<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)===
I am still ready to try to mediate this dispute. Please read [[WP:DRN Rule D|DRN Rule D]], and reply whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to this set of rules, which include recognizing that the [[Ukrainian language]] is a [[WP:CTOPIC|contentious topic]] subject to the [[WP:ARBEE| Arbitration Committee ruling on disputes about Eastern Europe]]. [[WP:CTOPIC|The contentious topics procedure]] has been provided in part to deal with [[WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground editing]] about world areas that have been historically real battlegrounds, or are current battlegrounds, and [[Ukraine]] is the area of the bloodiest war of the twenty-first century. An editor has said that there have been other editors involved in this dispute. After discussion, we may either use a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comments]] to involve other editors, or invite the other editors to take part in this discussion.
So I am asking whether at least two editors agree to moderated discussion subject to [[WP:DRN Rule D|DRN Rule D]] and [[WP:ARBEE|Eastern Europe contentious topic rules]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
===Zeroth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)===
== Khitan (circumcision) ==
== Khitan (circumcision) ==
Revision as of 23:21, 24 November 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 02:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the issue hinges around two points. The first is the question of including polling and support for the amendment. The second is whether the section on the Mexico City Policy should be reduced or kept the same.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I hope a compromise can be made over the disagreements and/or clarification by uninvolved parties as to what is the best way to settle the dispute.
Summary of dispute by 3Kingdoms
I believe that there is enough support to include a Marist poll about American views on the funding of abortion overseas for the article. Besides the Helms Amendment being the governing policy as it relates to the polling in question, reliable sources have also mentioned the polling in the context of the amendment or vice versa [2], [3], [4]. Also, I believe a section on groups that support the amendment should be included along with.
Regarding the Mexico City Policy, while I do believe it should be mentioned in the see also section and maybe a brief mention in the article, I do not believe that a full summary of the policy's history and how each administration since Reagan enacted or rescinded it needs to be included. Helms is a separate policy than the MCP. Also, the current opening line for the MCP part "While the Helms Amendment put a stop to the efforts of USAID and similar organizations to promote safe abortion overseas, it did not satisfy some anti-abortion activists." To my mind violate NPOV and should be removed or at least reworded.
Summary of dispute by Wes sideman
I'm in favor of including information about the Helms Amendment that is included in reliable sources that discuss the Amendment in depth. There are numerous reliable secondary sources that discuss the relationship between the Amendment and the Mexico City policy: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].... the list could go on forever if I wanted to copy-paste for a few more days.
In contrast, sourcing linking a single Marist poll 2 years ago, commissioned by the Knights of Columbus (a strongly anti-abortion organization), to the Helms Amendment is extremely weak. The Forbes source mentions the Marist poll in passing, once. The 2nd source is an article from the Catholic News Service, on its face not a reliable secondary source, obviously, and besides, mentions the Helms Amendment once, in passing. The third source, a Deseret News article (newspaper owned by the LDS Church) is an article about a completely different piece of legislation, the Hyde Amendment. It mentions the Helms Amendment briefly, and later, with no connection between the two, mentions the Marist poll once. It feels like a WP:COATRACK situation to crowbar a Marist poll commissioned by an anti-abortion religious org into an article with good reliable secondary sourcing on everything else. Wes sideman (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
First statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)
I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, which is the rules covering disputes over a contentious topic. Please be aware of the ArbCom decision on abortion, which finds that abortion, broadly construed, is a contentious topic, and disruptive editing is subject to special sanctions. Do not ask me for expertise about the Helms Amendment or the Mexico City policy. It is the responsibility of the disputing parties to provide the moderator with any necessary information, just as it is the responsibility of the editors of Wikipedia to provide readers with information. Please acknowledge that you understand and will comply with the rules.
The purpose of conflict resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, because that is the purpose of all editing of the encyclopedia. So please start by making a one-paragraph or two-paragraph statement as to what you think should be changed in the article, or what you think should be left the same that another editor wants changed.
Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
I'm an interested party in this dispute. I've re-read rule set D and agree to follow it. Based on what I know now, I'd prefer to trim the Mexico City Policy content (to something about a paragraph long, and not in it's own section) and continue to exclude the poll content. I'm open to changing my mind based on further evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and will comply with the rules. I believe the change should be as follows: First a separate section called support that reads along the lines of "The Amendment is supported by the Catholic Church and anti-abortion organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony List" Followed by: Polling has shown around 75% of American oppose funding for abortion overseas. For the Mexico City Policy, I say as a compromise it reads: "Some anti-abortion activists felt that the Amendment did not go far enough which led to the creation of the Mexico City Policy in 1984 which prohibits federal funding to NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning."3Kingdoms (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The long-stable version of the article included sourced paragraphs about the Mexico City policy and its relationship to the Helms Amendment. I added some sourcing to that and some minor touch-ups, and believe that section is fine as is. The Marist poll is one of countless polls about abortion in the USA, it was commissioned by a pro-life organization, and to cherry-pick that one poll, with only the most tenuous of connections to the subject of the article, reeks of POV-pushing, in my opinion. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)
It appears that there are two issues. The first is whether to leave the current language about the Mexico City policy as is, or to trim it down. The editors who want to trim it down may also want to remove the section heading. The second issue appears to be whether to include or exclude the Marist poll. Will each editor please state, briefly, what they think should be in the article about the Mexico City policy? A compromise may be possible, and is desirable if possible. Will each editor please state whether they think that the Marist poll should be included? The issue of the poll appears to be a yes-no question, but if anyone has a compromise idea, please state it. If there are any other issues, please state them, concisely.
Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
I think we should mention that the Mexico City policy was an expansion of the Helms Amendment restrictions, briefly describe the policy's effects, and briefly summarize its history across the following presidential administrations. I still think this can be about a paragraph long. I don't think we should include the Marist poll, and I don't have a compromise idea. I would change my mind if there were more reliable sources mainly about the Helms Amendment that draw a connection between it and the poll; so far I think only the Forbes piece makes the cut. I don't believe there are other issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Mexico City policy, but rather agreement that coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down. If anyone disagrees, please say so.
At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Marist poll, but rather agreement to leave it out. If anyone disagrees, please say so.
Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement?
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
I still disagree about the exclusion of the Marist Polling due to the it being rated one of the best polling sites. The objections about the Knight of Columbus sponsoring the poll I do not find convincing. The Guttmacher institute is pro-abortion but is used as a source. I do not see why a poll from a highly rated place should be disregarded because it was sponsored by a group that is anti-abortion. The other objection about a lack of connection I understand, but still unconvinced by. If the poll is excluded I still think a small section in support for the helm amendment from the Catholic Church, the Knights, and anti-abortion groups is worth having.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason for excluding the poll is that there isn't significant coverage from reliable sources connecting the poll to the Helms Amendment. Wes sideman (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. One source comes from Forbes Staff the other from Desert news which are both listed as a reliable source. America is not listed but is generally regarded as reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless sources that report on polls about abortion, and some of them mention the Helms Amendment. If we mentioned every single poll that exists in an article that mention the Helms Amendment, the article would be 200,000 words very quickly. Wes sideman (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least three reliable sources mention this poll giving it notability. Along with the fact that Marist is highly rated for polling. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)
There appears to be agreement that the coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down.
There appears to be disagreement about the Marist poll. I will ask those editors who oppose including the Marist poll to state whether they oppose it on grounds of reliability of the sources, as undue weight, or bias.
Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement?
