assume the author had access to records at the national Baha'i office that are not public.
4. In the time period we're talking about (~1900) early Baha'is were converts who retained some identity with their former religion and tended to only marry within their cultural group (e.g. Shia-Baha'is, Sunni-Baha'is). This changed later in the 1920s.
5. Serv181920 started this off with what is clearly original research on the talk page. His evidence to dispute the point was, for example, that Musa Naghiyev wanted to be buried in Karbala. There is absolutely no reliable source disputing that he was a Baha'i, just Serv181920's original (and not convincing) research.
6. Serv181920 insinuates that Baha'i editors are POV-pushing or that Baha'i authors are suspect of fraud. He also forgot to mention his own bias. His 6-month old account has done almost nothing but elevate criticism and otherwise disparage anything related to the Baha'i Faith on Wikipedia, and the ideas he pushes are often repeated on an external trollish blog attacking the Baha'i Faith. I've been on Wikipedia for 15 years and follow policies closely, and this seems to be a clear case of WP:OR.

Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Baháʼí Faith in Azerbaijan discussion

Do not continue discussing until a moderator agrees to take this case. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying Cuñado The writer of the book is not an academic, he is an employee of the National Office of the Baha'is in Azerbaijan. See https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://femida.az/az/news/41110 Yes, Baha'i publishing is reviewed, but this review cannot be compared with academic peer-review. Some Baha'i scholars have left the faith due to this so-called "review". Their criticism of Baha'i-review can be read here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baháʼí_review#Criticism_and_commentary As stated earlier, www.caucaz.com in its about-us page clearly states that it accepts synopsis from individuals. Please check : https://web.archive.org/web/20110209111815/http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/contact-georgie.php - I cannot say anything about the review-process of this source. The same writer who writes and book, which is "reviewed" by the Baha'i office, publishes an article on this website giving a source of his own book! I am relatively new to wiki-editing, so I am not able to grasp how this source is WP:RS! Why wiki editors should trust the "Baha'i review system" when long time Baha'i scholars like Juan Cole and Denis MacEoin have left the faith because of this very so-called "review"? If a prominent billionaire like Musa Nagiyev was ever a Baha'i, can Baha'i editors share any piece of information from their official Baha'i news magazines that publishes even minor incidents! There are 1000s of pages of news articles on http://bahai-news.info/ • http://starofthewest.info/ • https://bahai.works/Bah%C3%A1%E2%80%99%C3%AD_World There is not a single mention of this person in any of their international newsletters. Moreover, can Baha'i editors show the contribution of this billionaire towards their community? He has made a Mosque, donated a building to Islamic Charity, buried his son in Karbala (Iraq), made a will that he himself be buried in Karbala, Got buried 35 poor family members in Islamic holy city due to their desire (sources given on talk page). What has he done for the Baha'is? Why there are only 2 sentences about him in that book and from that one person only!? There are POV issues with many Baha'i articles and Cuñado has himself admitted that at one of the talk pages. And I don't know what blog he is talking about. Such a claim about a prominent person from weak sources should be kept or removed? Serv181920 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Here is a summary of sources about Musa Nagiyev. Google translate used for Azeri language sources. Baha'i Religion - book by Azer Jafarov (2005): "Millionaire Musa Nagiyev (1849-1919) and Mirza Abdulkhalig Yusif, a teacher of the national poet Aliaga Vahid, known as a "master poet" among the Caucasian Turks, were also members of the Baku community. Musa Nagiyev also served as a member of the Baku Spiritual Assembly for many years. The millionaire's personal reputation played a special role in preventing open pressure on the Baha'is." The Baha’is of the Caucasus - published by weekly magazine Caucaz.com (21 February 2007). Caucaz had an editorial staff and editorial policy. The magazine had a "contact us page that could be used to send synopsis of proposed articles, just like any publisher with peer review. It was not a self-publishing site. "the major millionaire and oil magnate, patron of the arts and philanthropist Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), was part of the Baha’i faith community. A member of the Spiritual Council of Baku, he helped the community confront external attacks." 19. The Baha'is of the Caucasus - chapter written by Azer Jafarov and Bayram Balcı. Published in BALCI, Bayram (ed.); MOTIKA, Raoul (ed.). Religion and Politics in the Post-Soviet Caucasus (2007). Published by French Institute for Anatolian Studies, İstanbul. "Finally, the great millionaire and oil magnate, patron and philanthropist, Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), was part of the Baha'i community. Member of the Spiritual Council of Baku, he was able to help the community to better cope with external aggressions." BAHAISM IN AZERBAIJAN - Article in The Caucasus and Globalization, Vol 1 (5), 2007. By Leyla Melikova, Junior research fellow at the Academician Buniyatov Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan (Baku, Azerbaijan). "Musa Nagiev (1849-1919), a rich oil industrialist and patron of arts, was a member of the Spiritual Meeting of Baku. His personal authority raised the Bahai community prestige as well. (See: A. Jafarov, Bahai Faith in Azerbaijan, Baku, 2004, p. 21)" Interview with Ramazan Asgarli (07 November 2016): "It is said that Baha'i symbols are reflected in the Ismailiyya building. Both Musa Nagiyev and his wife, who built the building, were Baha'is. Musa Nagiyev was also a member of the Baha'i Council." As you can see, Caucaz was not a self-publishing site, and there are two other independent sources (besides Caucaz) repeating the claim that Musa Nagiyev was a Baha'i. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC) The first source at Baha'i Kitabkhana (Baha'i Book House), is a book written by the employee of the Baha'i Office, Azer Jafarov, and published by the Baha'i administration, it has no source for the claimed statement. The second source is an article published by Caucaz.com and written by same Azer Jaforov, for the claim he cites his own book! The linked editorial policy of caucaz.com does not say anywhere that the editors review the submitted synopses. The third source is again by Azer Jafarov, the same employee of the Baha'i office. Again he cites no sources! The fourth source again cites the same Baha'i book authored by the same Azer Jafarov. The fifth source is also a claim by Azer Jafarov, same Baha'i person with no further sources. All these sources take this claim from one individual, Azer Jafarov, who is an employee of the Baha'i office and who provides no source for his clam and who has no academic record whatsoever. And there is no evidence of this claim from any published sources (Baha'i or non-Baha'i) of that era! Musa Nagiyev is reported to be a Baha'i after some 100 years of his passing!! That seems very strange to me.Serv181920 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC) You did not accurately summarize the sources. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Replying Tarikhejtemai I am only interested in knowing if the "Baha'i reviewed" sources are considered as WP:RS and what if those sources are cited by a website like caucaz.com? I have not attacked any editor, mentioning their religious affiliation was necessary because both of them were somehow pushing me to believe and trust the "Baha'i review process".Serv181920 (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Your reasoning has changed now, initially you were saying that Nagiyev was Muslim by citing a few sources that none of them said he was, and inferring a new conclusion which is considered original research. Now you are questioning the validity of the source you tried to remove. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC) From the very beginning, I am not convinced that Naqiyev was a Baha'i. AFAIK, no Baha'i sources of that era claims that. It is after some 100 years of his passing, that one Baha'i, Azer Jafarov claims that in his book without citing any sources and other "handful of sources" took it from his book. I am not at all interested, at this time, in proving that he was a Muslim. I am suggesting to provide better sources or remove the claim.Serv181920 (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC) You have no basis to remove it according to policies. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Question Is this a request for a 3rd opinion or for mediation? Nightenbelle (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• I had removed the claim, but two of the Baha'i editors have reverted it and are pushing for a keep. Mediation, please.Serv181920 (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Statement

