Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:58, 16 December 2023

Skip to open disputes
skip to newest thread
(purge cache)

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.

Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.

If you need help:

If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.

Become a volunteer

We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

Volunteers should remember:

Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.

Open/close quick reference

To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Rafida	In Progress	Albertatiran (t)	33 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Albertatiran (t)	1 days,
AT&T Corporation	Closed	Emiya1980 (t)	3 days, 7 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 12 hours	Kovcszaln6 (t)	2 days, 12 hours
Yasuke	New	Theozilla (t)	4 hours	None	n/a	Theozilla (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 22:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

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

Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 3Kingdoms on 01:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

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?

[1]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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]

Third statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

User:Avatar317 - I will add you to the list of editors.

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]

See rule D6 in DRN Rule D. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 24 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]

I understand the point, but feel that Marist's respected status as a polling group justifies it Pollster Ratings - Marist College | FiveThirtyEight Anyway cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 22 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]

The link to the polling for the article did not work for me. Is it the polling referred to in this article? Jayapal’s claim that ‘the majority of the country’ supports federal funding of abortion - The Washington Post 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:29, 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
1. working out exactly what the trimmed Mexico City Policy content would look like
2. 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]
I understand what you’re saying, but wiki also does not object to a source just because they have a bias. Given that this would only be one sentence I think including the CNA source is fine. If it was being cited across much of the article I agreed it would seem overused. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:17, 26 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."
For support I proposed: "The Amendment is supported by the Catholic Church and anti-abortion organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony List" [https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248183/us-bishops-urge-congress-to-prohibit-taxpayer-funding-of-abortions] 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D.

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?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining one is the question of including a support section alongside the opposition one. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I do think we're in rough agreement on the Mexico City Policy, and I bet we can work out the specifics without further moderated discussion. For the poll, I would prefer not to have an RfC, and I'd hope to see advocates of inclusion see that it's not been gathering steam as uninvolved voices joined in and maybe just drop it. It does seem like there's one additional content concern, about the inclusion of a support section. The proposed content is pretty short. If it's to be about that length, I'd rather change the "Opposition" section to "Support and opposition" and include the short addition at the beginning. "supported by the Catholic Church" is not quite supported by the source, but "supported by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" would be fine. I don't have concerns about the usability of CNA for a short summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I still believe the poll should be included I do agree that I am in the minority and have not gotten addition support. I lean to RFC just to hear from other editors, but if not I understand. Agree about one section of support and opposition. Also agree with changing Catholic Church to USCCB. Cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D.

There still 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.

There seems to be agreement to add a Support section before the Opposition section.

We don't have to have agreement to have an RFC on the Marist poll. An RFC is used to obtain community rough consensus when there isn't agreement. Is there agreement to include the poll? Is there agreement to exclude the poll? If one editor wants an RFC, we can have an RFC. What if anything is there agreement on, about the poll?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I believe that we do not yet have agreement on a Support section. I had proposed having one section called "Support and opposition", since the proposed content about support is so brief. It looks like 3K agreed with that proposal, but the other parties have not weighed in on that issue specifically. 3K and I are also in agreement about what the support content should say and that the proposed source is reliable enough. A317's fourth statement suggests that they would oppose the proposed support content. I acknowledge the point about an RfC being warranted even if just one editor wants it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still 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.

It appears that there is disagreement on whether to include the Marist poll, but I want to verify that. Will each participant please state what their opinion is on including the Marist poll?

It appears that there is disagreement about either a separate Support section or redesignating the Opposition section as Support and Opposition. Will each participant please state what their position is on identifying Supporters?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I believe the Marist Poll is worth including and support having a combined "Support and Opposition" section. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything new to say about the Marist poll; I'm still opposed. I favor a Support and opposition section that includes at least one sentence on support from the USCCB and anti-abortion orgs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion of the Marist poll. Support small combined "Support and Opposition" section. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still 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.

An RFC is needed on whether to include the Marist poll.

Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be used.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

Ninth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still 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.

I have drafted an RFC on the inclusion of the Marist poll. It is in draft at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act/RFC on Marist Poll for review. Please do not vote in it until I move it to the article talk page. Are there any comments about the RFC before it is published?

Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be in order.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

Unless I'm misinterpreting the eight statements, I think all active participants prefer a combined Support+opposition section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer we not hold an RfC at all. If we do, I think a more focused opening question would be better. The most recent summary of the poll looked like "A 2022 Marist Poll sponsored by the Knights of Columbus found that 73% of Americans and 59% who identify as "pro-choice" oppose or strongly oppose the funding of abortions overseas." I would prefer a yes/no on that text rather than something more open-ended. If it's to remain open-ended, I don't think "restrictions on abortion and opposition to taxpayer funding of abortion" is specific enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support either a single Support+Opposition section, or two separate sections (though I believe they will be very small and therefore better as one section). The RfC would be better as: should specific sentence X be in the article, sourced to Y sources? Otherwise "in the article" could mean "in the See Also section" - I like Firefangledfeathers's suggested sentence for the RfC, though I would modify it to read: ..."oppose or strongly oppose the funding of abortions overseas with US tax dollars."---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There still 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. Does one of the editors want to develop the trimmed-down version, either in the article (for which I will give permission), or in a sandbox?

User:Firefangledfeathers - You say that you would prefer that we not hold an RFC. If there is disagreement on whether to include the Marist poll, how do you want to deal with the disagreement?

A second version of the RFC on the Marist poll can be developed, which does not try to summarize what the poll found, but only asks whether to refer to the poll. Please do not vote in it until I move it to the article talk page. Are there any comments about the RFC before it is published?

Are all of the editors agreeable to a single Support and Opposition section?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

I love a good RfC, but it's an expensive use of community time. This DRN discussion has itself been costly. Since we're approaching—I think—a compromise in which each party gets some of what they want, I would be much happier for everyone to drop their sticks and walk away with at least half a smile on.