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason thing I can think of is deciding if the article should include a section mentioning organizations that support the amendment. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose including the poll based on non-reliability of the poll. (Undue weight for ONE poll paid for by a non-neutral organization.) "Marist surveyed 1,004 adults Jan. 4-9 via landline or mobile numbers and interviewed respondents by telephone using live interviewers". - The two sources which mention this poll, qualify it by who paid for it. (Forbes qualifies it even more: "A majority of Americans are broadly supportive of abortion rights, but a Marist poll conducted in January for the Knights of Columbus—which is opposed to abortion..." as if it is a strange exception.) It doesn't even seem to be available on the website of Marist, only on the KofC's site (who paid for the poll). As I said earlier, abortion polls are notorious for getting wildly different results based on the specifics of how they are worded, and in this case, maybe who they ask. How many educated people answer phone polls when an unidentified number shows up on caller ID? (Support for abortion is well documented to be higher among more educated people.) ---Avatar317(talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No back-and-forth except in the section for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So just a very quick search without more investigation finds this 2021 opinion piece by a reproductive rights organization which cites a poll which directly contradicts the Marist poll: "Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans support funding global health programs that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, abortion included. The same poll showed a majority of Americans want to repeal Helms." We could do more searching for polls, but I predict the results will be wildly inconsistent, especially if the polls are funded by pro/anti groups, rather than neutral organizations. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, the link didn't work for me either, so I couldn't investigate that poll. Thanks for finding the WaPo story, though! It supports what I was saying: We’re often wary of polls commissioned by advocacy groups. In this case, Jayapal is relying on a poll done for a group that wants more public funding of abortions. The outcome of polls often depends greatly on the framing of questions. ---Avatar317(talk) 02:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)
I'm not sure if the Marist poll issue is resolved, but I haven't changed my mind. It seems like the only other pending issues are
working out exactly what the trimmed Mexico City Policy content would look like
deciding whether there should be a support section
. I don't think there's a draft proposal on the table for either, so it's hard for me to weigh in. I'd be equally fine with reviewing proposals here or through normal talk page discussion or editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 - I oppose a support section withOUT an opposition section, and if we have that, both should be sourced to INDEPENDENT/Neutral Sources, not the Catholic News service.
3 - I'm ok with continuing this discussion on the Talk page. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an opposition section. I do not agree about the sourcing. In my experience CNA gives reliable information even if wording is done from a Catholic viewpoint. Furthermore, it is independent of the USCCB. If Guttmacher is used as a source I do not see a reason to oppose this one. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is oversimplifying of sources. Guttmacher would not be a good source for who supports and opposes the Helms Amendment, (and I don't think they publish that type of content) just like CNA is not a good source because CNA would give greater coverage to Catholics and their viewpoint rather than Evangelicals for example; for supporters/opponents we should stick to mainstream news sources.
Guttmacher is highly respected and cited by both sides of the abortion debate for their DATA and statistics about abortions (number, demographics, etc.) so they are a Reliable Source for any of that type of content. ---Avatar317(talk) 06:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal for the Mexico City Policy is: "Some anti-abortion activists felt that the Amendment did not go far enough which led to the creation of the Mexico City Policy in 1984 which prohibits federal funding to NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning."
There seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. You may use the section for back-and-forth discussion to work out a trimmed version.
If there continues to be disagreement about the Marist poll, an RFC may be in order. Does anyone want to propose an alternative resolution?
I don't know the procedure for editors to offer opinions on DRN; this is my first post here.
I support trimming the "Mexico City Policy" section by concatenating the last three paragraphs into one saying something on the order of "Democratic presidential administrations have removed it, while Republican ones have re-instated it"; (the years and presidents can be seen in that article)...maybe including the small comment about Trump's expansion. It shouldn't be its own section.
Single poll should be excluded; doesn't sound like this is representative of true population's opinion based on the sources and who commissioned the poll. Abortion polls are notorious for getting wildly different results based on the specifics of how they are worded.---Avatar317(talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also support trimming the back-and-forth Democratic-to-Republican admins policy reversals into a single simple sentence. Was actually going to to do that myself, but then this discussion was launched, so I held off. Wes sideman (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Horst Wessel
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
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.
