<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
This is an admittedly unusual dispute. Ultimately, the section of the article itself - an "authorship controvery" - should be deleted as based on a single source from a broken link, i.e., undue weight given to currently unverifiable information in a currently unavailable source.
In essence (and trying to summarize information that is unavailable to me given that the link is broken) - in 2002, an individual made a public claim of authorship of a work of art published in 1968, and provided certain biographical details about herself (age, region of the United States, physical disability, professional history). Some time after 2002, a 1993 news article became available online that was a profile of a person with the same first and last name, profession, region of the United States, and identifying physical disability. This article provided contradictory biographical information about the 2002 claimant - specifically, that she became a performing musician circa 1980, 12 years after the work of art at issue was published.
There is a claim of synthesis/improper original research if the 1993 article is included, apparently because it did not identify the subject of the 1993 article as the same person who claimed authorship in 2002 of a song published in 1968 by a songwriter who died in 1973. To the extent this is an "authorship controversy," I submit that data in a reliable, accessible 1993 article about someone who is almost certainly the same person as the claimant who told a different story in 2002 is directly relevant to the "controversy," and should be included in some fashion, if the controversy is included at all. If this is a policy violation, then the policy should be changed, because Wikipedia is a valued, primary source for many people, and all relevant facts should be available when someone accuses a dead person of fraudulent/criminal conduct 30 years after their death, and appears to have told a different story to a newspaper just a few years earlier.
In any event, I think the whole section should be deleted given the undue weight/inaccessible link issue, but if the 2002 claims are included, certainly the 1993 data should also be.
Thank you for your time, and thanks to ThaddeusSholto for a sincere, vigorous, and interesting good faith discussion.
=== Hickory Wind discussion ===
=== Hickory Wind discussion ===
Revision as of 16:32, 14 October 2023
Informal venue for resolving content disputes
"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
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.
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.
The dispute must have beenrecently 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.
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).
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 13:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Filed by Tgeorgescu on 22:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The rub is The scholarly consensus is that they are the work of unknown Christians and were composed c.68-110 AD.[1][2]
I have given multiple WP:RS/AC-compliant WP:RS written by authors on the both sides of the dispute. The other editor claims that Ehrman is too controversial and that the Holman bibles are unscholarly. Neither is she convinced by Witherington, who shares her POV, but actually agrees with my WP:RS/AC claim (in respect to the Gospel of Matthew).
The list of WP:RS "on my side" is available at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. Hint: this discussion does not concern the works of Smith and Valantasis c.s.
Give an opinion whether my WP:RS/AC claims are good or bad. Since it is a content guideline, and if the WP:RS are good enough for it, it should be applied. If sources are bad, that no longer holds.
Summary of dispute by Jenhawk777
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My complaint is with two things: the claim that there is "scholarly consensus" and the source for that claim. The source which makes the claim, is itself sourced to a self-published work, and neither has any data, or support, or even a cited discussion, of a scholarly consensus actually existing. It looks like a baseless claim in a heavily biased source.
This is not about the veracity of the claim concerning authorship itself, which the talk page discussion kept veering off into. This is purely - imo - an issue with the claim there is such a thing as consensus concerning it. This is a big claim, and as such, it needs a better more reliable source, or imo, the claim should be removed.
I am tired of asking that personal points of view not be discussed, since whether I personally agree or not is completely beside the point, and I have repeatedly stated that. I have an unwavering commitment to practicing neutrality. There's an essay on my user page on it. It's not about which individual scholars agree or don't or which "side" they are on. That doesn't prove consensus. For me, it is just about whether the claim of consensus is well sourced. If it isn't, then it should go until a better source for it can be found. That's it. That's all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Historical reliability of the Gospels discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Question by volunteer about historical reliability of the Gospels discussion
Now using verbatim quotes instead of summaries: she claims that Ehrman is self-identified as biased toward the anti-Christian view and that the Holman bibles are not a good example of scholarship of any kind. Neither is she convinced by Witherington and others. By WP:RS/AC claims I mean WP:RS stating "most scholars" (6 RS), "most modern scholars" (1 RS), "most critical scholars" (4 RS counting 3 Holman bibles), "historical critical scholars deny ... today, these persons are not thought to have been the actual authors" (1 RS), "historical-critical scholarship massively doubts that" (1 RS), and "majority [of modern scholars]" (1 RS). There are other implicit WP:RS/AC claims, e.g. The New Testament : a historical introduction to the early Christian writings by Ehrman (2004) and Lüdemann (2000). She claims that most WP:RS listed at User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3 are not enough for those WP:RS/AC claims (there are four or five sources which I added later to that list, and were not discussed previously). So of course, I do not want to preserve the word consensus, "most scholars" or "most critical scholars" would do.