If there is to be an RfC, my order of preferences would be:

A yes/no on specific text, something like A317's tweak of 3K's language, as written in their ninth statement.
A yes/no on mentioning the poll, with no language specified, as proposed in the moderator's tenth statement
The current draft RfC at the article talk subpage

About the Support+opposition section, I stand by my ninth statement and don't see that anything has changed.

I could take a stab at the Mexico City content, but it'd probably be about 3-5 days from now. I'd trust any of the participants to get it mostly right, if someone can do it sooner. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe it should be included, if people think an RFC will cost too much, I'll accept it not happening and agree with Firefangledfeathers belief we all walk away with at least something. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

There is agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy. That can be done by editing the existing current article. There seems to be agreement on a single Support and Opposition section. That can be done by editing the existing article.

Rule D5 is suspended to allow editing of the section on the Mexico City policy and the Support and Opposition section.

I have reworked the RFC on the inclusion of the Marist poll. It is in draft at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act/RFC on Marist Poll for review. Are there any comments about the RFC? If participants feel that the RFC is not necessary, what should we agree is the rough consensus? (It is true that an RFC uses community time. The premature closure of a DRN without reaching agreement, but with the mistaken assumption that there has been agreement, is likely to use more community time in the long run.) I do not plan to close this DRN without either agreement on the Marist poll. or an RFC on the Marist poll.

Are all of the editors agreeable to a Support section and an Opposition section, or do some editors want a single Support and Opposition section? If there is disagreement, an RFC will be in order.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

RFC looks fine to me. Agree about Mexico City Policy. I am fine either way with support and opposition.

Back-and-forth discussion (Helms Amendment)

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]

Ukrainian language

– Discussion in progress.

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.

Location of dispute

Ukrainian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

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?

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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 The question is not, whether the use of the name "Little Russian" by certain authors should be included, but whether it should be included without reference to good secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:02, 28 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.

So I am asking whether at least two editors agree to moderated discussion subject to DRN Rule D and Eastern Europe contentious topic rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Yes, I think I understood the rules and am willing to take part. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree to moderated discussion subject to the suggested set of rules. --Crash48 (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not invited but I did participate in the above-mentioned previous discussion. I ask to be allowed to participate, and agree to the ground rules. Thank you. —Michael Z. 17:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed. It appears that one area of disagreement is whether to state that the language was sometimes called "Little Russian" in the past. Is that statement supported by a reliable source? If so, is there a reason of due weight or balance why it should not be mentioned?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mzajac will be added to the list of participants, and should answer the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Yes, the article should mention that the language has been called “Little Russian” at some times in some places, in a manner compliant with policies. But no, it certainly should not use the term, as it is pejorative language from a colonial legacy (and is currently used to support a violent campaign against Ukrainian nationhood). And as to the specific question at issue, the article should not just cite cherrypicked historical usages by Ukrainians in primary sources without context to imply something about the term’s acceptability. All discussion of the term should be composed with awareness of its context (including the meaning and implications of “Little Russia” and “Little Russian” [person], colonial relationships, and imperial censorship), avoid WP:SYNTH, and be used to provide information supported by recent reliable sources. And also note that the primary sources in question actually use several different terms, with different meanings, in different languages: malorusskoĭ litaraturě (“of Little-Russian literature”), malorossiĭsʹkym narichchiam (“in the Little-Russian dialect”), iazyka maloruskoho (“of the Little-Ruthenian language/tongue”), malorossiĭskago narěchiia (“of the Little-Russian dialect”), Malorossiĭskaia Eneida (“Little-Russian Aeneid”). —Michael Z. 06:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question It seems to me that this edit[12] by Crash48 means that the mediation has failed, according to rule D, no. 5. Am I right ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I want included in the article is [13]. Every statement added therein is attributed to a RS. Austronesier's statement at WP:ARC, although based on a slanderous premise misrepresenting a clearly attributed citation from Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute as my own OR, nevertheless confirmed Rublamb's earlier statement at Talk:Ukrainian language that citing primary sources is allowed as illustrative material for a conclusion which is itself cited from secondary sources.

As for other content issues: after I had filed this DR request, a new content dispute developed, unrelated to the mentions of Little Russian language. Rsk6400 insists on using the phrasing During the century after the 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement, Kyiv and the parts of Ukraine east of the Dnipro river gradually lost their autonomy in favour of tighter control by Russia. An unsuspecting reader may infer from this phrasing that East Ukraine gradually lost autonomy after being incorporated into the Tsardom of Russia, while West Ukraine retained its pre-1654 autonomy for another century at least. The actual history is exactly the opposite: after the forceful polonisation precipitated the Khmelnytsky Uprising in 1648, East Ukraine broke away from the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and enjoyed a short-lived autonomy under the Tsardom of Russia, while West Ukraine remained under Polish oppression, and couldn't attain autonomy until after the Great War. This is why I want to change the misleading sentence into The 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement divided Ukraine between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Tsardom of Russia. During the following century, both monarchies became increasingly intolerant of Ukrainian own cultural and political aspirations., which Rsk6400 opposes. --Crash48 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

I will not fail a moderation for an edit of the article so soon after I provided the rules, but I will restate that Rule D.5 states not to edit the article while discussion is in progress.

One editor calls for a use-mention distinction about the terminology "Little Russian". Is there agreement that this is the right approach? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One editor has identified another content issue. If I understand correctly, what is agreed is that after 1654, Eastern Ukraine was part of the Tsardom of Russia, and Western Ukraine was under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The question of which state can be considered more autonomous is a national point of view. Is this disagreement about the wording of the Ukrainian language article, and where, or is it about the content of a different article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other content issues?