I will volunteer to mediate this discussion- but before I do- I need to know that all involved editors have read the rules of this forum and agree to participate in good faith. Please respond here indicating this. User:Serv181920, User:Tarikhejtemai, User:Cuñado. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read the rules and will participate in good faith. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have also read the rules and will participate in good faith.Serv181920 (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Me too, I have read the rules and will participate in good faith. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Statment 2

Okay, then lets begin. I've read the back and forth here and on the talk page. to me, the easist solution would be adding a statement, "Baha'i sources claim " ahead of the statement about Nagiyev. Would that be acceptable? That at least indicates to the reader that the sources are close to the subject. If not acceptable- I ask that you tell me what you think I fair compromise that also is supported by policy would be.

• Thank you for your time in helping out with this. That was the easy way to compromise and I thought of doing that in the beginning. I brought this case here because I was not sure if these kinds of sources are considered as reliable. If it is so, then anyone can publish a book claiming anything, and if such claims (from such books) are reported by 2-3 other sources also then does it becomes acceptable for the wikipedia? If that is the policy, then please guide me to the policy suggesting so and I would be happy to accept it. Thank you again.Serv181920 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you have a question about WP:RS? Because if that is all you need- I will happily direct you to the correct board. But since you agreed to a good faith effort at mediation- I assumed you were interested in finding a compromise. This response does not indicate an intent to compromise- "Then anyone can publish a book claiming anything." is a statement that does not foster cooperation at all. The policy you are looking for is WP:SELFSOURCE BTW. And this case is a grey area of that policy. While the sources in question are of the faith they are writing about- they are not the official pages about the faith. IE- a catholic school newspaper writing an article on the Catholic faith- not necessarily biased, but to be closely examined because its definitely possible. Some of the most biting critique comes from inside sometimes. But I digress. The short answer is- there is not a clear policy in this case which is why this process is designed to mediate. If all you want is a policy question answered- there's your answer. Not every potential issue has been already solved on WP. We are an ever evolving body of editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor's responses

• Here's a brief review of sources. Azer Jafarov is a Baha'i who has worked for the national office of Baha'is of Azerbaijan. He published a book in 2005 (publication data is difficult to analyze through translators) covering the history of the Baha'i Faith in Azerbaijan and mentioned that Musa Nagiyev was a member of the early Baha'i community of Baku. This was also mentioned in this archived official page on the history of the Baha'is in Azerbaijan (accessed 2012), and mentioned in a 2016 interview with another employee of the national Baha'i office. In 2007 three sources that all seem reliable ([62], [63], [64]) and all independent of Baha'is repeated the mention of Musa Nagiyev being a Baha'i, the first is co-written by Azer Jafarov with editorial review, and the others cite him for the mention.

Regarding policy... I don't think the statement is self-published, but it could be considered borderline WP:QUESTIONABLE because there is a self-serving nature of the Baha'i office making their own history look good, though they are a century removed from the people they are talking about. It's also reasonable to assume that they have access to non-public records, and I wouldn't expect them to provide convincing evidence of Musa Nagiyev unless it was contested. The fact that the claim was repeated in three independent reliable sources, and it is not contested anywhere, to me indicates that WP:YESPOV applies: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested."