There are sources from Cambridge, Harvard, and Oxford University Press. B&H Publishing Group, InterVarsity Press, Wipf & Stock, Westminster John Knox Press, Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, Pickwick Publications, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Abingdon Press, and Paulist Press are Christian publishers. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then we will take it to WP:RSN. But I warn you that RSN is more merciless than DRN. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tgeorgescu Thank you for your concern. I don't require mercy. If they decide it's a good source, or if they don't, all that matters to me is that the standards of the encyclopedia are maintained. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There is ongoing dispute about whether to use the noun "terrorist", in place of "militant", to refer in-article to those who perpetrated the massacre in question, and members of Hamas in general. (The debate hasn't really been about the description of the act itself. There appears to be consensus about the title of the article, and no one has objected to its short description, "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" to my knowledge).
I think it would be fair to say the discussion is now just going in circles. It mainly concerns the applicability of the MOS:TERRORIST policy; should the word "terrorist(s)" be used only with in-text attribution, as the policy would appear to say, or should it be used in Wikispeak. I am on the former side of the issue, but obviously there is significant disagreement.
The page is under a contentious topic restriction, meaning the 1RR is in place; there have been a number of unilateral impositions of one or other wording, and several reverts (some of which may have violated the 1RR). Some outside input, regardless of what it involved, might help to discourage that. I am not hopeful that participants in this dispute can be mediated towards seeing eye-to-eye, so advice from DR volunteers on how best to proceed would be appreciated.
Summary of dispute by BAR
It is CRYSTAL CLEAR that this massacre is a terrorist attack. Murder of hundreds of unarmed civilians; hostage crisis; Kidnapping and taking captive of dozens of innocent people; Sexual abuse and humiliation of bodies, the display in the streets of Gaza and on Telegram.This is exactly the definition of terrorism. No less than Nine-Eleven. All they want is to sow fear in the hearts of the citizens. If it is not terrorism, there is simply no such thing as terrorism. ℬ𝒜ℛ (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Yr Enw
My problem isn't with whether or not the actions fit a definition of terrorism, but that there is no possible application of the term in Wikivoice that will ensure WP:NPOV can be maintained. The social sciences have recognised for a long time "terror", "terrorism" and "terrorist" are biased, loaded labels (can source is req'd) and so it would then have to be applied to articles on Israeli reprisals, etc. It is far too broad a term to be of utility (esp if the lead definition on Terrorism is applied) and is not used in leads for (for eg) Omagh bombing, Deir Yassin massacre or the 1996 Manchester bombing. I do, nonetheless, recognise multiple sources have used the term and have no objection to including "X, Y and Z condemned the massacre as terrorism" or suchlike. This does, however, seem to have consequences for wikivoice on articles like September 11 attacks and the Jaffa Road bus bombings. But we are not losing anything by using other words or caveating the term with "X condemned Y as terrorism". Yr Enw (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by דוב
According to MOS:TERRORISTValue-laden labels should be avoided, this of course makes much sense to avoid biased writing. The manual althorugh, follows by "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject", an example for which can be seen in September 11 attacks, where the term 'terrorist' has been used to describe the attack. There are over dozens of sources, which are offical statements of countries across the world who described the attack as a terror attack (over 80 countries) and considered Hamas as a terrorist organization, including the Europion Union. Calling it a 'militant group' isn't the right term, most of the militaries across the world don't behead babies, kidnapp civilians or massacare a music festival. If needed I can back up any of the claims with various overlapping reliable sources. דוב (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Alalch E.
Editors want to include a mention of terrorism in the article, but seem unable to do it properly, and are unable to distinguish between Hamas being called a terrorist organization, Palestinian militants being called terrorists, and the event being called a terrorist attack. For the concerned article, which is about the massacre, the only truly important question is the last one. It's possible to say that it was a terrorist attack somewhere in the body, with some form of in-text attribution. Of course we don't have to say that every Palestinian militant is a terrorist. I significantly disagree with User:AntiDionysius' argument on the talk page: Special:Diff/1179573519. It's an argument against the notion of terrorism. But terrorism exists. It's studied in social sciences. For example, as topic within criminology. The word is not just a pejorative label. We have the article Definition of terrorism. This event was a terrorist attack.[1]
"Hamas Leaves Trail of Terror in Israel". The New York Times. 10 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. As Israeli soldiers regain control of areas near Gaza that came under attack, they are finding evidence seen in videos and photos and confirmed by witness accounts of the massacre of civilians by Hamas terrorists.They were killed waiting for the bus, dancing at a festival ...The soldiers, retaking control of the kibbutzim, towns and settlements near the Gaza Strip that came under attack by Palestinian terrorists over the weekend, have recovered body after body after body.