Second statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

The proposed edit[14] demonstrates the dangers of “citing primary sources as illustrative material,” as at least one of the statements uses WP:OR to incorporate a misinterpretation of the primary source: “As late as 1845, the Ukrainian poet and philologist Ivan Vahylevych referred to his language as Little Russian.^[1]” it says, but that is false. According to the Encyclopedia of Ukraine,[15] Vahylevych’s work is “his published Polish grammar of the ‘Little Ruthenian’ language in Galicia (1845).” The title is Grammatyka Jȩzyka Małoruskiego w Galicii (Polish) or Hrammatyka Iazyka Malorusʹkoho v Halytsïy (Ukrainian/Rusyn), meaning “of Little Ruthenia” or “of Little Rus,” and definitely not “of Little Russia” (which would be “Małorosyjskiego” or “Malorosiĭsʹkoho”). This is clearly supported by the Polish-language passages in the right-hand side of the referenced image file, where we can see distinct mentions of both Russia (Róssia/Россїѧ) and Ruthenia/Rus (Ruś/Рꙋ́сь).

I don’t think the other assumptions in the proposal about vocabulary use are any more reliable, and presenting the collection of unreliable factoids to imply a pattern and encourage particular conclusion is engaging in an insidious form of WP:SYNTH. Instead, we should say what RS say about the historical use of the terminology, directly supported by them.

Although the question of autonomy in the seventeenth century is not directly relevant to this dispute, the issue of the division of Ukraine between empires and the treatment of Ukrainians and Ukraine therein is. Most of the sources in question are from the period of the Ukrainian National Revival in the nineteenth century. In this period, Ukraine continued to be called Ruthenia (a Latinization of Rusʹ) in the Habsburg empire (including Red Ruthenia, Chervona Rusʹ, and Carpathian Ruthenia, Karpatsʹka Rusʹ), but was named “Little Russia,” Malorossiia, in the Russian empire. We must also make the distinction between the medieval and early Modern term Mala Rusʹ/Malaia Rusʹ, and the Russian-empire colonial term Malorossiia, which had a different connotation. A Ukrainians was called a rusyn or rusnak, but the Russian empire invented a new term, maloros.

The Russian labelling was a colonial imposition accompanied by bans on Ukrainian language and violent denial and suppression of Ukrainian identity in ways that did not occur elsewhere (see, e.g., all-Russian nation). The fact that Ukrainians who were subject to this colonization for generations used the colonial vocabulary (or rather that their publishers who wanted to stay in business did) should not be put forward without context and explanation to draw mistaken conclusions from. —Michael Z. 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contibutors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request that we disregard other editors writing that I seem to agree to things that I did not write and do not agree with. —Michael Z. 23:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac had already admitted that he didn't look at my edits before expressing his disapproval of them

That was two and a half months ago, and that is inaccurate. I was responding to statements about principles, not expressing anything about their edits, shortly after joining a very large discussion, and did review the details after that. There is no point in going to dispute resolution and then dredging up months-old personal complaints.

Mzajac seems to agree that the passage on autonomy in the 17th century isn't directly relevant to the subject of the article

I never wrote that and I don’t agree with that.

Please respond to the moderator and write about the subject and not about other editors.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s disruptive and provocative to fabricate opinions for them. This dispute resolution appears to be going right off the rails. If it continues this way I will decline to keep dedicating time to it.

avoids any kind of comparison between West and East Ukraine, thereby keeping any national point of view out of the article

What does that mean? The division of Ukraine between empires and their respective treatment of it over the entire early Modern and Modern periods is extremely important to the subject. When Ukrainian language was banned in Russia, Ukrainians could travel to the Habsburg empire to publish their work in Ukrainian (e.g., look at Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s entire career). And when the Soviets conducted genocide, purges of Ukrainian cultural elites, and forcibly Russified the language in the 1930s, it was preserved in western Ukraine and then in the diaspora. This is a fundamental influence on the development of Ukrainian culture, literature, scientific knowledge, nationhood, and especially language. It’s one of the main narratives in every good history of Ukraine. —Michael Z. 00:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contribtors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still have two problems with Crash48's edit I mentioned above: 1) The edit is related to the question of "Little Russian" (Crash48 denied this, but it's about the necessary context for the use of "Little Russian".) 2) I want to know, if I can revert them. If not, they should self-revert, because a mediation doesn't make much sense if one party is exempt from the rules. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rules were provided on 24/11. Rsk6400 reverted the article on 25/11, and wishes to do so again. The one party he wishes to be exempt from the rules is himself. Also characteristic of him, as I had already commented earlier, is that he's quite enthusiastic to discuss my conduct, and much less enthusiastic to discuss the article content, which in both of his statements so far has been disregarded entirely.

The use–mention distinction is totally irrelevant to the dispute at hand,

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and Mzajac had already admitted that he didn't look at my edits before expressing his disapproval of them. None of my proposed (or past) edits ever used the term “Little Russian”.

The second content issue relates to the passage that Rsk6400 recently added into the Ukrainian language article, claiming that it is "necessary context" and a precondition for being able to mention the term "Little Russian language". Mzajac seems to agree that the passage on autonomy in the 17th century isn't directly relevant to the subject of the article, which is about the language and not about the nation; but I don't oppose addition of such a passage, so long as it isn't phrased misleadingly. My proposed phrasing avoids any kind of comparison between West and East Ukraine, thereby keeping any national point of view out of the article.

--Crash48 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ File:Ukrainian Language in Galicia 1845.jpg

Third statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

Let's start over. First, read DRN Rule D again. Rule D4 says, "Comment on content, not contributors". It then says, "Discuss edits, not editors". These two instructions are the same, and are repeated because they need repeating. Second, read the ArbCom ruling, as amended, on Eastern Europe. The contentious topics procedure is in place largely to control battleground editing about areas that are or have been real battlegrounds, and too much blood is being shed in Ukraine. Disruptive editing may be dealt with summarily at Arbitration Enforcement. Also, read the boomerang essay before asking the moderator to fail the moderated discussion. If the moderated discussion is failed, the next stop will probably be WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. Try to avoid those conduct forums. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third, there appear to be two content issues. The first has to do with the term "Little Russian". The second has to do with the subsection "Under Lithuania/Poland, Muscovy/Russia and Austria-Hungary". We will discuss them separately, commenting on content, not contributors. I am neutral, but I will be active in trying to implement neutral point of view, which is the second pillar of Wikipedia.

