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
Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV	Resolved	Avi8tor (t)	15 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 17 hours
Norse Deity pages	In Progress	Dots321 (t)	7 days, 15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Chino-Catane (t)	10 hours
List of South Korean girl groups	In Progress	98Tigerius (t)	7 days, 9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 12 hours
Benevolent dictatorship	New	Banedon (t)	6 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 13 hours
Talk:Taylor Swift	Closed	Gsgdd (t)	6 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	5 days, 17 hours
Kylie Minogue	New	PHShanghai (t)	3 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 18 hours	PHShanghai (t)	1 days, 10 hours
African diaspora	New	Kyogul (t)	16 hours	None	n/a	Kyogul (t)	16 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 07:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Sapedder on 05:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Srijanx22 (talk · contribs)
• Sapedder (talk · contribs)
• Chomskywala (talk · contribs)
• Elephanthunter (talk · contribs)
• Accesscrawl (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The main issue is that User:Srijanx22 is repeatedly and deliberately adding content that directly contradicts several sources in the long-standing stable version, specifically that the subject was a "leading figure" of a secessionist movement, when several reliable sources in the lead alone clearly state otherwise. This has been brought to their attention repeatedly in the talk page, but there is a fixed refusal to acknowledge the matter, much less balance the two views per NPOV.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Their main tactic of doing so is obfuscating with a secondary matter, that anyone who reverts the edit is doing so to suppress the word "militant," which besides being bad-faith conspiratorialism, the word "militant/leader of militancy" is already included twice in the lead, so this obfuscation is a non-sequitur. There is also the matter that this statement "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" is incoherent because the Damdami Taksal is a non-militant, historical Sikh educational cultural institution (in a nutshell for the uninitiated), so this statement risks mischaracterizing that institution. This has also been explained by multiple users, but to no avail. Their main reason for this is their shoehorning the word "militant" is that it simply "needs to belong in the first sentence," and any attempt to correct this is again a conspiracy. Again, this secondary tactic has been in the service of completely avoiding any discussion that the main issue of the subject being a "leading figure" of a secessionist movement is highly and reliably disputed.

• In addition, the edit adds a few redundancies to the lead, and screws it up from a compositional perspective, which also seems inconsequential to the user.

• The full attempt at a discussion is available on the talk page under *Lead*, if it is not too crazy-making.

• This noticeboard was also recommended earlier by a couple of admins at AN/EW: RegentsPark C.Fred

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

[[1]], [[2]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Restoring neutral wording to the beginning of the page lead, giving both sides equal representation as the long-standing version had, not unilaterally declaring one viewpoint by ignoring the other. It has been explained to this user repeatedly that their edits are directly contradicted by several reliable sources in the lead alone, and requires balance, but to no avail. Possibly having neutral editors help formulate this, maybe based on the pre-dispute version if it is found suitable.

Summary of dispute by Srijanx22

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

The main argument is entirely about the word "militant" on the first sentence which is perfectly valid per WP:LABEL and is backed by multiple reliable sources. I don't think participation by other editors is necessary because this is a pretty simple dispute and has been mostly between me and the OP. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale discussion

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

• Volunteer Note There have been more than 2 people involved in this discussion. All involved must be invited to participate here. Please tag them above and place a notice on all of their pages. To other volunteers- there has been significant discussion on the talk page over a prolonged period of time. It has been borderline personal- but not ANI level as of yet. Appears to be good candidate once all are tagged to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nightenbelle, what would be the threshold for inclusion here? Chomskywala (who initiated the discussion) and perhaps Elephanthunter were the only ones to contribute meaningfully in terms of discussion volume and/or explanation to warrant participation imo, beyond random unelaborated yeses and noes. Currently both seem sporadically active, but I can certainly message them. Sapedder (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Invite anyone who has contributed to the discussion- but they do not all have to participate for this to continue. But they should be offered the opportunity. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have messaged the contributors. Sapedder (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To moderators and observers, just a suggestion, maybe for later: in order to keep things focused and avoid muddying the waters, perhaps we can discuss each clause in isolation, as these are two distinct assertions anyway. The first being a) the primary issue, "leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]," a cursory tertiary claim directly contradicted by several in-depth, reliable secondary sources; and then any issues with b) "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" and the flaws and redundancies that this introduces which have been explained ad nauseum. This may facilitate things imo. Sapedder (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on JSB

I am opening this dispute for moderated discussion. First, please read the usual mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts do not clarify the disagreement. Overly long posts may be collapsed, and the poster may be asked to summarize. Uncivil posts will be collapsed. I do not claim to be an expert on the modern history of South Asia, but I will expect the editors to provide me with any background information that I need. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in the space provided for the purpose. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as representative of the community.