Of course it is totally acceptable to reword it and indicate that the Baha'i office of Azerbaijan claims that he was a Baha'i, that would be an easy way to avoid conflict with editors, but I think the correct thing to do according to policy is to use the uncontested wording found in independent reliable sources and state it in the Wikipedia voice. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Nightenbelle for guiding towards the policy. Yes, I think this exactly fits WP:SELFSOURCE, except that 2 non-Baha'i sources (not sure about their reputation) cites the book of Azer Jafarov. Cuñado says, that the claim is uncontested, while it is not so. I had given sources on talk page hinting that Musa Nagiyev was a Muslim, for instance here it says : "Aga Musa Nagiyev, who died in 1919, faced great difficulties at the end of his life. Despite the buildings he built and his philanthropy, ingratitude still haunts him after his death. Although he bequeathed his life to be buried next to his son Ismail in Karbala, his brother Agha Ali buried him in the Chambarakand cemetery due to impossibility." I don't understand why a Baha'i would ever want to get buried in Karbala (Muslim holy city), build Mosque, inscribe Ali's (Mohammed's successor according to Shia Islam) words on his building, donate entire building to Muslim charity etc and does not give anything to Baha'is. There is another sources that states: "two other prominent Muslim millionaires, 63-year-old Aga Musa Nagiyev and 54-year-old Murtuza Mukhtarov..." - In such cases what do you suggest?Serv181920 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would like to add another source by German historian Verena Dohrn: Die Kahans aus Baku: Eine Familienbiographie. The book states that Musa Naghiev was a member of the Baha'i faith when it talks about the Ismailyyia palace in Baku erected in memory of Naghiev's deceased son Ismail. Since the book is an independent reliable academic source I think it would be better to use Wikipedia voice without attribution here. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Update: Found one more source that contests Baha'i claims.

"The merchants' cause was also supported by the Muslim oil entrepreneurs who were active within the Baku City Duma, represented by such individuals as Musa Naghiev, Haji Zeinalabedin Taghiev, Shamsi Asadullaev..." Source.Serv181920 (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer's Third Statement

I think there is some confusion here on the word "Contested" For Reliable sources- this does not mean that one WP editor contests their validity- it means that academic sources / other published scholars contest their validity. Serve181920- Do you have sources contesting the validity of those sources? Any source that claims they are POV pushing? They do not qualify as WP:Selfsource since they are not an official entity for the faith, rather instead a company that shares the faith. Also- You keep saying the sources you provide are proving he was a Muslim- unfortunately- that is WP:Synth on your part. What they are saying- is that he requested to be buried in a Muslim Holy city, and that he donated to Muslim causes. You have not shown that they provide his motivation for doing so- and they do not specifically state his religion- unless you have not provided the quote where they do specially say so. You say YOU cannot imagine another reason he would do so without being a Muslim, but that is YOUR opinion of the material. Now... I definitely see where you are coming from- and I agree, logically if it quacks and gives money to a duck- its probably a duck. However, WP requires sources that specifically say "Donald Duck is a Duck". As more and more sources are appearing that cite the sources confirming he is a member of the Baha'i claim- it adds weight. Because these sources are also peer reviewed- which means all of their sources are double checked for accuracy. In short- the burden of proof is on you Serve181920 to very clearly show this source is not reliable. You must prove this explicitly by a source directly saying "He was a Muslim" or saying "This website gives inaccurate information." There must be no room for interpretation at this point. If you can do that- then you have a case for removing the information, if not, you will have to work with the other editors to find a compromise other than just removing the information. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor's Responses

• Serv181920 just provided two references that label Musa Nagiyev as a Muslim:

1. Robert Denis wrote in an article of March 2020, "among the people that Taghiyev apparently invited to his home on May 16 were two other well-known Muslim millionaires—63-year-old Agha Musa Naghiyev and 54-year-old Murtuza Mukhtarov."[65] At first glance the source seems reputable.
2. On the Religious Frontier: Tsarist Russia and Islam in the Caucasus by Firouzeh Mostashari (2006) has two mentions of him, "... supported by the Muslim oil entrepreneurs who were active within the Baku City Duma, individuals as Musa Naghiev, Haji Zeinalabedin Taghiev, and Khalygh Akhundov"; and, "Musa Naghiev, one of the leading Muslim entrepreneurs and civic-minded philanthropists, contributed funds for the founding of a surgical hospital..."[66]

While it's significant to have these mentions, they are still trivial mentions, mentioned in passing while the authors were making other points. The book by Mostashari discussing his contributions to a Muslim charity that helped build the hospital, so it's a reasonable assumption to label him a Muslim. The book was also written before Azer Jafarov wrote his book and was published in 2007 mentioning that Musa Nagiyev was a Baha'i.

Considering the discussion so far I think it's worth expanding the mention of Musa Nagiyev and giving him a paragraph describing his role in Muslim charities and also describe Azer Jafarov's research and publication. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you again for your time Nightenbelle, I am getting your points. I have provided two sources that clearly says that he was a Muslim. Cuñado has stated them above this response.

Cuñado now says that these mentions are trivial while I see that his sources also trivially mentions that Musa Naghiyev was a Baha'i. Anyways, I agree to the suggestion of Cuñado that a separate paragraph be added stating that he was a Muslim and that Baha'i sources and some anti-Baha'i sources also claim that he was a Baha'i. The source could be something other than Azer Jafarov.Serv181920 (talk) 09:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer's 4th Statement

While yes, these sources do just give a passing mention to the subject- it seems to me that they are enough to justify at the very least a statement of some type. It looks like you are still at odds a bit about which statement. The two I see proposed are:

1 A paragraph stating his role in Muslim charities and describing Azer Jafarov's research and publication

2 A separate paragraph stating he was a muslim and that Baha'i sources and anti-Baha'i sources also claim that he was a Baha'i.