The issue arose in February 2023 when user an IP user made a bold edit and inserted the following into the first sentence of the article's lead: "German street gangster and, according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes". This conflicts with the Manual of Style for LEADBIO by inserting material that does not pass the notability threshold into the lead, giving it undue weight. The change was soon reverted by multiple users, but Beyond My Ken immediately re-reverted it to the bold edit version, without consensus, and continued to do so, even claiming it was the "latest good version" (LGV), despite many more users removing this content, and him being the primary one to re-revert their changes. This is what I sought to rectify when I made my initial change on 8 November. The language in the lead is biased, unencyclopedic, and does not pass notability muster. Several users continue re-add it claiming it is sourced, which is irrelevant, or that there was consensus for this change, which there never was.
In short: A bold edit was made which put inappropriate language in the lead, in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, several users reverted it over the months, and also raised the issue in the talk section. Other users, mainly Beyond My Ken, have re-reverted these to support a bold edit, and either refused to participate in discussion, or in the case of Beyond My Ken, only given short facetious responses while accusing others of Nazi sympathies. They are now attempting to claim the change has consensus, which it does not and never did.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Clarify the Wikipedia guidelines in this case, offer a third-party opinion, and a platform for mediation.
Summary of dispute by 80.56.194.80
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Beyond My Ken
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I will not participate in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Jon Çobani
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 77.164.171.122
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Open to participate. I removed the introductory text of Horst Wessel being a pimp and gangster back in March and am surprised to see that over half a year later, certain individuals seems very adamant with describing this nazi as a gangster and a pimp. I don't think this information whether or not correct, has any place in the lead, especially not before describing him as a Nazi; which in my opinion is what most sane people would think of him being. If your first thought of Horst Wessel is anything else but "Nazi", I get very suspicious of your actions and perspective on life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.164.171.122 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Socksage
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by AntiDionysius
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2002:932f:f0ce::932f:f0ce
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 128.194.155.43
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tkbrett
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Immanuelle
The basic situation as I see it is that an ip editor was consistently attempting to revert a relatively long-held version of the lede. If the person was using an account I'd see this as a much more reasonable situation, but being an ip I am highly suspicious of this person and their possible motives being WP:Nothere. There has been extensive edit warring whenever ip editing is allowed on the pageImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Clone commando sev
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am not really involved with any of the actual dispute, from my perspective I saw a lead that placed a minor element of his life, pimping, before the major element of his life, being a nazi. I made a message on the talk page and that seems to have reignited a long-running dispute. readsing back, to me it looks like Beyond My Ken is taking "ownership" of the article and is assuming bad faith, accusing people of whitewashing nazis. I will most likely be inactive in the dispute discussion because I just made a talk page post, and wasn't involved in any argument or edit-war. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by 82.37.67.100
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RRRRzzzpppp
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 91.116.34.197
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Horst Wessel 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 (Horst Wessel)
There appears to be edit-warring between registered editors, who want to have the lede sentence identify the subject as a gangster, pimp, and Nazi, and unregistered editors, who want to identify the subject as a Nazi. One of the registered editors has declined to participate in the case. There are seven listed registered editors, and an undeterminable number of unregistered editors, because IP addresses shift. This is more editors than can feasibly take part in moderated discussion. If any registered editors want to advocate for the version that omits his involvement in organized crime, I will develop and submit an RFC to obtain consensus. If this is strictly a dispute between registered editors with names or pseudonyms and unregistered editors, I will close this case request. Please read DRN Rule A if you want to take part in moderated discussion, and respond that you agree to the rules. Are there any registered editors who want to propose the version of the lede that omits his involvement in organized crime? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I included too many users, but as this was dispute resolution discussion, I erred on the side of including more users than less. However, I categorically reject the notion that this is a dispute strictly between unregistered and registered users. Clone commando sev & Socksage are both registered users who have either, through discussion or edits, supported the non-inclusion of said material from the lede. I don't know why the version which mentions allegations of pimping (in contravention with Wikipedia guidelines, and which never had consensus) is being treated as the status quo, but I will go and make a registered account, publicly disclosing my IP editing, if it will advance this dispute resolution. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to the DRN rule A. I was IP 77.164.171.122 for the March 4th edit as described in summary as well as that IP for the summary written under summary of dispute by 77.164.171.122. on this page.