There are two principal parties to this discussion. If any other editors join, they are welcome to participate. Every editor is expected to read this noticeboard at least every 48 hours and reply at least every 48 hours. If you will need a break from the discussion, you may ask to have the discussion put on hold. Otherwise you are expected to respond.

The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editors wants changed. (I think I know, but I am asking anyway.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors on JSB

Frankly, what I would want doesn't differ much from the long-standing version of the lead some weeks ago. The end of the lead was specifically designated for the two widely divergent narratives on the subject, but wasn't too strident either way in terms of proclaiming what he was or wasn't, or wanted or didn't want; it simply states the difference in opinions, presents the sources, and respects the reader enough to let them make up their own mind. From a compositional perspective, one starts with staid, objective facts, then progressively builds upon them, not with such sweeping proclamations which so easily invite contradiction and instability. Any additional sources could be added there in the ending para, which then leads to further detail in the main body. That would be the only real change I would put forth from the long-standing version, that the sources simply be added to the respective viewpoints already equally represented in the closing of the lead (though at the risk of WP:OVERKILL, as there are a number of sources already which essentially say the same thing). Sapedder (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was obviously a 'militant' per his participation in Operation Blue Star and the sources I provided here. The opening sentence must say he was a "militant" just like Wikipedia calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on lead. JSB was the key figure of Khalistan movement.[3][4][5] These are just facts and should be preserved on lead. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator on JSB

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. This means that we need to be clear about what words in the article are in dispute. Read Be Specific at DRN. One of you has been specific, and one has not. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on the specific reply, it appears that the issue is whether to identify the subject, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, as a "militant". We have to identify him in a way that he has been described by reliable sources that is consistent with the neutral point of view. It would appear that his supporters would have identified him as a "freedom fighter" and his enemies would have identified him as a "terrorist", and neither of those would be consistent with neutral point of view. If there is objection to calling him a "militant", please specify what you think the article should say, and why.

Do either of the editors have any other specific issues about the wording of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors on JSB

The main issue is that there is a unilateral attempt to refer to the subject as "leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]", when clearly this is contradicted by several reliable secondary sources already present, brought to attention, and repeatedly ignored (something to note is that the sources stating this are mostly aged tertiary sources, which tend to recycle the same few lines of uncritical hearsay anyway). This absolutely does not belong in the opening, as it is reliably disputed by arguably better sources, so I do think I'm being a bit magnanimous by simply requiring NPOV and balance. Again, I would say there are two sub-debates here as to the wording.

And as anyone who has read the talk discussions will have noted over and over, the problem is that the phrase "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant organization, which it is not. The problem has never been the word "militant" per se, it already exists twice in the lead as "militant cadre/leader of militancy," as can be seen in the long-standing version I would point to as to what the article should say (the dispute has been limited to the first paragraph of the lead, but the rest of the lead should also be taken into consideration). So yet another shoehorned inclusion, which disregards/mischaracterizes a historic institution, is careless and inaccurate. This has pointedly never been addressed, and it must be to get anywhere. Sapedder (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator on JSB

Read Be Specific at DRN. If an editor wants a change made to the wording of the article, they should state exactly what they want changed.

Sapedder states that there are two sub-debates as to wording. Please state exactly what sentences you want changed. If Srijanx22 wants any specific portions of the article changed, please state what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Third statements by editors on JSB

• To be clear: Remove (a) "leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]." Not NPOV, contradicted by several secondary sources right in the lead (some are shown here at the very end of the section in green talk quote blocks). These divergent viewpoints are already adequately described at the end of the lead.
• Remove (b) "militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal." This wording wrongly makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant group, and this creates a redundancy in the paragraph ("Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" and "prominent orthodox Sikh historical institution Damdami Taksal." Latter is more correct anyway).