Might I make a 3rd suggestion? What about changing the sentence to say: The most well known alleged member of the community approaching 1900 was Musa Nagiyev, one of the richest citizens at the time, although sources conflict about his status as a Baha'i or Muslim. there were many public figures before and after who seem to have admired the religion or even been members of it." Does that sentence seem fair to both sides? Nightenbelle (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor's Responses

• Nightenbelle thanks for the suggestions, I'd prefer the third one. Also there are two more independent sources that I recently found that says he was a Baha'i: one by a German historian called Die Kahans aus Baku: Eine Familienbiographie and one by a website of Azerbaijani journalists. Tarikhejtemai (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• I'm sorry this has dragged out so long. Tarikhejtemai just provided the most significant addition so far with no connection to Azer Jafarov: "After his death the clergy, on the basis of Shari'ah law, demanded that his heirs hand over 10 per cent of his inheritance to mosques. In response, concerned about these claims, the heirs provided the "holy fathers" with evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim and belonged to the Bahai faith. They cited an example, saying that Nagiyev once refused to swear on the Koran in a court and took his oath on the book of Sheikh Bahaulla."[67] The source is an Azeri magazine.

Considering that this is independent and provides details, unlike other references, I suggest wording like this: "Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), one of Azerbaijan's richest citizens at the time, was raised Muslim and donated to Islamic charities, but participated as a member of the Baha'i Spiritual Assembly of Baku and is considered to have been a Baha'i by most (or some) modern sources (or authors)." Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Vote on Phrasing

Invovled editors- please place your vote under one of these options... hopefully we will get a consensus.

1 A paragraph stating his role in Muslim charities and describing Azer Jafarov's research and publication

2 A separate paragraph stating he was a muslim and that Baha'i sources and anti-Baha'i sources also claim that he was a Baha'i.

3The most well known alleged member of the community approaching 1900 was Musa Nagiyev, one of the richest citizens at the time, although sources conflict about his status as a Baha'i or Muslim. there were many public figures before and after who seem to have admired the religion or even been members of it.

4 "Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), one of Azerbaijan's richest citizens at the time, was raised Muslim and donated to Islamic charities, but participated as a member of the Baha'i Spiritual Assembly of Baku and is considered to have been a Baha'i by some modern sources."

I vote for this option (option #4). Tarikhejtemai (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I proposed #4 and I still think it's the best wording considering the sources. #3 is acceptable. #5 is rubbish. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 4:32 pm, Today (UTC−6) (moved here to keep the votes clear Nightenbelle (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

5 Baha'i and anti-Baha'i sources claim that Musa Naghiev was a Baha'i. But this is disputed as there are sources stating that he was a Muslim and donated an entire building to Muslim Charity, he also built a Mosque."

Discussion of phrases

• Thank you for your efforts. #2, #3 and #4 can be mixed. The wordings could be - "Baha'i and anti-Baha'i sources claim that Musa Naghiev was a Baha'i. But this is disputed as there are sources stating that he was a Muslim and donated an entire building to Muslim Charity, he also built a Mosque."

Sources could be 1) Non-Baha'i source stating that he was Baha'i 2) Anti-Baha'i source - Payam-i-Pidar of Sobhi 3) Two sources that claim that he was a Muslim millionaire 4) Sources on the talk page stating that he donated a building to Muslim Charity and built a Mosque.Serv181920 (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean... I Can add that as an option- but from a grammatical standpoint- it is awkward and convoluted. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I proposed #4 and I still think it's the best wording considering the sources. #3 is acceptable. #5 is rubbish. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Serv181920 The other users are agreed on suggestion 4- if you agree to it as well, we can close this and move forward... What do you say? Nightenbelle (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you again for your time. The other two users are the followers of the Bahai faith so they have their own POV. Cuñado calls #5 as "rubbish", if it is "rubbish" because of grammatical errors, then he can fix it - he is an experienced editor, editing Bahai pages since years.

That said, here are my arguments for not accepting the suggested statement (#4) from Cuñado

1. First part of the sentence, Musa Naghiyev (1849-1919), one of Azerbaijans richest citizens at the time, was raised Muslim and donated to Islamic charities - I have issue with the word "raised", no source says that, on the contrary sources say that he was a Muslim.
2. Second part of the sentence, but participated as a member of the Bahai Spiritual Assembly of Baku, this should not be in wikivoice - there is no such statement in non-bahai sources (sources that are reliable and independent of the subject) - It should be "Bahais believe (or claim) that he was a member of the Bahai Spiritual Assembly of Baku" - about this source Cuñado states that "this is independent and provides details" - yes, it is independent, but it says when Muslims demanded 10% of his inheritance, his heirs stated that "once (he) refused to swear on the Koran in a court and took his oath on the book of Sheikh Bahaulla" thus he was not a Muslim but a Bahai. The original Russian version of this article says : "After his death, the clergy, relying on Sharia law, demanded that the heirs transfer one tenth of his property to the mosques. In response, the heirs, disturbed by these claims, presented the "holy fathers" with evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim, but belonged to the "Bahai" religious movement."

Russian Wikipedia article on Nagiyev has this sentence (translated with google translate): "After the death of Musa Nagiyev, the clergy, relying on Sharia law, demanded that the heirs transfer one tenth of his property to the mosques. Concerned about the claims of the clergy, the heirs presented the “holy fathers” with evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim, but belonged to the Baháí religious movement. (He took) the (oath on the) book of Sheikh Baháulláh."