Wesel is known only as a Nazi. His death may have been related to prostitution, of course, but it was also related to the Nazis versus the Communists. If he had not been a Nazi he would not have been known at all and would have been forgotten. The focus should be on the fact that he was a Nazi, and this should be the first descriptor of him. I can compromise on "Nazi, pimp, and gangster" but not with "Gangster, pimp, and nazi", although I'd rather the pimp & gangster part be displayed in the body and not in the lead.
I want to point out that this is what seems to me like the same opinion as what registered user Clone commando sev voiced in the talk page therefore I'm also confused of your summary of all registered users wanting to have the lede sentence identify the subject as "gangster, pimp, and Nazi" in that order when this is not the case. Vydrakk (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I said "most likely inactive" but I need to point out, to me it seems like the dispute is more everyone v BMK, and less Registered v IPs. Clone commando sev (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I concur. With BMK's amount of edits on this page I'm baffled by his choice not to participate, but alas. Vydrakk (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it has to do with ego becoming involved. He has accused me of editing in bad faith, only given me short, facetious responses in the talk section, accused myself and others previously of Nazi sympathies simply for our edits, both in the talk section and in an edit warring notice, and demanded I be blocked in said edit war notice and in the latest edit summary on Horst Wessel. He has a long history of editing the article, and of reverting others' edits with little to no explanation. I imagine he has a sense of "ownership" over the article in question, and begrudges this attempt at resolution since I started it, as he seems to have a personal dislike of me. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
First statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)
I have created a draft RFC asking the community to choose between the two versions of the lede sentence that are being edit-warred. The draft RFC is at Talk:Horst Wessel/RFC on Lede . Please review and comment on the RFC. I will publish it after any comments have been considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
Uninvolved editor, but I have been watching this page on and off for a while and have read talk discussion and sources, particularly the ones recently added to the lead. Although an RfC may be called for, I am not certain it will achieve the best outcome here. There has been edit warring over a sentence in the lead, but I believe there is room for a suitable compromise. My belief is that those wanting removal of the sentence have rightly identified that the information about Wessel being a pimp is neither certain nor particularly due, and the addition of citations to suport it there have damaged a clean lead in a good article; its inclusion in the lead does not summarise main text, so it is novel information. Siemens (2013) does discuss this aspect, and shows that although the allegations that he was a pimp were perhaps made as cover, they are also plausible. But he was not particularly known for being a pimp/procurer, and so it is undue in the lead. This information should be in the main text, suitably summarising Siemens. It should not be excised altogether. Other treatments of him do not stress this aspect, but any suitably detailed discussion of his life and death would surely mention it. As regards the gangster allegation, the wording there might be tweaked (I am not sure 'gangster' is quite right), but it is a summary of the main text and in line with treatment by, e.g., Britannica. My concern with an RfC on the lead is this: It might lead to a frozen lead, either with novel information not supported by main text, or with that information excised but not transferred to main text, where it should be. There might be a temptation then to brook no changes to that lead, which would prevent movement towards something more nuanced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)
A previously uninvolved editor has offered some useful thoughts on a possible compromise. Please read his comments. Before I publish the RFC, which at present asks for a choice only between two versions of the lede, please consider and discuss whether a compromise version of the lede is possible. Remember that it isn't necessary to say everything in the lede, and that all of the details that are attributable to reliable sources should be included in the article body. So: Does anyone have any follow-up thoughts? Even better, does anyone have a compromise idea for the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
Discussion moved from draft RFC
I would suggest changing the nazi-first version of the lead to include a mention of him becoming a martyr-figure, something like
"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. After he was murdered by members of the communist party, he was turned into a propaganda symbol of martyrdom."