"'I heard only gunshots, screams and Arabic': Last call from Israel festival attack". Politico. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. A father, Yomtov, searches for his son, Ben, who was partying with more than 4,000 other people at the Tribe of Nova trance music festival Saturday morning when Hamas terrorists opened fire on the celebrating crowd, killing hundreds.
Pierson, Elisabeth (10 October 2023). "Attaque du Hamas en Israël : ce que l'on sait des vingt Français disparus". Le Figaro (in French). Retrieved 11 October 2023. Parmi les autres disparus figure la Franco-israélienne Céline Ben-David Nagar. Cette femme de 32 ans, mère d'un bébé de six mois a été surprise par les roquettes du Hamas alors qu'elle rejoignait la rave party électro près de Gaza samedi, où 260 corps ont été retrouvés après l'attaque des terroristes. (transl. Among the others missing is the Franco-Israeli Céline Ben-David Nagar. This 32-year-old woman, mother of a six-month-old baby, was surprised by Hamas rockets as she joined the rave party near Gaza on Saturday, where 260 bodies were found after the terrorist attack.)
Brooks, Katie Bain,Dave; Bain, Katie; Brooks, Dave (10 October 2023). "'It Was a Death Trap': Israeli Rave Massacre Survivors Detail Their Escape as Scores Remain Missing". Billboard. Retrieved 11 October 2023. So far, the Israeli search and rescue organization Zaka has reported that it found 260 dead bodies at the festival site in Re'im, Israel. An unknown number of attendees have been abducted by Hamas terrorists.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Renou, Aymeric (9 October 2023). "Attaques du Hamas en Israël : les Bédouins arabes pleurent aussi leurs morts". Le Parisien (in French). Osama Abu Essa, 36 ans, père de deux enfants et originaire de Tel Sheva, travaillait comme gardien dans la région de Réïm, tout comme Musa Abu Sabila, 41 ans, père de six enfants. Ils ont succombé à leurs blessures par balles samedi matin à proximité du festival de musique alors qu'ils tentaient de trouver refuge pour se protéger des tirs des terroristes du Hamas. (transl. Osama Abu Essa, 36, father of two and from Tel Sheva, worked as a caretaker in the Réïm region, as did Musa Abu Sabila, 41, father of six. They died of their gunshot wounds on Saturday morning near the music festival while trying to find refuge to protect themselves from the shooting of Hamas terrorists.)
"Izraelski 9/11: Erupcija zamrznute mržnje" [Israel's 9/11: The Eruption of Frozen Hate]. www.vreme.com (in Serbian). 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. Izrael je ponižen. Palestinski teroristi su iz Pojasa Gaze u subotu u zoru prodrli na više lokacija na izraelsku teritoriju, izvršili pokolj, pobili preko 700, ranili na hiljade, oteli oko stotinu Izraelaca – žene, decu, starce, muškarce, vojnike. (transl. Israel is humiliated. Palestinian terrorists from the Gaza Strip penetrated into several locations on Israeli territory at dawn on Saturday, massacred, killed over 700, wounded thousands, and kidnapped about a hundred Israelis - women, children, old men, men, soldiers.)
"Opinion | The Attack on Israel Demands Unity and Resolve". The New York Times. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. The brutal terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas is a tragedy...The terrorists burst through border fences without warning or any immediate provocation, landed on Israeli beaches and fired thousands of rockets into Israel early on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath and a Jewish holiday. Many Israelis have called this attack their 9/11.
J.H. (9 October 2023). "Izrael još uvek nije uspostavio punu kontrolu na jugu zemlje" [Israel has not yet established full control in the country's south]. Vreme (in Serbian). Retrieved 11 October 2023. Sve što se dogodilo izazvalo je talas osećanja nesigurnosti među Izraelcima. Oni jesu okoreli na pojedinačne terorističke napade, ili raketne napade, ali se okršaji na teritoriji Izraela nisu vodili još od Jomkipurskog rata 1973. godine.A ovakav način terorističke borbe je potpuno nov. ...(transl. Everything that has happened caused a wave of feelings of unsafety among Israelis. They are hardened to individual terrorist attacks, or rocket attacks, but skirmishes on the territory of Israel have not been occurring since the Yom Kippur War in 1973.And this mode of terroristic struggle is completely new. ...)
