Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Eldanger25 (talk | contribs) |
Eldanger25 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 299: | Line 299: | ||
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 (EDIT - the archived source has been restored, though the undue weight issue remains). |
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 (EDIT - the archived source has been restored, though the undue weight issue remains). |
||
In essence |
In essence - 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. |
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. |
||
Line 305: | Line 305: | ||
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. |
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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Eldanger25|Eldanger25]] ([[User talk:Eldanger25#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Eldanger25|contribs]]) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Thank you for your time, and thanks to ThaddeusSholto for a sincere, vigorous, and interesting good faith discussion. |
||
[[User:Eldanger25|Eldanger25]] ([[User talk:Eldanger25|talk]]) 16:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Eldanger25|Eldanger25]] ([[User talk:Eldanger25#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Eldanger25|contribs]]) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
=== Hickory Wind discussion === |
=== Hickory Wind discussion === |
Revision as of 16:54, 14 October 2023
![]() |
|
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 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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Neith | In Progress | Potymkin (t) | 10 days, 4 hours | Potymkin (t) | 6 hours | Potymkin (t) | 6 hours |
Riley Gaines | Closed | Lisha2037 (t) | 6 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 8 hours |
Chechil | Closed | Lemabeta (t) | 18 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 17 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 17 hours |
Algeria | In Progress | Potymkin (t) | 15 hours | Potymkin (t) | 8 hours | Monsieur Patillo (t) | 5 hours |
Turntablist transcription_methodology | Closed | WikiSkratch2000 (t) | 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 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 23:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
![]() | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
Historical reliability of the Gospels
![]() | Closed. This was discussed at length at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Re'im music festival massacre
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
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.
A similar (but perhaps not identical?) issue has also been discussed on the page for the conflict in general: (nb: the formatting of the heading of the discussion section is such that it cannot be linked directly to)
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Re'im music festival massacre#Are Hamas soldiers terrorists?
Talk:Re'im_music_festival_massacre#Terrorist_attack
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
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)
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)
Summary of dispute by דוב
According to MOS:TERRORIST Value-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)
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]
A smattering of sources
|
---|
References
|
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)
Re'im music festival massacre discussion
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)
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)
- I read Rule E, and I agree to it. I agree with AntiDionysius's proposal. דוב (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
Back-and-forth discussion (Re'im)
Talk:Brazil at the 2023 Pan American Games
![]() | 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) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Jennifer Connelly
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Thedarkknightli (talk · contribs)
- Dr. Simon Hurt (talk · contribs)
- Timceharris (talk · contribs)
- GDuwen (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Should we include Connelly in Category:American people of Irish descent and Category:American people of Jewish descent?
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Jennifer Connelly#Categories, User talk:Thedarkknightli#Category removal
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Consensus on this is needed. Perhaps we should expand WP:ETHNICRACECAT.
Summary of dispute by Dr. Simon Hurt
Summary of dispute by Timceharris
Summary of dispute by GDuwen
Jennifer Connelly discussion
Hickory Wind
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- ThaddeusSholto (talk · contribs)
- Eldanger25 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
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
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 (EDIT - the archived source has been restored, though the undue weight issue remains).
In essence - 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. Eldanger25 (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldanger25 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)