1. He being a Bahai is disputed, and this dispute should reflect in the sentence. While digging more, I found a book written by Benin, the granddaughter of Musa Nagiyev. On page 31 of this book she states: "Soon, grandfather's second wife, a Russian woman, converted, she filed a lawsuit in court, claiming her right to grandfathers (Nagiyevs) property. Things got really bad. Everything is so confused and degraded. It turned out that it was difficult to understand anything. Relatives fought among themselves, not being able to find some acceptable decision."
2. At page 121 of the same book (published by the Institute for Strategic Studies of the Caucasus), Benin mentions about the funeral rites of Musa Nagiyev. She writes "According to Muslim custom, the deceased is washed in and then the body was placed in the center of the room. Over (his body) the priests begin to read the Koran."
3. There is another article here that says: "Agha Musa Nagiyev, one of the richest Baku oil industrialists, was known as a miserly man. Many people talked about his avarice and the stories were often very controversial."
4. Another article in Russian language states that "Concerned about the claims of the clergy, the heirs presented evidence that Aga Musa was not a Muslim, but belonged to the "Baháí" religious movement." The same article says "He bequeathed to bury him in the sacred city of Kerbala." - Why would a Bahai ever wish to get himself buried in Kerbala?

There are many sources that makes it clear that due to inheritance disputes, and Muslims demanding 10% of his inheritance share, his heirs claimed that he was a Bahai.

Apart from those two sources (produced earlier), here is another source in Russian that says that he was a Muslim: Новая имперская история постсоветского пространства, Page 328 it says "Haji Zeynal Abdin Tagiyev, Shamsi Assadullaev and Musa Nagiyev made very large fortunes on the oil boom that gripped a small group of Muslim entrepreneurs."

Thus, it is not proper to call him a Baha'i in wikivoice. If needed I can produce more proofs.Serv181920 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Statement

Serv181920 So by your statement- What I am getting is that you are not interested in compromise at all. The other editors have agreed on a phrase that includes his Muslim faith, but you will not even discuss one that includes Baha'i. The purpose of the DRN is not to come in and make a decision and force one person's perspective. So if you will not compromise on a phrase that includes the information from all the sources, this DRN cannot move forward. And there are sources that support both Baha'i and Muslim. So once again are you willing to compromise on a sentence that includes both religions? Or do you want to go to an RFC instead or accept the standing consensus of leaving the article as it was? Nightenbelle (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Editor's Responses

In my last response I clearly stated "it is not proper to call him a Baha'i in wikivoice" and I have given the reasons for the same. Your statement "The other editors have agreed on a phrase that includes his Muslim faith, but you will not even discuss one that includes Baha'i." - It seems to me like have not read my response. I have given sources stating that he was said to be a Baha'i by his heirs because the Muslims demanded 10% from his inheritance. If all this is properly incorporated into the article, I have no further issue.
"So once again are you willing to compromise on a sentence that includes both religions?" - Yes, the sentence could be "Some sources claim that Musa Naghiyev was a Baha'i. But this is disputed as there are more sources establishing that he was a Muslim." Or maybe something on these lines.
If this cannot be resolved here, then I think we should go for RFC.Serv181920 (talk) 09:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

That’s what I mean by no compromise- that sentence is awkward and grammatically questionable. Adding the citations is the same as saying “some sources” only without adding the extra words in. I think it’s time for an rfc. Do you need help getting it together Or should I just go ahead and close this? Nightenbelle (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Nutrisystem

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Robert McClenon on 20:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Robert McClenon (talk · contribs)
• LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk · contribs)
• Alexbrn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nutrisystem is a commercial provider of weight-loss products. This dispute relates to how we present a study on Nutrisystem's efficacy in the lead.

The lead in the article for Nutrisystem describes a systematic review in 2014 that examined previous studies on Nutrisystem's efficacy. The systematic review concluded that, as a weight-loss tool, Nutrisystem "demonstrates better short-term weight loss than control/education and behavioral counseling." However, the systematic review could not draw any conclusion about Nutrisystem's long-term efficacy because there were no long term studies on the matter. To quote the systematic review again: "we identified no long-term trial results. We conclude that Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions."

User:Alexbrn is, intentionally or not, misrepresenting this systematic review in a fashion that implies Nutrisystem has been proven to be ineffective. Most recently, he has edited the page to say, in Wikipedia's voice, that "The authors recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence [than Nutrisystem], in preference." This is pure invention on his part; this claim appears nowhere in the source, which concludes that "Nutrisystem shows promise, but the lack of long-term RCTs prohibits definitive conclusions.".

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn is also, intentionally or not, engaged in another, more subtle form of misrepresentation. He has repeatedly (e.g.: 1) (2) (3) (4) inserted the claim that there is "no good evidence of any benefit [from Nutrisystem] in the longer term". Alexbrn's use of the qualifying adjective good in the phrase "no good evidence" implies that there is some kind of evidence, presumably bad evidence; but in fact there is no evidence whatever for or against long-term efficacy because, as the paper says, there are simply no long term trial results regarding Nutrisystem. I have explained why this language is misleading, and multiple other users have pointed out the same problem on the talk page. Yet Alexbrn swiftly reverts any attempt to replace his misleading language with a simple quote or paraphrase of the actual conclusion from the authors, namely that Nutrisystem is promising but the absence of long-term studies prevent a definitive conclusion. As noted above, Alexbrn also has added to the lead the claim that the authors of the systematic review "recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence [than Nutrisystem], in preference," a claim that he completely made up, and contradicts the actual conclusion drawn by the authors.