Are we in agreement that the term "Little Russian" should be mentioned, but that it should also be noted that the term is considered pejorative, at least in modern times? Since the purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, state exactly where you want to change what the article says, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Just tell what if anything you want to change in the article.

There are clearly two viewpoints about the history of the Ukrainian language in Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine, because there are two viewpoints on the history of Ukraine. There are two ways to deal with the conflicting points of view. The two options do not include selecting either of the two viewpoints. We should not make any statements comparing the autonomy of cultural development in the voice of Wikipedia. Either we can state that there are at least two viewpoints on the history of the Ukrainian language, and present both viewpoints as viewpoints, or we can cut down the Ukrainian history to a minimum to state only that the language developed with different influences in the two parts of the country.

What changes if any do the editors want to make concerning the phrase "Little Russian"? Which approach should be used concerning the disputed history subsection? Are there any other article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

The term "Little Russian" became pejorative in the 20th century. We may mention that it is currently considered pejorative, but then we must also clarify that it was not considered pejorative at the time. There is no need to detail the reasons why the term became pejorative.

By way of example, the original name of And Then There Were None came to be seen as offensive in modern times; but nevertheless, the name features prominently in the article, appearing in bold in the lead paragraph, on the infobox cover, etc. The article includes a timeline of the name change, but does not explain any of the reasons why the original name became offensive, nor any description whatsoever of the African-American history.

This is exactly the approach I propose for the Ukrainian language article too. The suggestion that the history of Russian imperialism must be recounted in any article that mentions the term "Little Russian" is ridiculous and WP:UNDUE.

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Mzajac: It's so ironic that you ask me to "respond to the moderator and write about the subject" after you ignored all of the moderator's questions yourself, and rambled on other topics... --

Crash48 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

Comment on content, not contributors.

Read Be Specific at DRN. This applies in particular to the phrase "Little Russian". Exactly what does each editor want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please state what approach each editor wants to take with respect to the history section. Do you want to expand it to present different national points of view, or to trim it down to a minimum, or do you have a different proposal that maintains neutral point of view?

Fourth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

The moderator has no interest in trying to restore a stable version or status quo version of the article, and so is not interested in a chronology. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article going forward. A chronology is of no interest, and we will not be trying to restore the status quo. Either answer the questions, or withdraw from the mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Robert McClenon, it seems to me that there is a mistake. I think that you didn't notice that Crash48 made their problematic edit[16] more than 24 hours after they pledged to follow the rules, not (as you put it in your 2nd statement) "so soon after I provided the rules". The edit that was done soon after you provided the rules, was mine. And I only reverted to status quo. Also, I didn't comment on contributors, I asked a procedural question, in good faith. I don't see a reason to advise me to read the boomerang text. Finally, I didn't ask you to fail this mediation, but I asked you how to deal with the situation. As I see it, a possible continuation of this mediation demands that we return to status quo at the article.

To avoid further confusion, here's the chronology of relevant edits:

10:35, 22 November 2023 Crash48 starts this thread
22:20, 24 November 2023 (with a minor correction at 22:25, 24 November 2023) Crash48 changes Ukrainian language.
23:21, 24 November 2023 Robert McClenon makes the "Zeroth statement by possible moderator"
09:12, 25 November 2023‎ I revert to status quo at Ukrainian language
09:04, 28 November 2023 I pledge to follow the rules (0th statement)
16:58, 28 November 2023 Crash48 makes the same pledge
17:57, 29 November 2023‎ Crash48 makes the edit that I consider problematic. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I want included in the article is [17] with the following statement added after ...Ivan Vahylevych referred to his language as Little Russian:

for practical reasons, as this term was more familiar to his intended readers.[18]

The added statement addresses two issues raised earlier at this DR. First, it confirms, based on a secondary RS, that Little Russian is the established rendition of małoruski into English, whereas *Little Ruthenia(n) is not a thing. Additionally, it disproves the unsourced claim that the term Little Russian was imposed on Ukrainian authors, or their publishers, by the Russian authorities. --Crash48 (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brock 1972, quoted fully enough to demonstrate Brock’s translation of terms. Of course, ruski does not mean “Russian”:

At the outset of the unpublished treatise he explained, more fully than at any earlier date, the reasons for his using an unfamiliar term to define his native tongue. “I have called the language South Ruthenian,” he wrote, “instead of the more usual Little Russian (małoruski) or Ruthenian (ruski) . . . in order to avoid all misunderstanding; for the adjective Little Russian is too narrow, proper only to [Russian] Ukraine,’ whereas “Ruthenian” alone, although it might be convenient to employ the word by itself in Latin or German, appeared to him to be inappropriate in a Slavonic tongue. His temporary reversion in his published grammar of 1845 to the term “Little Russian” appears to have been dictated by practical considerations — its greater familiarity to his readers who might be put off, needlessly, by the less familiar usage.

The paper was published in an anthology, Nationbuilding and the Politics of Nationalism: Essays on Austrian Galicia,[19] where the index on p 333 actually lists it as “Little Ruthenian”/“Little Russian”, indicating that these are treated as synonyms. As I noted above, the more-specific term is also used in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine entry on Vahylevych written by Roman Senkus and in its internet version.[20]

Note that scholarship in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries often treated Ruthenian and Ukrainian as a variety of Russian, for example calling the Old East Slavic language “Old Russian.” This is no longer the case.

Anyway, sorry I don’t have the time to properly respond to the moderator’s questions. I am very busy in RL for the next week, but will monitor, and respond better if and when I can. —Michael Z. 20:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

There have been mistakes. My mistake may have been not making it sufficiently clear that I am not trying to determine what is the stable version or status quo version of the article. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article going forward, and I do not spend time on determining what previous changes were made when.

The mistakes by the editors include not addressing my questions about changes to article content. The mistakes by the editors also include continuing to complain about the other editor. I said to comment on content, not contributors; and I am not planning to try to determine what was the stable version.