"Oko: Izrael i Hamas – sirotinjski terorizam i početak dugog i teškog rata" [Oko: Israel and Hamas – terrorism from the slums and the beginning of a long and tough war]. Radio-televizija Srbije. 9 October 2023. Retrieved 11 October 2023. "To je neka vrsta, da je tako nazovemo, sirotinjskog terorizma. Jeste bilo iznenađenje kada krene veliki broj ljudi, nekoliko stotina na različite načine – da se bagerima sruši ograda, paraglajderi sa mora... Ali suštinski, to nije velika vojna akcija, tu nema tenkova, nema aviona" ..."To je orgija nasilja u kojoj je cilj da se ubije što više ljudi i da se pokaže Izraelcima da mogu i oni da budu žrtve ...(transl. "It's some kind of, let's call it that way, terrorism from the slums. It was a surprise when a large number of people, several hundred of them, set out in a variety of ways – tearing down the fence with excavators, paragliders from the sea... But essentially, it's not a major military action, there are no tanks, no planes," ... "It is an orgy of violence in which the goal is to kill as many people as possible and to show the Israelis that they too can be victims ...)
Hoffman, Bruce; Ware, Jacob (10 October 2023). "Israel's 9/11? How Hamas Terrorist Attacks Will Change the Middle East". War on the Rocks. Retrieved 11 October 2023. Many commentators have rightly decried the attack as terrorism. ...Saturday's attacks should offer a stark reminder of terrorism's unique ability to drive geopolitical agendas and completely upend status quos.
The sources aren't calling the massacre a terrorist attack to make the perpetrators look worse, they are either using the word to describe what happened, in a fairly natural, non-emphasized way, or are explaining why it's terrorism and what the implications of that are.—Alalch E. 04:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re'im music festival massacre discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Re'im massacre)
I am ready to moderate. Please read DRN Rule E and state that you agree to the rules. The article may still be expanding, because the massacre occurred only a few days ago, so editors will be allowed to expand the article, but not to make any other changes, and not to revert any edits by other editors. The topic is a contentious topic because it has to do with Palestine-Israeli conflict. If you agree to these rules, you are acknowledging that contentious topic sanctions apply to disruptive editing. So do not be disruptive. Be civil and concise. Is the only issue whether to refer to the massacre as a "terrorist" attack in the lede sentence? If not, what are the other issues?
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (Re'im massacre)
Rule E is fine by me, and I agree to it. Regarding the bounds of the dispute: it is about whether the word "militants" (particularly in the first sentence of the article, but also elsewhere) should be replaced with "terrorists", without in-text attribution. I would describe myself as basically fine with the article as it is; it has the short description "2023 terrorist attack against civilians in Israel" and is in the category "Terrorist attacks attributed to Palestinian militant groups", but uses the noun "militants" when referring to people/groups in Wikispeak (but says "terrorists" once in the context of an attributed quote). I believe that some others would prefer the article be changed, maybe along the lines of this revision. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read Rule E, and I agree to it. I agree with AntiDionysius's proposal. דוב (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read and agree Rule E. I think my issue is ultimately wider, about WP:TERRORIST in general. So if that’s outside the scope of DR, I agree with AntiDionysius’s proposal. I note the article has been revised since their post Yr Enw (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First statement by moderator (Re'im)
I will repeat a few of the rules in DRN Rule E. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts often do not convey information. Sometimes they convey mood, such as that the poster is angry, but the purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Do not reply to the posts of other editors. There is a section for back-and-forth discussion, but address your statements to the moderator and the community.
Will each editor please state what parts of the article they want changed? You do not need to say why you want the change. We can discuss that later. Please summarize concisely what you want change in the article.
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (Re'im)
My suggested changes are the following: Using the word 'terror attack' to describe the event similar to the articles Munich massacre and September 11 attacks, and usage of the word 'terrorists' instead of 'militants'. Regarding civil hostages, referring to it as "kidnaping" and not "capturing". dov (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is not using the term "terror attack" and to retain "militant(s)" over "terrorist(s)". I have no opinion on kidnapping/capturing. Yr Enw (talk) 16:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back-and-forth discussion (Re'im)
Talk:Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mikeblas on 17:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Closed for at least two reasons. First, this is a dispute about multiple related child articles. Discussion about multiple related child articles should be at the parent article talk page, which is Talk:2023 Pan American Games, but there has not been any discussion there, only on the child pages. Second, the overall topic is a multinational sporting event from 20 October to 5 November, and the issues have to do with articles about planned sporting events, but by the time that discussion was completed, the sporting events will have begun, and the process of normal editing for events in progress should be in process. So this discussion is late, because by the time the discussion is completed, the games will have started, and recording of their results will have started.