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

Talk:Nutrisystem

WP:ANI

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I suggest you do two things. First, after reading my complaint, read the systematic review carefully. Second, determine whether whether the two sentences added to the article by Alex comport with Wikipedia policy concerning NPOV, WP:V, and OR. Alex's sentences are as follows:

→A systematic review of 2015 said there was tentative evidence that at three months that Nutrisystem resulted in at least 3.8% more weight loss than a control group, but no good evidence of any benefit in the longer term. The authors recommended clinicians chose diet programmes with better evidence, in preference."

Summary of dispute by LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08

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

User:Alexbrn, I am happy to withdraw my accusations of bad faith against Alex. I am no mind-reader. Alex, please go ahead and try to debunk my claims, and please note that they are made without any allegation or assumption of bad faith on your part. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by PaleoNeonate

A few days ago I posted as third opinion on the talk page, but feel free to request for a fourth, possibly via WP:3O if the outcome is to close this thread, —PaleoNeonate – 20:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn

I'd be happy to participate if the OP withdraws the accusations of bad faith. DRN should not be be a forum to enable and formalize un-WP:CIVIL behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Note to be clear, I expect to see all this "intentionally or not" and "engaged in misrepresentation" crap struck out. Let me know if it happens. Alexbrn (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

On the content

• Any properly-conducted systematic review starts by selecting high-quality evidence in preference to low-quality evidence. The review is thus, by definition, a review of "good evidence" and best summarized that way (as is common on Wikipedia and in medcomms generally). Low-quality evidence (for example this study which Nutrisystem promotes) would have been inelligible per the review's quality requirements for the research considered (has to be a RCT; has to be >= 12 weeks in length, etc.).
• We call the evidence "tentative" for short-term results because of the limited nature of the evidence, a point that features strongly in the source. I would not object to "only weak" or "only limited" in place of "tentative", and indeed these may be better. Or - leave out the short-term stuff altogether, as for diets it's pretty much irrelevant.
• The point about how other diet products are recommended in preference (the study names them as Jenny Craig and Weightwatchers) is in the source. Interestingly, lay-press from the time of the study picked this up and cross-confirms this is how another independent assessment of the review sees it.[68] I'd not object to amending the text to name the two diet products that were recommended, though this seems perhaps undue.

References

Nutrisystem discussion

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

• Volunteer Question - Is this a request for a non-binding Third Opinion about the systematic review, or a request for moderated discussion, possibly leading to compromise, or a request for assistance in filing a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a third opinion is best. I was and am exasperated by what I regard as the addition of text that is not supported by the reliable source cited, and tends to disparage the subject of the page. But I am open to the possibility that there is something I'm missing here, and I admit I should have assumed good faith. A (non-binding) third opinion would be great, though you'd have to ask Alex what he thinks of that. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Nutrisystem)

I will try to moderate this dispute. Please read the rules. I will restate a few of the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not respond to each other, unless I provide a space for back-and-forth discussion. Respond to me on behalf of the community. The first question is whether both editors want me to give a non-binding Third Opinion. If so, I will review the materials in detail and provide an opinion, and then this case will be closed, because I will no longer be neutral. If either editor wants moderated discussion rather than a third opinion, I will try to provide moderation. So: What method of dispute resolution will we use? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

User:LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08, User:Alexbrn ? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer that you read through the source and the disputed edits, and then offer a non-binding opinion. LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Nutrisystem)

I have read the history and the discussion, and I have read the systematic review, with a focus on the abstract and the conclusions. I think that it is best for the article to state what the systematic review says, without any attempt to elaborate on or infer from what it says. See the policies against synthesis having the nature of original research. It appears that there weren't any long-term (more than 3 months) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Nutrisystem. It appears that any conclusion about the long-term effectiveness of Nutrisystem isn't based on the evidence that isn't there, but I will ask again what the question is.

The objective of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. Is there a specific question about wording of what the article should say? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Star Control

– New discussion.

Filed by Voidvector on 06:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Template:Star Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Voidvector (talk · contribs)
• Shooterwalker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over inclusion of the following articles in the template:

• Star Control: Origins
• Stardock, developer of above
• Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche, lawsuit over the IP dispute.

Current template only includes the Star Control games from the 1990s by Toys for Bob (Reiche & Ford) or Accolade -- Star Control, Star Control II, and Star Control 3.

The trademark of "Star Control" was purchased in 2013 by Stardock in Atari bankruptcy auction. They released Star Control: Origins in 2018. However, there was an IP dispute between the parties, resulting in the case Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche with settlement. (See Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche#Final settlement)

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

Template_talk:Star Control#Stardock

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether Stardock, Star Control: Origins, and Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche should be included Template:Star Control. Potential options:

• Include Star Control: Origins as Games and Stardock Developers, and Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche as "Related articles"
• Include all of them as "Related articles"
• Do not include them at all