Thats just one way of including it, others are just as valid. Clone commando sev (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find the RfC in its current state satisfactory, I however concur with Clone commando sev's comment. I would prefer the language of the intro sentence to be reverted to how it was pre-February 2023, or in a form similar to which I edited it on 8 November, such as:
"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Known for his murder in 1930, he became a martyr for the Nazi Party."
this may seem insignificant, but the first paragraph is often the information which appears in a Google search, and anywhere Wikipedia is accessed via widget. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - An RfC may be the way to go here, but I think an unintended consequence of an RfC will be that whichever form of the lead gains consensus, this will then appear to be locked in in a manner that would be hard to overcome. It seems to me that the information about being a pimp (and those references) should be in the main, not in the lead. Siemens (2013) is the better reference and discusses at length the accusations and evidence, particularly with respect to his death. I don't think it is leadworthy to say "some people say he was x" in the first sentence of the lead, and whether or not he was a pimp (on the evidence, I think it is reasonable to think so), he was not known for this. That he was a gangster or similar wording, however, finds support already in the main and is more clearly established by the facts. I thus looked at other sources. Britannica has "A student and low-life bohemian, Wessel joined the Nazi Party in 1926". Other sources, such as the Holocaust Encyclopaedia don't even go that far. But I would think a reasonable compromise is:
Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German street gangster who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.
Although there may be a better word than "gangster". But really the principles here are:
An RfC is about resolving an explicit inclusion but must not be used to set the lead permanently in stone.
The lead should not have novel information in it.
Per MOS:LEADCITE if the lead were a proper summary of the main, it would not need citations in it. Other than the two added to bolster this controversial addition, the lead of this good article has no other references and was, until recently, a good example of a clean lead.
The information about the procuring of the prostitutes is due for the article and should not be expunged altogether. It should be in the main.
I am not sure that an RfC on the lead will deliver a consensus on those points. Indeed, if option B were the pre-22 February version (saying in wiki-voice that he "became a martyr"), and if a consensus were used to freeze the lead to that version or if the consensus froze in the current problematic option A form, I think that either would be an undesirable outcome. What is really needed is less reversion to "good versions" and more listening to the arguments being made. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree, but disagree regarding compromise. Inserting two things that do not at all belong in the lead due to WP:NOTABILITY, then "compromising" for the sake of Wikipedia bureaucracy, still leaves in the end result one foreign, inappropriate descriptor being left in the lede. Compromise in this way need not be necessary simply because a multiplicity of inappropriate descriptors were inserted into the lede. I would be accepting of this approach if there was a plurality of reliable sources using such language, but they do not as best I can tell. The following sources, which are the first biographical articles of Wessel to appear when Google searched, refer to Wessel almost exclusively as a "Nazi", never using the descriptors "gangster" or "pimp":
they at most make reference to Wessel being in a extremist party, at a time when political violence was commonplace. Only one (Spartacus) makes any reference to Wessel as a "pimp" at all, and it only does so via the disputed Erika Mann narrative. A Google search is not the end all be all, but the onus is on the editors advocating their inclusion to prove these descriptors are widely used by historians, not for others to disprove it. It seems quite plainly in contravention of MOS:LEADBIO and to be WP:UNDUE to list what appear to be uncommon, fringe descriptors in the lede at all, especially when the language is bordering on unencyclopedic. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third statement by possible moderator (Horst Wessel)
The Discussion section of the draft RFC is for discussion after the RFC is published. I have moved the discussion from there to here. I am also providing a section for back-and-forth discussion so that you can improve the wording of the two alternate ledes, one of which emphasizes his connection to organized crime, and one of which focuses solely on his status as a murdered Nazi. You may discuss improvements to the wording of the two proposed ledes, and are also encouraged to draft compromise language as was proposed by User:Sirfurboy.