To reiterate, remove "...was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.[6] He..." as per the pre-dispute wording, as statement (a) is not NPOV and statement (b) mischaracterizes an institution with its flawed wording. The attached tertiary "citation" is not even properly formatted to boot. Sapedder (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• "militant leader" should be retained. It is supported by many reliable sources.[6][7][8][9] The opening sentence needs to be clear that he was a "militant" just like Wikipedia calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on the opening sentence.

JSB was the key figure of Khalistan movement,[10][11][12] so "leading figure of Khalistan movement" is also entirely correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator on JSB

Sapedder has now stated what they want removed. Please indicate what you want added in its place. Please also explain why the wording should be changed. Srijanx22 is saying that the existing wording is all right, so they are asked whether they want any other changes made to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors on JSB

Why the wording should be changed:

• "Leading figure of Khalistan movement [sic]," should be removed because it is contradicted by several reliable secondary sources, which state that the subject never even endorsed the idea of a separate state, much less headed a supposed movement for it at the time, even openly rejecting it. Some of these are reproduced below:

Sources

"At some stage, Bhindranwale had taken it upon himself to get the 1973 Anandpur Sahib Resolution passed. Incidentally, Bhindranwale had never asked for a separate Sikh state, but was fighting for the implementation of the 1973 resolution.... Bhindranwale, in fact, had always opined that he never asked for Khalistan, but if it was offered, the Sikhs would not give up the offer as they did during partition in August 1947." — Singh, Khushwant (2017). Captain Amarinder Singh: The People's Maharaja: An Authorized Biography. Hay House. pp. 156–157. "Bhindranwale was not an outspoken supporter of Khalistan, although he often emphasized the separate identity of the Sikhs." — Deol, Harnik (2000). Religion and Nationalism in India: The Case of the Punjab (Routledge Studies in the Modern History of Asia). Routledge. p. 170. "Mr. Bhindranwale himself said many times that he was not seeking an independent country for Sikhs, merely greater autonomy for Punjab within the Indian Union." — Stevens, William K. (June 19, 1984). "Punjab Raid: Unanswered Questions". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. "“He never demanded Khalistan.... All that Bhindranwale wanted was the implementation of the Anandpur Sahib resolution of 1973. Operation Bluestar and Bhindranwale’s death was the main reason that the demand for Khalistan found currency, even among the hardliners,” added Harjit." — Chandel, Shamsher (9 May 2022). "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale Never Asked For Khalistan, Claims Elder Brother Harjit Singh Rode". India Ahead. Noida, India. Retrieved 28 August 2022. "“Bhindranwale never raised the demand for Khalistan or went beyond the Akali Anandpur Sahib Resolution, while he himself was prepared for negotiations to the very end.” added Harjit." — Dulat, A. S. (13 Dec 2020). "Genesis of tumultuous period in Punjab". www.tribuneindia.com. The Tribune Trust. "Of course not," I said. "Look, if the Sikhs really want to create Khalistan and are prepared to die for it, I have little doubt they will succeed. But what do they really want? What do you want? Do you want Khalistan?" "I have never asked for Khalistan," [Bhindranwale] said. — Puri, Rajinder (November 2, 2003). "Remembering 1984". Tribune India. "The documentation of the reports sent to the central government before Operation Bluestar reads, “We ended this meeting in utmost cordiality and understanding and were happy at the outcome. In fact, I found there was nothing that would frighten the government of India, nor anyone else.” Pannun claimed that Bhindranwale had repeatedly told him, “I don’t want Khalistan, but they would give it on a platter to me.” He said the sant was “grossly misunderstood,” and had he been treated with honesty and consideration, Operation BlueStar would have never taken place." — Walia, Varinder (29 August 2008). "Man who made efforts to avert Op Bluestar is no more". Tribune India. "The assumption that Bhindranwale was insisting on Khalistan and rigidly denied any compromise is the biggest lie. What needs investigation is why Indira Gandhi despite having obtained an agreement with Bhindranwale that rendered Operation Bluestar redundant nevertheless launched the military action that led to her own death and to the tragic aftermath. What was her compulsion? Who was advising her?" — Puri, Rajinder (7 June 2014). "Biggest Lie about Bluestar!". The Statesman. Kolkata.