Summary of dispute by Shooterwalker

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

• I've tried to work with Voidvector, citing guidelines and sources, and offering compromises.
• The dispute concerns two game series sharing the same title: the Star Control trilogy from 1990, and Star Control: Origins from 2018.
• Standard practice for two games with the same title is to disambiguate with a WP:HATNOTE. See WP:VG/MOS. For how this is applied, see Fight Night/Fight Night, Portal/Portal, Overlord/Overlord/Overlord, Crack Down/Crackdown, Fable/Fable, Star Fox/Star Fox.
• WP:VG/MOS also applies to game series templates. See templates for Fight Night series, Portal series, Overlord series, Crackdown, Fable series, and Star Fox, which do not include the other games they share their name with. This practice is so consistent that it is uniform.
• Voidvector has pushed their WP:POV about the two series, and resorted to attacks. ("the original series is dead", "I am happy that Stardock is willing to revive (and bring attention) to the franchise", "your position is simply gatekeeping fanboyism") [69]
• Voidvector also crept up to the WP:3RR on Template:Star Control after I asked to discuss first.
• As our discussion went on, Voidvector started a new discusssion at a good article about the original series, and implied it might be nominated for deletion.[70]
• I have avoided taking the WP:BAIT, repeatedly citing our practices and guidelines. (WP:DISAMBIGUATION, WP:VG/MOS, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:RS, WP:V)
• After an effort to bring Voidvector back on topic, we agreed to include a WP:HATNOTE for disambiguation, which they added.[71]
• Nonetheless, the dispute has gone on.
• For clarity, there was a well-documented lawsuit that started and ended with the two series operating separately. (In the needlessly complex lawsuit, Stardock sued the 1990s developers to gain the Copyright. Stardock did hope to win the rights to make a fourth game in the same series/universe, but ended with only the name, back where they started.)
• Most recently, Voidvector has criticized me for not adding to a talkpage table they created. I'm doing my best to bring our discussion back on topic with sources and guidelines, and they are not responding in-kind. I thought we found a compromise,[72] but they have since escalated this to WP:DR.
• My main goal is to represent these two separate topics based on the sources, rather than WP:POV.
• Another important goal is to avoid the clutter of a "related links" section, as the original Star Control was highly influential in the space genre, with numerous imitators.[73] To prevent an endlessly growing list of "related links", I'm taking guidance from MOS:NOTSEEALSO, "as a general rule, the see also section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". The new series is already mentioned in the article body, and Voidvector already added a hatnote. A hatnote is literally the first line of the article, and this should more than satisfy our goals of disambiguation and navigation.

Template:Star Control discussion

Collapsing discussion and reminding those involved not to continue discussion until a volunteer signs on to mediate the case. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I did not state my position in the submission -- I am for adding Star Control: Origins and Stardock (trademark owner) for the purpose of "navigational aid", since this is a navbox. Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) appears disagree with their addition. His primary argument appears to be on the grounds that they are not the same series (diff developers & canon/lore). However, Stardock owns the trademark. Gameplay-wise Star Control: Origins is inspired by Star Control II. From my perspective, the remaining arguments by Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) are simple refusal of my positions using unrelated rules, straw maning my words, cherry-picking of examples/citations. --Voidvector (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I'm here. I documented the dispute with diffs and guidelines. I'd very much rather hear from anyone else now. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC) I was invited to discuss this by Voidvector. I am not sure if I should respond here or at the other talk page but I don't think we should add Stardock or another game. All the reliable sources agree that the games don't share anything except the name and some inspiration. The games are disconnected by 25 years and two unrelated companies. I don't know if Voidvector wants to include or ignore the "in universe" factors but they are also disconnected stories and settings. I followed the lawsuit and I think the confusion is that the settlement makes it sound like the original series will be renamed the "Ur-Quan Masters" franchise but we still call it "Star Control". Its been "Star Control" for 30 years. I don't agree with the bias that "the original series is basically dead" but you could say the original trilogy officially ended in 1996. Now journalists talk about SCO as a new series even if they hoped for a sequel or prequel. This is explained at the Star Control article with reliable sources and links to SCO. I agree that a list of Star Control related games would be too long and the article already mentions Stardock anyway. I see that Voidvector added SCO as a disambigation line in Star Control so that should settle it. Jorahm (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Can you clarify who is "Voidwalker"? I believe you are conflating our usernames. --Voidvector (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC) You're the one who tagged me and I did conflate it. Fixed. I fixed the quote too. Jorahm (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC) There are a lot of misrepresentation here -- for example, I never actually said "the original series is dead". My actual words are "Until release of Ghosts of the Precursors (currently vaporware), the original series is basically dead." Above participates have both used this as a "straw man". (I am going to keep this reply brief, since volunteer has not joined.) In addition, if you were to follow the thread, I have already offered compromise by suggesting we should list them as "Related articles", while my counterpart(s) has not compromised at all. My primary goal is to simply provide "navigational aid" (i.e. MOS:LINK) so anything that achieves that goal between all these articles is palatable to me. --Voidvector (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Lie

– New discussion.

Filed by Soibangla on 01:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Big Lie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Soibangla (talk · contribs)
• NedFausa (talk · contribs)
• KIENGIR (talk · contribs)
• Novem Linguae (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added the sentence: "The expression later came to be associated with Donald Trump" to the lead, which I assert proportionately summarizes a corresponding section in the body. The sentence was reverted.

On Talk, three editors assert the sentence does not pass NPOV/due and undue weight. I maintain their stated rationales do not have a plausible basis in Wikipedia policy.

[[NB: since the initial Talk discussion, I added additional references in the body to establish that the content is DUE, and therefore "lead summarizes body" justifies a proportionate mention in the lead. Some/many of these references can later be trimmed.]

I want to emphasize that no effort is being made here to associate Trump with Hitler, but rather to show others have associated him with a concept that has not been previously described in the article in any post-war context, but is now being associated with Trump in a modern context.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_lie#Inclusion_of_Trump_in_lead

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I assert this is a case in which the consensus is incorrect and the sentence should be restored in the lead.