If either editor thinks that it is important to restore a status quo version, or is not interested in following my rules (and I decide how to apply my rules), they can withdraw from moderated discussion, and I will fail moderated discussion, and I will recommend that someone report at least one of the editors to Arbitration Enforcement. You have been notified that this discussion is about a contentious topic, and that special procedures can be used. I don't think that either of you should want to go to Arbitration Enforcement. It will almost certainly result in some sanctions on someone, and then you won't have moderated discussion to try to resolve the content dispute.

So: Exactly what does each editor want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where?

Please state what approach each editor wants to take with respect to the history section.

Fifth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Regarding the name “Little Russian,” this comprehensive article on the language should explain all of the names applied to the subject, throughout its history, and their historical, geographical, political, and chronological context, and their connotations. And in different languages, including English, and modern and historical Ukrainian as well as names that were significant in many cases in Polish, Russian, Latin, and Greek languages. It can refer to them in the course of the “History” section, but there are so many historical and current names that it may be helpful to have a “Names” section to sort out the important ones.

It should make assertions referring to statements in RS, not implying them using examples.

It ultimately will need to have more nuance and detail than “‘LR’ is pejorative today but was not in the nineteenth century,” because this is a severe oversimplification. For one thing, the naming of the language is not just black and white, but a process that has continued throughout its history and across Ukraine and the world. This comprehensive article about the language also will need to refer to the many different original names that are ambiguously translated with more precision than has been deemed sufficient in some other contexts like broad history books or narrower articles. For example English “Little Russian” has been used to refer to Ukrainian/Rusyn “maloruskyi iazyk” which existed and is also called Little Ruthenian,[21] and also to “malorossiiska mova” which is not. For example, “Little Russia” in the Medieval and Early Modern periods (Mala(ia) Rus)was a completely different name from “Little Russia” in the imperial period (Malorossiia) or today.

For example, referring to sources, the above-mentioned article Boeck 2004[22] has a lot of important factual info, but while some of Brock’s opinions are important they are not academic consensus; see, for example, the direct critique of Boeck in Kravchenko 2022, The Ukrainian-Russian borderland: history versus geography, (p 40)and what it says about the chronology of the change in connotation (p 46). —Michael Z. 01:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My fourth statement specified exactly what I want the article to say about "Little Russian", and where. It did not comment on any contributors, and I don't understand why it needed to be hatted.

My first statement specified my suggestion with respect to the history section. My second statement additionally clarified that my proposed phrasing avoids any kind of comparison between West and East Ukraine, thereby keeping any national point of view out of the article. This was not a comment on any contributors, and I don't understand why it needed to be hatted too. --Crash48 (talk) 09:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the statement that Vahylevych’s work <..> title is Grammatyka Jȩzyka Małoruskiego w Galicii (Polish) <...> meaning “of Little Ruthenia” or “of Little Rus,” and definitely not “of Little Russia” (which would be “Małorosyjskiego” or “Malorosiĭsʹkoho”), I want also to refer to the dictionary by Kosciuszko Foundation (New York, 1961) translating Little Russia as Małoruś, and Little Russian as Małorusin, małoruski, and not even listing Małorosja or małorosyjski as options. The assertion of a difference in meaning or connotation between these forms is unsourced OR. Between the two synonyms Little Russian and Little Ruthenian, the former is used orders of magnitude more frequently in English-language sources. WP:ESTABLISHED states that we should use the established English terminology, no matter what name is used by non-English sources. --Crash48 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that is identified as important by secondary RS focussing on the history of Ukrainian language (or Ukraine) should be included. Primary sources should not be used here. The name LR was used by the imperial centre (i.e. Russia) in the context of Ukraine being a Russian colony in all but the name. This should be said in the part of the section covering the language history under Russian rule during the 18th and 19th centuries. For Ukrainian under Polish and (after 1772) Austrian rule the only thing important to me is that we stick to secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

One editor wants to add a Names section covering the history of names for the language, including the various forms of "Little Russian" in various languages. If there is agreement that there should be such a section, then the specific issue about "Little Russian" can be subsumed within an expansion of the article.

That would leave the one remaining previous issue that of the history section, which needs to be expanded, because there are different national points of view, and the article must provide a neutral point of view. This section should be expanded and rewritten.

Is there agreement that there should be a Names section?

If there is agreement that there should be a Names section, and that the history section should be rewritten for neutrality, then I will provide each editor with a sandbox workspace in which to work on the sections of the article that need work, and then we can compare them.

Are there any other content disputes? Are there any other questions?

Sixth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

I have no objections to creating a Names section. My own suggestion for the content of such a section would be identical to my suggested content for the paragraph starting Although the name of Ukraine... and ending ...(in 1878, by Mykhailo Drahomanov).

I do object to expanding on history of Ukraine in the article on its language, because History of Ukraine already exists as a separate article. I do also object to expanding on the use of terms Little Russia as toponym and Little Russian as demonym, because Little Russia and Little Russian identity already exist as separate articles. I pointed earlier to the example of a novel published under a title that later became offensive. The article on the novel states for a fact that the title became offensive, and doesn't go into any detail as to why. The detailed explanation of how the term developed its modern connotations appears in the separate article on that term.

The paragraph starting During the century after the 1654 Pereiaslav Agreement... and ending ...long period of steady decline has nothing in it that is directly relevant to Ukrainian language, except for the statement The Russian centre adopted the name <...> Little Russian for the language, which is unreferenced, and likely misplaced: the earliest mention of Little Russan language known to Google Books dates from 1748, the very end of the time period being described. As an alternative to expanding the history section in order to include multiple national points of view, I suggest trimming it down to a minimum, keeping focus on just the language. --Crash48 (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A section on the names can be created, but it doesn't have to. In any case, we should refrain from using primary sources.