Discuss any urgent matters on the parent article talk page, Talk:2023 Pan American Games, or wait until the games are underway and expand the articles by normal editing with discussion on the child article talk pages. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I've been having trouble with the "Country at 2023 Pan American Games". These articles were created very early, long before the events started, with few references, a large number of red links, missing references, and boilerplate formatting with missing content. I opened an AfD for them, which resulted in "no concensus", though there was some concensus about drafifying the articles.
After some discussion, I moved the articles to draft space. That effort was reverted by Hey man im josh because the articles were more than 90 days old.
Sportsfan 1234 has repeatedly reverted my attempts at tagging and cleaning up the articles, most recently reverting actions I took based on a third opinion response. Sportsfan is happy to revert my edits, but will admonish me for edit warring whenever I revert my changed back [2][3], or accuse me of vandalism when removing blank boilerplate content [4], which further impedes communication.
This content has problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK and needs to be properly managed. What's the best way to get it cleaned up?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This content has problems with WP:CRYSTAL and WP:REDLINK and needs to be properly cleaned up and managed going forward. What's the best path to that end?
Summary of dispute by Sportsfan 1234
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Hey man im josh
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Talk:Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - A Third Opinion volunteer is offering comments on the article talk page. Continue discussion on the article talk page for another 24 hours. If that discussion is inconclusive, the Third Opinion volunteer should be added to the list of participants. In the meantime, I am neither opening nor closing this case request. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article has a subsection entitled authorship controversy which details an article written on folklinks.com dating to 2002 which claims one "Sylvia Sammons" actually authored the song. Now this whole section is dependent on that one source so that alone may be a undue weight issue.
Eldanger25 added material about a 1993 article which gives information on someone named "Sylvia Sammons" and has used that information to claim refutation of the later authorship claims. This is very obviously WP:SYNTH as the two articles cannot be used to draw one single conclusion not stated in either one. Further there is no concrete evidence this is the same Sammons in both articles.
Eldanger25 is repeatedly adding the information and claims on the talk page there is "strong circumstantial evidence that it is the same person" which they feel makes it valid to include.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Hickory_Wind#disputed_authorship I explained the issues with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here and pinged Eldanger25 which led to a conversation that quickly went nowhere as I found myself repeating the same policies to no avail.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
We need someone to clarify if my understanding of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR are correct and/or if the 1993 can be included in that section as evidence against Sammons' claims of authorship.
Summary of dispute by Eldanger25
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is an admittedly unusual dispute. Ultimately, the section of the article itself - an "authorship controvery" - should be deleted as based on a single source from a broken link, i.e., undue weight given to currently unverifiable information in a currently unavailable source.
In essence (and trying to summarize information that is unavailable to me given that the link is broken) - in 2002, an individual made a public claim of authorship of a work of art published in 1968, and provided certain biographical details about herself (age, region of the United States, physical disability, professional history). Some time after 2002, a 1993 news article became available online that was a profile of a person with the same first and last name, profession, region of the United States, and identifying physical disability. This article provided contradictory biographical information about the 2002 claimant - specifically, that she became a performing musician circa 1980, 12 years after the work of art at issue was published.
There is a claim of synthesis/improper original research if the 1993 article is included, apparently because it did not identify the subject of the 1993 article as the same person who claimed authorship in 2002 of a song published in 1968 by a songwriter who died in 1973. To the extent this is an "authorship controversy," I submit that data in a reliable, accessible 1993 article about someone who is almost certainly the same person as the claimant who told a different story in 2002 is directly relevant to the "controversy," and should be included in some fashion, if the controversy is included at all. If this is a policy violation, then the policy should be changed, because Wikipedia is a valued, primary source for many people, and all relevant facts should be available when someone accuses a dead person of fraudulent/criminal conduct 30 years after their death, and appears to have told a different story to a newspaper just a few years earlier.
In any event, I think the whole section should be deleted given the undue weight/inaccessible link issue, but if the 2002 claims are included, certainly the 1993 data should also be.
Thank you for your time, and thanks to ThaddeusSholto for a sincere, vigorous, and interesting good faith discussion.
Hickory Wind discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.