User:Immanuelle has asked whether the status of this DRN thread is affected by the block of the filing editor or the semi-protection of the article. I expressed the concern initially that this thread seemed to be edit-warring between registered editors and unregistered editors, and was told that registered editors were on both "sides" of the dispute, and they still are. Also, protection or semi-protection of an article usually does not stop or suspend moderated discussion. Protection is a temporary measure to stop edit-warring, and to allow dispute resolution to take place in a more orderly manner. Besides, registered editors still can edit the article, so it is still useful to reach rough consensus. So: This moderated discussion will continue. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC is about the first sentence. The second sentence says that Goebbels made him a martyr for the Nazi Party, and the second sentence is not the subject of the dispute. If there is a disagreement about the second sentence, it can be resolved by normal discussion, or by moderated discussion, but discussion of the second sentence does not affect the draft RFC, which is about the first sentence.
Does anyone have a suggestion for Option C? I would like to include a third proposed version of the first sentence in the RFC. Discussion can continue in the section for back-and-forth discussion. If there is no progress made on an Option C, I will publish the RFC with two options, but I think that another version is in order.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
Comment - I made a suggestion for a possible option C above, except that I don't like the word "gangster". Reading Siemens, he introduces Wessel as a pastor's son who became a street fighter. He entered right wing politics while in school, and this was often violent. However, as Siemens points out, he was of no more than local notoriety at this point, almost unheard of. How about this as an option C:
Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German pastor's son and street fighter who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.
If anyone can do better, I am happy to let this one pass in favour of an alternative compromise candidate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth statement by moderator (Horst Wessel)
There are now three options for the lede sentence, to be decided by RFC. I will publish the RFC when we are satisfied that it presents the choice and is what we want the community to respond to.
Are there any other questions or comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth statements by editors (Horst Wessel)
I think the RFC is ready for publication as it currently is. The 3 options available seem to be representative of all opinions on the matter. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Back-and-forth discussion (Horst Wessel)
If this section is for improving wording, I'd like to put forward my idea,
"Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. After he was murdered by members of the communist party, he was turned into a propaganda symbol of martyrdom."
@Robert McClenon I’m not 100% sure if this is following proper protocol responding here, but I noticed both that the page is protected and the ip user is blocked. Should this have implications as far as this dispute resolution goes in the future? Was there a non-ip representative of the ips side? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 13:47, 17 November 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.
nurse practitioner
– New discussion.
Filed by Hue16459 on 15:57, 20 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Upon conducting further research I believe that the term mid-level practitioner should simply be replaced with the term health care provider. Health care provider is the term most used in United States Code including 29 CFR § 825.125, and 45 CFR § 160.103 both of which include nurse practitioners in the definition of a health care provider. Additionally, the only CFR that references the term mid-level practitioner is 21CFR § 1300.01(b28) which also states "Examples of mid-level practitioners include, but are not limited to, health care providers such as nurse practitioners. Based on this information I believe that using the term health care provider is the most appropriate adjustment to this article. Hue16459 (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A Nurse Practitioner (NP) is an advanced practice registered nurse and a type of advanced practice provider, also sometimes referred to as a mid-level practitioner, although this term is generally no longer used by most organizations.
I attempted to modify the article to put the title advanced practice provider alongside the term mid-level practitioner. The term mid-level practitioner perpetuates bias and is a term that in no longer used by professional medical organizations. I supplied peer reviewed references as well as references to the major medical organizations. The reference to the term mid-level practitioner in the article is form 2010 and has been replaced in all current research. Additionally in keeping with the concept of neutrality I placed the terms alongside each other. The editor that reversed the edit has already stated "Yes, I do revert attempts to slant this article by removing criticism of and information about the limitations of this profession."
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I believe my edit is appropriately sourced and should be allowed to stand.
nurse practitioner discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Procedural note. A review of the histories of the article and talk page shows that MrOllie is the other editor active in this. I have added him accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comment of mine mentioned above was in response to a now-blocked sockpuppeteer who had exactly the same problems with this article and made the same arguments. I've filed a SPI. MrOllie (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have another Wikipedia account, I have never been banned, and I am a real user that is simply attempting to correct information I believe to be inaccurate and biased with the article which is an ongoing complaint from multiple users. Hue16459 (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - It doesn't appear that there is likely to be a moderated discussion. The one other editor who has been named as a party says that they filed a SPI, which is not a positive response to a request for moderated discussion. I will close this thread as declined unless there is a different reply within about 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png
– New discussion.