Summary of dispute by NedFausa

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

Summary of dispute by KIENGIR

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

The current political events causing a big overhead in the related articles, especially political shoapboaxing, from the moderate way to the insanity, and neutrality may easily be forgotten unfortunately, this is espcially visible for outsiders/uninvolved editors (the page is trolled by POV-pushers in a daily manner from both directions). Indeed yes, lead summarize body, not it does not mean we would include everything in the the lead. The Trump issue is a recent overloaded shoap at all aspects, taking any sides by new insertions may suggest being involved or abandon neutrality. Trump is surely not commensurable with those one in the lead mentioned, so I would avoid such trials.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC))

Summary of dispute by Novem Linguae

I'm not sure this is worth a lot of time and effort. There's a 3-1 consensus to not include this in the lead. There's some editors in the article that want to give more WP:WEIGHT to Donald Trump in the lead and/or in the Donald Trump section, but some of us disagree with this weight. It's a historical article, and giving Donald Trump a lot of weight seems to be a case of WP:RECENT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Lie discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - There is a local consensus of 3-1 against the filing editor. The options for the filing editor, who is in the minority, are to try to discuss with the other editors to reach a compromise, or to obtain a larger consensus by Request for Comments. Either approach will be supported at this noticeboard after the other editors are notified. (That is, if they want an RFC, a volunteer will help draft the RFC neutrally. If they want discussion leading to compromise, a volunteer will mediate, but no promises are made.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

** Robert McClenon, I do not see that user Talk page notification is required for topics in this “informal” forum, and I pinged the three editors on the article Talk page in a fully transparent manner such that any other interested editors could also participate. Perhaps consider striking your fallacious comment as it is potentially prejudicial against me. soibangla (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Volunteer Note - My statement is correct, because the editors were not notified on their talk pages. It is true that they were pinged, and for that reason this case will remain open, waiting for a volunteer to accept it, if another volunteer is willing to accept a case filed by an editor who has already insulted one volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

*** Robert McClenon, Yes, your statement that they were not notified on their Talk pages is correct, except that unlike in other matters in other forums, such notification is not required here, and so your mentioning of this potentially creates a false impression that I am not following the rules, which tends to cast a prejudicial pall on my filing. I now ask you more directly to strike it. soibangla (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • • Volunteer NoteSoibangla You are incorrect- the rules of this board are clearly stated at the top: "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: (Template deleted for space) Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice." So- I strognly suggest you stop arguing with the volunteers and notify the users and return to this board with an atitude that will encourage volunteers to be willing to mediate and also encourage the others involved to overturn the already existing consensus and discuss your desired improvements. I would also remind you that participation in this discussion is voluntary for all involved- the users you have a disagreement with, and the volunteers. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
        • I stand corrected. soibangla (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the words you are looking for is I’m sorry I was combative Robert, I’ll strike through my wrong comments like I tried to make you do when you politely asked me to follow protocol. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Bettydaisies on 18:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Lana Del Rey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Alextwa (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There has been extensive discussion at Talk: Lana Del Rey regarding the inclusion of recent social media comments reported by reliable sources in the "Public image" section. This was extensively discussed, then resolved via RfC establishing overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS to include it. Two days ago, disgruntled users from the original discussion began edit-warring, which I reverted, before it was reverted once again by Alextwa. After leaving a message on their talk page, Alextwa took it upon themselves as a "reviewer" to "reviewer" the dispute that had been resolved, establishing an opinion that violated consensus and proceeded to "rework" the page as such. Despite multiple requests. Alextwa has provided no verifiable WP policy showing that they, as a self-initiated reviewer, can do such a thing against majority and thoroughly discussed consensus, and refuses to listen to the otherwise. The content in question is essentially a summary of Del Rey's comments regarding former Present Trump as well as her social media remarks about her new album cover, both widely reported in the media for starting controversy - nothing in the text suggests wrongdoing, it's a mere summary of the comments followed by "this incited commentary" etc. etc. relevant to her public image, as again, established by previous consensus. While I admit to have reverted more than nessacary due to my own misunderstanding - Alextwa refuses to listen to requests about consensus and continues to implement their own idea of their own accord. Regardless of my opinion, majority consensous has already been established. For a resolved matter, this is incredibly frustrating - I questioned if this was the right noticeboard to bring the dispute to, but after light investigation, it seemed the most appropriate. Is Alextwa truly within his rights as a reviewer to repeatedly ignore user consensus and insert themselves into a resolved matter? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Lana_Del_Rey#Written_Like_a_Gossip_Column Talk:Lana_Del_Rey#RfC_about_the_inclusion_of_political_commentary_and_controversy_in_relation_to_Del_Rey's_page. Talk:Lana_Del_Rey#Reviewer’s_Take How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? My primary issue is if Alextwa, a reviewer, can take it upon themselves to go against established consensus and enforce their own "take" regarding content already resolved and discussed. If this is above this page's pay-grade, I'm happy to go elsewhere. Thank you, and have a wonderful week. Summary of dispute by Alextwa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Lana Del Rey discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note It sounds as if your concern is with the behavior of a single user- which should be taken to the WP:ANI rather than here. Especially if a consensus has already been established and you feel policy is being broken Nightenbelle (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC) @Nightenbelle Thank you for your feedback, I'll redirect my concerns to the appropriate channel. Is there any way to subsequently close this discussion? Have a great week.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC) I'll close it in a moment. :-) Nightenbelle (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Anocracy – New discussion. Filed by Rkerver on 14:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Anocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rkerver (talk · contribs) Gwennie-nyan (talk · contribs) Jared.h.wood (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I contributed the section "United States" and my contribution keeps being removed. Three short paragraphs, fully referenced. Talk has not lead to consensus. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anocracy#United_States How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Review the content, the references. If a neutral third party finds it all OK, then post in the talk article. Summary of dispute by Gwennie-nyan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Jared.h.wood Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Anocracy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.