Regarding the neutrality of the history section: I don't see different national views. I learned most of what I know about Ukrainian history from American and Swiss-Austrian authors who don't seem to share the POV of any of the nations involved (Polish, Ukrainian, Russian). Since the crucial point seems to be the "colonial" situation of Ukraine as part of the Russian Empire, which I see as necessary context for the use of "Little Russian", I'd suggest to solve the problem of "Little Russian" (and, if you like, other names) first and then see whether history is still a problem. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

If the editors agree, I will permit the editing of the article to develop a Names section. Alternatively, I can create a sandbox for each editor to develop a Names section and we can compare them. Is the preference of the editors for development of a Names section in the article, or for its development in sandboxes?

As one editor has pointed out, there is a section on History of Ukraine. Rather than expanding the section on Under Lithuania/Poland, Muscovy/Russia and Austria-Hungary, we can cut that section down to remove the point-of-view material. Do the editors agree on this approach? If so, can this be done by normal editing, in which case I will permit the editing of the article for that purpose? Or do the editors want sandboxes so that they can each develop a trimmed-down section and can compare them? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seventh statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

For the "names" section, I prefer the sandbox. But since it was not my idea, I'd rather not write the first draft. Still, I'd like to take part in the process of improving that first draft.

For the section on history, I still don't see any POV issues. And, as I said above, I'd suggest solving the "names" question first. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either sandbox or inline editing is fine with me. I agree with the proposal to iron out the names first, and then see if any disagreements on the history remain. --Crash48 (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statement by moderator (Ukrainian language)

At this point, I have created a single sandbox page for the development of the Names section, at Draft:Ukrainian language/Names. We will see whether this works, meaning that we will see whether the draft section expands in an orderly fashion, or whether I need to give each editor their own subpage.

We will defer action on the history for now while we are working on the Names section.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

Commenting on this version of the draft: Most of it is original synthesis of primary sources. The claim in the first sentence "[before mid-19th century] the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is not really supported by the source. The source only makes the corresponding statement in a specific context, i.e. to specify the language it is talking about. Better have no section on names than that one. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back-and-forth discussion (Ukrainian language)

Zagwe dynasty

– New discussion.

Filed by LeGabrie on 23:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Zagwe dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

LeGabrie (talk · contribs)
Socialwave597 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

About Ethiopian history. Both the Kingdom of Aksum and the Ethiopian Empire have entries dedicated to their respective polities. The relatively obscure intermediate Zagwe polity is, however, simply called "Zagwe dynasty". First I moved the page to Zagwe Kingdom, which was reverted by another user, arguing that "Zagwe Kingdom" is not the commonly known denomination. I argue on the other hand that there is a difference between the ruling dynasty and the polity it rules over.

My first solution: two separate entries. One focuses more on the royal family ("Zagwe dynasty") and another ("Zagwe Kingdom") that discusses the polity. For example, I would drastically shorten the "Islam" section in the "Zagwe dynasty" entry while leaving it intact in the "Zagwe Kingdom" entry. On the other hand I would add a royal succession table to the "Zagwe dynasty" page. Alternatively there may also be just one entry titled "Zagwe Kingdom", focusing on the polity aspect. Calling it "Zagwe dynasty", I feel, would not do it justice. LeGabrie (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Zagwe_dynasty#Article_dedicated_to_the_entity

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Brief assessment of the situation

Summary of dispute by Socialwave597

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

Zagwe dynasty discussion

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

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Done. LeGabrie (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John de Lancie

– New discussion.

Filed by EpicTiger87 on 00:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

John de Lancie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

On the John de Lancie page, his role as Discord (from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic) in the lede was listed in the 2nd paragraph where it lists his "other television roles". I disagreed with this, due to his Discord role being easily his most popular and known role right beside his Q (from multiple Star Trek series) role. His other roles listed under "other television roles" were all much less well known/popular than his roles as Q & Discord. So I found it to make much more sense to list his Discord role alongside his Q role in the first paragraph as one of the two roles he is most well known for. So I edited the page to change this, but that edit was quickly reverted and deputed. (My edit can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_de_Lancie&oldid=1188681811 , note that every contribution from the ip 67.60.186.104 on the article and talk page was mine before I made this account)

I started a thread on the matter on the article's talk page. I gave my argument there for my edit, and City of Silver responded. We had a brief back and forth where they stated that my edit would have violated the rule on no original editing. I gave a long response to them explaining my disagreement on that point, that they never directly responded to. Sergecross73 did give responses agreeing with me that my edit would not have violated the original research rule, and stated that the argument should be specifically about where it makes more sense to place the Discord role in the lede. Despite this initial good discussion, there haven't been responses since and no clear consensus on this matter has developed.

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

[23] Here is where that discussion was. I stand by all of the arguments I gave there, and would be interested in hearing responses to them (in particular to the long response I gave to City of Silver). Since no clear consensus has been developed on the matter, I would be interested in further discussing this matter with any of the people already involved in that discussion.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I also completely understand if those people are busy and why this minor edit dispute would not be their priority, so I also would be interested in other parties looking over the edit & discussion and stating their opinions on this. It would be good for me and others to able develop a consensus for or against my proposed edit, or even for a compromise edit if anybody has ideas for that. Thank you, I look forward to good discussion on this matter that can lead to an agreement.

Summary of dispute by FlightTime

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

Nothing more to say. I'll let the discussion on the talk page speak for itself. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Meters

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

This is a minor content dispute that the OP is not content to allow the talk page to settle. There has been zero other support for the OP's attempt to move mention of John de Lancie's voice role in a children's cartoon from the second paragraph of the lead (as part of a list of roles) into the first paragraph of the lead (as something the actor is "best known for"). As I said on the article's talk page the consensus seems to be that the voice role of Discord in My Little Pony cartoon does not warrant mention in the first paragraph of the lead. I agree with not including it in the first paragraph. If there's no consensus for the challenged edit, it should stay out.