The current wording violates WP:NPOV ("Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.") and WP:BALANCE. It is an aging claim made by tertiary sources, which certainly do not trump secondary ones. Instead of insisting on one view or the other, both should be presented in a balanced, nuanced way (as they already are at the end of the lead).

• The wording "militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" should be removed because it falsely makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant/separatist/political group. It also creates careless redundancies in the paragraph: "Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" vs the more correct "prominent orthodox Sikh historical institution Damdami Taksal," as well as the word "militant/militancy" itself, which are already in the lead.

What is requested in its place:

• I am not requesting that anything new be added in place of the content to be removed, simply that the long-standing, pre-dispute neutral wording be restored: Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5] – 6 June 1984) was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[6] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10] gaining national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash. Sapedder (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Sapedder seems to be thinking that the sentence "leading figure of Khalistan movement" is the same as saying "the person who was leading the Khalistan movement". Bhinderanwale is called a key figure of Khalistan movement because that is how he is treated by those of Khalistan movement. I have already provided enough sources just above here which support that Bhinderanwale was the key figure of this movement and why "militant" word should be retained. Here is another scholarly source which says "Within a few years Bhindranwale developed his own power base quite apart from the Congress ( I ) and began to emerge as the key figure in the Sikh separatist movement that was demanding a new independent state for Sikhs in the Punjab, an independent state to be known as "Khalistan" (the "Land of the Khalsa" or the "Land of the Pure"). He and his followers took control of the Sikh Golden Temple and the Akal Takht (the "Eternal Tower"), the central shrine and symbol of the Sikh faith, in Amritsar early in 1984, stockpiling huge caches of weapons and apparently preparing for armed insurrection." I only want the tag bombing done here to be reverted. Everything else seems fine on the article. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator About JSB

The following is what I think the two editors want about the lede. I would like them to verify that I have restated correctly what they are asking.

Sapedder asks that the lede say:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5] – 6 June 1984) was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[6] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10] gaining national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.

Srijanx22 asks that the lede be left at:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5]– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.[6][dubious – discuss][inconsistent] He was not an advocate of Khalistan.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[17][18] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10][19][20][21][22] gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I will note that we should minimize any use of terminology that will be viewed either as positively loaded or negatively loaded. I am not at this point commenting on what I see as the connotations of those wordings, but would like to verify that that is what the editors are saying. Each editor may also make an additional one-paragraph statement.

Srijanx22 also says that they want the tag-bombing reverted. I see one tag on the article, which is a neutrality tag. The neutrality tag will be removed when this dispute is resolved. If there any other tagging issues, please state very briefly what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: There is not just one tag but two more tags that were added here. One at top of page and two on lead as "dubious" and "inconsistent". They should be reverted as well. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors About JSB

In regards to terminology, yes, this is exactly what I have asked for: as clear, unsensationalized and NPOV as possible. Anything else just invites perpetual conflict and page instability. Something I want to reiterate is that my version is the long-standing stable version, and hence should be treated as the default. The changed version is the current incoherent mess:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar;[4] 2 June 1947[5]– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.[6][dubious – discuss][inconsistent] He was not an advocate of Khalistan.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal.[17][18] He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[7][8][9][10][19][20][21][22] gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.

• The phrases in bold italics completely contradict each other, hence tags.
• The phrases in bold are redundancies. This is on top of the mischaracterization of the Damdami Taksal as a political/militant group of the first instance (and the redundancy of that word throughout the lead), which has been highlighted ad nauseum.

The fourth statement trying to defend this is also incoherent. Apparently, being a "leading figure of a movement" doesn't mean exactly that, it now means that he has posthumously come to symbolize a movement to its followers, or something (even though he never espoused it). But instead of writing anything like that (the end of the lead already covers that anyway), this specific wording and placement is rigidly insisted upon. This is just semantic plausible deniability.