Filed by Theknine2 on 21:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Me (User:Theknine2) wants to use the US/international single cover, but User:QuestFour wants to use the less relevant UK single cover. My overall justification is the US/international cover is more widely used (in almost all past and current releases of the single), is more relevant since Mariah Carey is an American artist, and the song is notable for being her 12th of 19 US Billboard #1 singles. These listed reasons are more than valid enough to replace the current single cover. However, QuestFour repeatedly cites WP:CONSENSUS and “cover that represents the release date of the single”, which are both vaguely valid rationales at best, in my opinion. This hence resulted in an edit war of back and forth reverting covers.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Need a mediator to select which single cover is most appropriate for the article, given the extensive list of reasons QuestFour and I have each listed.
Summary of dispute by QuestFour
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Notes - The filing party has not notified the other editor on their talk page. Please notify the other editor.
The filing editor says that they would like a mediator to decide which image to use. That can be a Third Opinion request. I am willing to provide a Third Opinion, but if so, I will not be available to mediate if the other editor disagrees. So if I provide a Third Opinion, there can then either be agreement, or a RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian language
– New discussion.
Filed by Crash48 on 10:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Disagreement on whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Establish whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article.
Summary of dispute by Rsk6400
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Comment I'm not opposed to this kind of dispute resolution, but I'm not sure about this, because there were a lot of other participants involved in the discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of dispute by Austronesier
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Ukrainian language 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 (Ukrainian language)
I am still ready to try to mediate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, and reply whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to this set of rules, which include recognizing that the Ukrainian language is a contentious topic subject to the Arbitration Committee ruling on disputes about Eastern Europe. The contentious topics procedure has been provided in part to deal with battleground editing about world areas that have been historically real battlegrounds, or are current battlegrounds, and Ukraine is the area of the bloodiest war of the twenty-first century. An editor has said that there have been other editors involved in this dispute. After discussion, we may either use a Request for Comments to involve other editors, or invite the other editors to take part in this discussion.
Closed as not appearing to be a content dispute. The issue cited by the filing party is that the other editor has a problem with competency in English. That is not a content issue and cannot be decided or discussed here. I will be inquiring at the Village Pump as to what if any forum should used to discuss a problem caused by inadequate command of English. (Also, the filing editor did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has found this discussion and has replied to it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 24 November 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.
User @Barbardo is making unbalanced edits of the section "Comparisons with female circumcision." He replaced a paragraph with information he copied, verbatim, from the long article Religious views on female genital mutilation causing WP:UNDUE weight.
It is impossible to discuss @Barbardo's edits in the Talk Page because his English is absolutely terrible.
For example, he wrote: "You removed sources and then added primary sources which one hadith calling for it are deemed weak/daeef and then added a unsourced line about it being mostly found in muslim countries when it varies and is primarily based in africa my suggestion is removing the hadiths and the above line you made in the start of the paragraph. " And he also wrote: "You can't add hadiths as they are primary sources witgoyt secondary sources and you have also copied the first paragraph its fine as it because the hadith that calls for it is weak."
Well you can discuss it and you even started a discussion so my "bad english" is not a excuse since its not bad one comment was but the rest of the discussion was not so this is a dishonest take. Also these hadith's are ranked weak by those who complied the hadith's which you have ignored. The part copied was relevant and commented by a qualified person on the topic and was referenced it might have been taken as verbatim from that other wikipedia article but there isnt much you can change. Your edit was just listing the hadiths without an explanation and how they were viewed among islamic scholarship.
Khitan (circumcision) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Discussion in progress.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.
#File:Honey_Mariah_Carey_Single.png){kind=link}
– General close. See comments for reasoning.