Note that since this was opened another editor, user:Slacker13, has commented on the article's talk page, and is also against the OP's proposed change. Meters (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Daniel Case

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

Summary of dispute by Dennis Brown

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

This doesn't belong here and is outside the scope of the board. There is a consensus on the talk page, this one user is trying to take a second bite at the apple. Please close. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73

I'm just an uninvolved admin who has been trying to guide discussions in the right direction. We've got an newbie editor who is still learning, and experienced editors giving pretty lackluster, lazy responses that aren't exactly helping. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my frustration is that most editors have spent more time pointing to a consensus that hasn't really been built yet, or on tangents about OR, when they should be commenting on building an actual consensus. And because the dispute is strictly subjective, all it would take is a simple "I disagree, I don't find it important enough to change because of ____." But no one can seem to muster that up, or if they do, it's lost in a wall of text of tangents, and so this drags on. If it wasn't such a trivial dispute, I'd recommend an RFC to muster up some participants that give some actual input. Sergecross73 msg me 21:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by City of Silver

This is a bit frustrating. I have to give a long, detailed answer so I won't be (apparently) accused of being "lazy" but what if I don't have a long, detailed answer? Because I very much do not want to come off like I'm dismissing the formidable amount of work EpicTiger87 has done, and because Sergecross87 has (apparently) described my efforts at being concise and short-winded with what I believe is an unfair little attack, I'll go on and on as best as I can.

I believe a performer who regularly works as both an on-camera and a voice actor can usually not have a voice performance be considered one of their most recognizable. There are exceptions but I really don't believe John de Lancie is one. I wasn't convinced by EpicTiger87's arguments, all of which I read and considered more than once and all of which I concluded are not compliant with our policy that says we cannot source article text to original research. There's an argument to be made that EpicTiger87 has kinda/sorta claimed that OR is to some extent not in play here, or can be overridden. I still believe it entirely governs this dispute.

John de Lancie's most famous work is as Q, a recurring character from several Star Trek franchise shows. Nobody is disputing that. While I believe that nothing he's done has been anywhere near as significant as Q, I believe his second-most famous performance came in a four-episode arc of the prestige TV drama Breaking Bad, where he played a vital character in a storyline whose twist is, arguably, the most shocking in American television history. That's my opinion and if article content is not affected by it, that's fine. This is also me saying quite literally nothing about de Lancie's work on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. By all accounts it's some of the finest, most beloved voice acting in its part of our popular culture. (Does it matter that, while I was discussing this on there, I actually tracked down and watched several clips from it of de Lancie's performances? Before this I'd never seen a single second of that show.)

Whether or not we should be here, here we are so why don't we get closure from an uninvolved mediator? While I strongly dispute Sergecross73's (apparent) criticism of my participation, I agree that not everyone has done a great job plainly stating where they stand. City of Silver 20:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate the response. To briefly respond to your points here on popularity, my position is that while Q is clearly less popular overall compared to Discord, Discord's popularity is significantly higher than and closer to Q's than the minor roles listed. Therefore, top billing alongside Q is more accurate than lumping him in with more minor roles. I still strongly disagree on the idea that is Breaking Bad performance is anywhere close to as popular as Discord. His Breaking Bad character was still a minor one in contrast to being famous & memorable consistently recurring characters in their shows like Discord & Q. I'm willing to bet most Breaking Bad fans think of Donald Margolis as just "Jane's Dad" who had a great minor performance but would not think much of them beyond that. While most MLP fans probably consider Discord one of the star characters of that show and bring him up much more. And Discord being at least 15 times more searched according to Google Trends strongly suggests that my suspicions are correct about this.

I understand you disagree with the above and that's totally reasonable. Unless there is more you would like to add in response on that, I think we have both aired our perspectives there for others to judge. However, I have some clarifying questions about your stance on the original research issue. You have argued (correctly imo) in favor of Q remaining listed as de Lancie's best known role based on your intuition & evidence that can't actually be used as a source listed in the article. I have argued in favor of Discord being added to that sentence, also based on my intuition & evidence that can't actually be used as a source listed in the article. So I quite don't understand what your standard on the original research policy is. If my Discord edit would be violating original research policy, then I don't see how the current Q claim is not also violating that policy (let alone all of the other pages on actors that also list specific roles as being their "most well-known"). The standard you seem to be setting here is that claiming something as an actor's "most well-known role" is something that requires evidence from reliable sources, but I can't see any precedent for that being the case and it contradicts your defense of the Q claim. And if I granted that that standard is correct, then I would also have to consider the Q claim original research. EpicTiger87 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best. My first message here is not perfect, obviously, but I did what I could. In response to my effort to build consensus via policy and to disprove implications of laziness by being as detailed as I could, the same user who (apparently) attacked me for being lazy is now attacking me for (no apparently about this) going off on tangents about the policy that backs up what I'm saying, not building consensus when literally every message I've typed out states where I stand and why, and, uh, typing too much? I don't even know. Another response was the original poster making more arguments that I've repeatedly said I do not buy per a policy I now don't even feel fucking comfortable linking or mentioning any more.

Please keep that mention of Q where it is per WP:OBVIOUS, if not its letter than its spirit. I retract anything else contentious I've said and I think the article should be written however EpicTiger87 wants it. I have no faith that further contributions from me here will make a positive difference so I'm out. Again, I tried. City of Silver 22:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John de Lancie discussion

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

Note: I was unable to deliver a notice to Daniel Case, as their talk page is semi-protected and I do not yet have the ability to edit semi-protected pages. If anyone here could deliver the notice to them, that would be great.EpicTiger87 (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Meters (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with City_of_silver. Moving the Discord info to the top is unnecessary and reads like a non-neutral marketing tactic. Separately from this, the article contains a significant amount of original/non-source verifiable and irrelevant information like: "In 1962, de Lancie performed in a high school production of William Shakespeare's Henry V." My inclination would be to significantly edit out all of the superfluous content. Slacker13 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this on the talk page here. EpicTiger87 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by moderator (de Lancie)

I am trying to determine whether moderated discussion is in order. Please read DRN Rule A.