To mangle the lead so badly, introduce so many faults in composition, let alone neutrality, and consider it just fine, is just a complete lack of regard for improving the content or writing quality of the page, as long as some loaded buzzwords are jammed into the first sentence at any cost. All obvious POV like this must be purged per the long-standing version. Sapedder (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator About JSB

I agree with Srijanx22Sapedder that the current version of the lede is arguing with itself. Srijanx22Sapedder has proposed to revert to the previous version of the lede. Does anyone else have an alternate proposal that respects neutral point of view and is free of internal contradictions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors About JSB

Slight mixup here, I was the one that proposed reverting to the previous version and brought up the POV+contradictions, just to clarify. Yes, the previous version is coherent and satisfies NPOV. Sapedder (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Moderator About JSB

I have made a correction. Each editor is asked to make another brief statement that does not repeat what has already been said. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You haven't made the correction at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fifth_Statement_by_Moderator_About_JSB. My preferred version (which you have laid out) still has tags but I opted for a pre-tag version which is here. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Not what he was referring to. Comprehension is key. Sapedder (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC) Can you stop throwing your limited understanding of the content here? You should avoid this especially when my message was particularly meant for Robert McClenon and he can speak for himself. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statements by Editors About JSB

I would like Robert McClenon to explain how the lead is "arguing with itself". The two statements that JSB was a militant and a key figure of Khalistan movement are entirely valid. I would be superfine if the lead is simply: "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was an Indian militant and a key figure of Khalistan movement." Srijanx22 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It's rather obvious that it's arguing with itself, to anyone engaging in good faith. So is this doubling down on obvious POV that is their seventh statement. I'd be "superfine" with the opposite POV statement. Obviously that would also create a neutrality problem, so all POV must go.

As to a brief statement, I would simply say that it it imperative that the lead is as restrained and unsensational with wording as possible, in either direction. The article before this had been relatively stable for the last year and a half or so, partly due to its careful wording that does not proclaim any POV as undisputed, thus not inviting constant counter-edits and conflict. The page's long-term history reflects this need; it is partly due to the long-standing lead (which was fashioned after months of collaboration) that it was possible for the page to finally be as stable for as long as it was, prior to this dispute.

I also note that there was no response here from the other party for over 72 hours, despite being active during that time, and being aware of replying within 48 hours. They have not offered any involved reasonings or reasonable alternatives, beyond essentially repeating over and over "it's sourced" (as the opposite is) or "I want it" (which is irrelevant). Sapedder (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I was involved in reverting on this article as well as discussion on talk page and I am surprised that I was not notified but 2 others with no contribution into this particular dispute for more than 1 month were. My view is that while Sapedder wants to preserve a JSB follower's POV on lead, the version to which Srijanx22 and several other editors have reverted to is clearly more encyclopedic. If there should be any significant change then it must go through RfC and if Sapedder wants to bludgeon and falsely accuse others of POV without any evidence then he should be reported for his misconduct because this WP:IDHT on Sapedder's part is apparently incredible. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Eighth Statement by Moderator on JSB

Does User:Accesscrawl want to take part in the discussion here, or do they think that progress can be made at the article talk page if I put this moderated discussion on hold? If they wish to take part in the discussion here, I will ask them to read the ground rules, and to comment on article content, not contributors. This is an article content forum. Conduct is not discussed here; often the resolution of content issues causes any conduct issues to subside. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The lede says that JSB was the leading figure of the Khalistan movement. It then says that he was not an advocate of Khalistan. That looks to me as if it is arguing with itself.

Assuming that we will continuing discussion here with an additional editor, I will ask each editor to state exactly what they want changed in the lede section (or what they want left the same). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Eighth Statements by Editors on JSB

"He was not an advocate of Khalistan" was added by Sapedder here together with tag bombing. I have already asked to revert that edit. I would be fine with a lead that simply state the facts. I am making two proposals as follow:

Proposal 1 - it is the same as before the tagging I mentioned

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar; 2 June 1947– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement. He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal. He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.

Proposal 2 - Modified lead and attached new sources to avoid repetition

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: [d͡ʒəɾnɛːlᵊ sɪ́ŋɡᵊ pɪ̀ɳɖrãːʋaːɭe]; born Jarnail Singh Brar; 2 June 1947– 6 June 1984) was an Indian militant and a key figure of Khalistan movement. He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal. He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash. References

I am fine with either version and have added additional sources in both proposals. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverse Racism

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by Gumbear on 16:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Reverse racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Gumbear (talk · contribs)
• Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The first sentence of the opening paragraph seems to violate NPOV, SYN, and is out of place as the first sentence in the opening paragraph. It defines reverse racism very narrowly without proper justification (i.e. to include only "affirmative action and other color-conscious programs" as a form of anti-white racism). I will avoid summarizing the entire discussion but, essentially, I asked that the definition either be properly substantiated or changed. Only one of 3 cited sources arguably supports the published definition (though appears out-of-context), while one of the other sources clearly contradicts the definition with a much broader definition. User Sangdeboeuf offered another uncited source, but it also seemed out-of-context (it was a statement on the origins of reverse racism rather than a definition). The current definition, aside from being a synthesis of 2 sources that don't claim to be definitions, would not encompass complaints the EEOC defines as "reverse-discrimination," U.S. Supreme Court decisions, or international non-white, non-AA acts of reverse racism/discrimination that are reported as such.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Reverse_racism

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide an outside, 3rd-party neutral perspective on this sentence.

Summary of dispute by Sangdeboeuf

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

The issues raised here have been addressed and refuted on the talk page already. The lead sentence does not say that "reverse racism" is limited to the issue of affirmative action as Gumbear earlier claimed. It does say that reverse racism is a concept applied to affirmative action and other color-conscious programs because that is what the sources say. The user is also claiming that Garner (2017)—who does in fact offer a definition of "reverse racism" on page 185—is not cited in the text even after I linked to the exact citation. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Reverse Racism discussion

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

Zeroth statement by moderator on reverse racism

Now that both editors have replied, I will determine whether moderated discussion is the way to resolve this dispute. Please read the usual ground rules. Do both editors think that moderated discussion, in which I (as moderator) ask questions and the editors answer, is likely to resolve the dispute? The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, and so we will discuss article content only, not conduct or other issues. Each editor will be asked to be specific in exactly what they want changed in the article or left the same. I would like each editor to reply, in one paragraph, whether they will participate in moderated discussion, and, optionally, exactly what they want changed ( or left the same) in the article. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI: My response is below, under Sangdeboeuf's statement. Gumbear (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

If both editors agree to moderated discussion, we will continue with moderated discussion. Otherwise I will advise what the next steps or next forum are.

Comment 0.5 by moderator

If the editors want an outside Third Opinion, then I am willing to provide one, just as if it had been requested at the Third Opinion noticeboard. If I do that, I will not available as a moderator for any further discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by editors on reverse racism

I'm willing to participate in a moderated discussion, thanks. However, if Gumbear really wants an outside, 3rd-party neutral perspective, than this dispute may be more simply resolved thru WP:THIRD. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Robert: are you familiar with either one of us or already have pre-disposed opinions on this issue? If not, I'm open to your moderation. I propose changing the current definition of "reverse racism" to one that more fully and accurately defines "reverse racism." The proposed definition, "Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the concept that typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities, or, in some instances, women," was previously changed by Sangdeboeuf in March 2018 to the current definition. It comes from a reputable scholar (Yee). Per our discussion, I believe the suggested change/reversion has a stronger foundation of support and is a more accurate definition of the term. I'm open to any questions you have. Gumbear (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on reverse racism

I have been aware of the name of one of the editors as being an editor, and have no preconceptions about either editor, and am not familiar with the dispute on reverse racism. (Sometimes I do not research a case in advance because I expect the editors to summarize it for me, and this is such a case.) Do both editors agree to moderated discussion? If so, we will have moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules again. If not, do both editors agree to a third opinion? If so, we will have a third opinion. In any case, will both editors please state, maybe again, exactly what they want changed in the article or left the same in the article. The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article, so it is important to identify where the disagreement is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors on reverse racism

I agree to your moderated discussion. As discussed, I propose to change the current first sentence of the article "reverse racism" to a more accepted definition that more fully encompasses the concept. The current one is anglo-centric and appears to be an association fallacy of a cited source. I previously requested to change it to Yee's definition: "Reverse racism is the concept that typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities." However, arguably better definitions come from the reputable dictionaries themselves, like here in the Oxford Dictionary, or here, or here, or here. I'm good with any of those. Gumbear (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator on reverse racism

Both editors have agreed to moderated discussion. One editor has asked to change the leading definition of reverse racism. Does the other editor agree or disagree with the change? Does either editor have any other specific changes that they want to make to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by editors on reverse racism

I disagree with the proposed change to the lead sentence, which should be left as-is absent more reliable, in-depth sourcing (as I indicated on the talk page). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, talk page discussion has continued and now includes input from Rhododendrites and Writ Keeper, who should be included here as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator on Reverse Racism

Because other editors have joined in the discussion at the article talk page, and it is possible that the involvement of the additional editors may resolve the controversy, I am putting this DRN thread on hold. Article talk page is a prerequisite to discussion here, and a dispute is only discussed here if talk page discussion is lengthy and inconclusive. The involvement of new editors again provides an opportunity for regular discussion to resolve the issue.

If the talk page discussion resolves the dispute, I will close this thread as resolved. If discussion with the additional editors is lengthy and inconclusive again, I will restart discussion including the additional editors. The space below this statement is available for any questions while article talk page discussion resumes. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors on Reverse Racism

NightHeron and Firefangledfeathers have also contributed to the talk page and should be included if discussion resumes here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Independence referendum

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Rsk6400 on 18:17, 24 September 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Independence referendum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Beshogur (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'd like to see a picture removed that claims to show the Donbas status referendums because that claim is not backed by a reliable source.

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

Talk:Independence_referendum#Donbass

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the discussion is stuck because the other editor never answered to my central point. So I hope a mediated discussion can help us to get out of that situation and find a consensus that conforms to WP:V.

Summary of dispute by Beshogur

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

Independence referendum discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - Waiting for input from User:Beshogur. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure what counterargument I can put here. I've already talked on the page. It's absurd to ask one single picture removed from that particular article, while Butko (talk · contribs)'s pictures were used all over wikipedia regarding Donbass&Russia-Ukraine wars. So imo he has to go to wikimedia, and ask for their deletion. Not for a particular article. Beshogur (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Mediator's Statement 1

Hi, I am willing to mediate this discussion. I believe I understand the problem and I have reviewed the talk page discussion. As I understand it- a photo was used for Independence Referendum of the Donbas Status referendum to support the article. User:Rsk6400 wants a citation to support the use of the photo, User:Beshogur says that the photo is already established as authentic on its own. Do I understand the arguments well? Do either of you have anything else to add before we begin? Also- both of you please indicate you have read the rules at the top of this page and agree to engage with the mediator- not each other, and that you will remain civil and comment on content not editors. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Rsk6400's statement

I also agree that I have read and will comply with the rules, but I'd like to clarify my point of view: I don't want a citation, I want the picture to be removed from the article because no reliable source is given for the claim that it shows the Donbass referendum. Even if it could be shown that it really shows that referendum, there is still no RS that it shows a typical situation from the referendum, nor that the Donbass referendum qualifies as an independence referendum (I think it was just a sham referendum). Rsk6400 (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Beshogur's statement

Yes, I agree. I don't think my comments could change any of his opinion, so would like to hear other people as well. Beshogur (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Mediator's Statement 2

Thank you for the clarification User:Rsk6400. User:Beshogur Could you please first answer how we know this is a photo of the Donbass referendum? Lets start by establishing the credibility and authenticity of the photo and then we will move onto the rest. I believe on the talk page you said something about it being uploaded by an editor who took the photo? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Accountability software

– New discussion.

Filed by Keithgreenfan on 01:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Accountability software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Keithgreenfan (talk · contribs)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs)
• MrOllie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

On 09/22/2022, Wired published an article on accountability software that described the abuse of the software by a particular church. A Wikipedia editor (Sandstein) rewrote the entire article to make it appear that this church's misuse of the software was the *purpose* that the entire software category is used for. He also used one church member's comment to inaccurately recategorize the entire type of software. It took on a very hostile and non-neutral tone.

After my first edit, Sandstein reverted the change and commented. I explained why the new version was inaccurate, taking into account his valid points. I got no response after a few hours so I made another round of edits, taking into account his comments. Within minutes the changes were reverted. Sandstein and MrOllie commented. Some valid points, but they ignored several points. MrOllie and I have exchanged points several times but it doesn't appear to be headed toward resolution.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Accountability_software

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I just want to have a reasonable discussion about the article. I am alarmed at how false and inaccurate it is now. I don't mind valid points being made about reversions, but Sandstein has reverted every change I have made including several quotes from the articles he himself is linking to that bring clarity to the topic.

Summary of dispute by Sandstein

The dispute is about which of two recent versions of Accountability software is preferable. MrOllie and I think that this version accurately reflects how the topic is described in reliable sources, and that the version preferred by Keithgreenfan is non-neutral, in that it attempts to portray this category of software in an overly flattering light. Keithgreenfan alleges that the first version is "inaccurate", but they do not point out how exactly it is, in their view, inaccurate in terms of diverging from reliable sources. Discussion at Talk:Accountability software#Edits in September 2022 is difficult because of WP:WALLOFTEXT issues on the part of Keithgreenfan. (As an aside, the media article to which Keithgreenfan refers was published by Wired (magazine), not Salon.com.) Sandstein 07:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MrOllie

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

This is a basic case where an infrequent editor with some strong personal opinions (see for example this comment about their 20+ years of personal experience on this topic) needs a brush up on WP:NPOV and WP:OR so as to confine themselves to what the sources are saying rather than editing based on their personal experience. - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Accountability software discussion

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

Fizeau experiment

– New discussion.

Filed by Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog on 02:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Fizeau experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk · contribs)
• Nemesis75 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Nemesis75 wishes to add content to the article which I, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog, question as representing probable original research. Much of what Nemesis75 has wished to add to the article is not unacceptable to me and probably only requires a bit of back-and-forth editing to bring to an acceptable compromise wording. However, Nemesis75 wishes to add the following statement to the article that I demand must be backed up with an appropriate reliable source:

Alternatively, one must adopt the ad hoc hypothesis that the properties of aether change to a Nonlinear_system such as found in the Soliton in the presence of matter.

Nemesis75 insists that anybody familiar with the literature should be able to figure out the validity of his statement. I, on the other hand, question the validity of the statement, and consider that all of Nemesis75's arguments expressed on the talk page in support of that statement's inclusion represent wp:SYNTHESIS. Nemesis75 considers that my reverting his additions to the article are too heavy handed, that simply adding WP:NEEDCITE to anything that I question as being insufficiently sourced should be sufficient. I do not consider addition of NEEDCITE to be sufficient, since the content that Nemesis75 wishes to add is strictly false and must be reverted. Nemesis75 considers that my reversions of his edits constitute vandalism.

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

Talk:Fizeau_experiment#Apparent_original_research

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Nemesis75 has insisted on the Talk page that he could provide reliable sourcing for the disputed statement, but has thus far not done so despite my repeated requests. Let Nemesis75 know that if he is unable to provide reliable sourcing to challenged content, that the challenged content must be removed.

Summary of dispute by Nemesis75

1. Stachel is an american historian who attempts to quote Veltmann's German paper in the citation used in the disputed area.
2. In his quotation he interprets a single small line in Veltman's paper to come to the conclusion that Fresnel's hypothesis of partial aether drag -a mechanical wave theory- directly requires multiple separate mediums to support each of the multiple colors of light which each have a different index of refraction. Thus completely misrepresenting the ability for a mechanical single medium to have dispersion effects.
3. I added a single line to help offset the misleading info about mechanical waves I encountered in this statement. I gave the Nonlinear system and Soliton articles as examples of both compensatory dispersion effects as well as single medium dispersion. (not requiring multiple mediums)
4. Caspase reverted, stating citation was needed, disregarding the Wikipedia articles cited.
5. More reversions occur as talk page argumentation begins (with extensive explanations of well established wave mechanics)
6. I edit more of the area in an attempt to bring some resolution
7. Capsase uses blanking, illegitimate to remove all my successive content unrelated to dispute (~1500) with a flippant reason and flagrantly ignoring WP:STATUSQUO guideline
8. I warn him to not use vandalism as I do around 12 hours of citation resourcing and re-write to resolve dispute and add more context to the Stachel bias problem
9. He opens this dispute notice during that time
10. I commit new version I worked all day on in attempt to resolve dispute
11. I'm made aware of this dispute resolution noticeboard post
12. As of these updates the challenged content is removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemesis75 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Fizeau experiment discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - User:Aoidh has also taken part in the discussion on the article talk page, and should be notified of this discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Splitting the discussion between here and the article talk page is rather confusing, so I am moving what I had previously written below to the article Talk page at Talk:Fizeau_experiment#Continuation_of_discussion_from_Dispute_Resolution_Noticeboard Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)