I will comment on one editor's statement. They said: here we are so why don't we get closure from an uninvolved mediator? If they are asking me to provide closure in the sense of making a binding decision, that is not the role of a mediator. If they are asking me to assist the editors in reaching compromise or in establishing consensus, I am willing to assist. The purpose of moderated discussion, or mediation, is to improve the encyclopedia article. So I am asking each editor whether they want to take part in moderated discussion, subject to the rules, and one more question. The question is: What part of the article do you want to change, or what part of the article do you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change? I will open moderated discussion if at least two editors want it, and if they have different content objectives. (If the only editors who want to participate in moderated discussion have the same content objective, then I will close the discussion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (de Lancie)

I have throughly explained the edit I want to be made on both this discussion and the article talk page, which is to move the lede mention of his Discord role from his "other television roles" in the 2nd paragraph, to the first paragraph listed alongside the Q role. Here is the revision from when my edit was briefly up before it was reverted. I will be interested in taking part in a moderated discussion if anybody is interested. EpicTiger87 (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, If any outsiders who have not participated in this discussion would like to talk about this, I would be more than happy to. EpicTiger87 (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Reid International Airport

– New discussion.

Filed by Sunnya343 on 21:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Harry Reid International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I replaced the Airlines and Destinations table in the article with a summary of the airport's operations, and I believe my edit abides by the consensus from this Request for Comment. However, other editors have expressed opposition.

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

Talk:Harry Reid International Airport#Stop Removing the Airlines and Destinations List

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I seek guidance on what to do with the Airlines and Destinations table in accordance with the RFC consensus.

Summary of dispute by Ericm2031

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

Summary of dispute by Jakemhurst

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

Summary of dispute by Reywas92

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

I don't understand why Sunnya343 is bringing this here. They are the only person in favor of deleting this information from the article, while Jakemhurst, Ericm2031, RobH2488, A. B., Rlrcoasterdude21, VenFlyer98, and I all expressed opposition to deviating from longstanding practice of listing destinations in this article, just like every other airport article. Sunnya343 failed to gain consensus for their deletions yet continues to edit war on the article to impose their utterly pointless content removal and bring this to another forum and waste my time. The RFC closure did not decide that these sections should just be deleted, rather that sources are required, just like anything else. Keeping this table, which does have sources, is consistent with that. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by RobH2488

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

The only thing I have to say is that I agree with Reywas92 And A. B. on what they just stated. The Airlines and Destinations table have on what I believe are reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobH2488 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by A. B.

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

There have been multiple discussions about airport destination lists over the years:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables: "Should we get rid of the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles?"
- December 2016. Initiated by Sunnya343. Multiple options were offered. The preference was for "Option 3: Keep the tables, but something should be done with regards to references and complying with WP:VERIFY."
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 17#RfC about references for the "Airlines and destinations" tables.
- August 2017. Initiated by Sunnya343
- Decision: "references must be provided, and 'searchable' websites are suitable for such references."
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?: "Should we update WP:NOTDIR to explicitly state that lists of transportation service destinations are outside the scope of Wikipedia?"
- February 2018
- RfC followed the community decision to delete dedicated articles listing airline destinations
- RfC conclusion: "There is a clear consensus against the proposed addition to WP:NOTDIR."
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 167#Airport destination lists
- Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 167#RfC: Ariport destination tables: "Should tabular listings of destinations in airport articles be removed and replaced with prose descriptions?"
  - June 2021
  - RfC withdrawn by nominator in the face of strong support for retaining lists
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 19#RFC on Maps and Airline & Destination Tables "Should we consolidate mainline and regional carriers in 'Airline and Destination Tables'?"
- Implicit acceptance of destination lists during this discussion of how to organize them.
- April 2022
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles: "Should airport articles include tables that display all the airlines that serve the airport and the cities they fly to?"
- October 2023. Initiated by Sunnya343.
- By my count: 32 wanted to keep the lists, 21 to delete and 9 said something else (of these 9, more tilted negative than positive). I see this as a decent but not overwhelming majority to keep once you factor in the "something elses". (see User:A. B./Sandbox20 for tabulation)
- The closing admin judged the policy arguments made for deletion outweighed the majority for retention.

- - To clarify, he judged that adequate sources are required (just like anything else), not that tables should be removed in general. Reywas92^Talk 15:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion for this dispute:

Talk:Harry Reid International Airport#Stop Removing the Airlines and Destinations List

All currently listed destinations cite what appear to be reliable references (a mix of primary and secondary).

Harry Reid International Airport#Airlines and destinations

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Rlrcoasterdude21

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

Harry Reid International Airport 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 (HRIA)

I am ready to act as the mediator if the parties want to resolve this dispute by moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. In looking at this dispute, I am not sure that moderated discussion is what is needed. Different editors are citing different RFCs as establishing different consensus.

The most recent RFC appears to have one that was opened in October 2023 and closed on 18 November 2023 by admin User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I am adding them to the list of parties in this dispute. This was a potentially controversial close, because a counting of votes might have resulted in No Consensus , but the closing admin found that the policy arguments to delete lists of airlines and destinations were stronger than the policy arguments to retain these lists.

The filing editor deleted the airlines and destinations tables, citing the 18 November 2023 RFC closure. Other editors are disagreeing, often citing earlier RFCs. My assessment of the situation is that the other editors should either accept the result of the RFC, or request closure review of the RFC at WP:AN. I am willing to conduct moderated discussion, but I will be viewing the 18 November RFC closure as establishing consensus.

I would like each of the editors to state whether they are requesting moderated discussion in accordance with DRN Rule A, or whether they are requesting closure review, or whether they have some other request. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (HRIA)

Zeroth (?) statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

If there is an objection to the closure, that should be raised per the standard procedure, otherwise that consensus overrides the local consensus at the article. Further, the reason we don't just count votes is made very obvious in that RFC. All of the quotes I used to support the common thread in the discussion (articles should include such tables when including a table would be due... all the usual guidelines relating to weight and reliable referencing (I'm thinking specifically of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS) should still be considered... tables are fine if they are based in secondary sources... WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV can cover relevant concerns... If it is unmaintained / not well sourced - it should be either repaired or deleted just like every other wikipedia article.) were from editors with a bolded !vote supporting keeping tables. Reading and weighing statements is far more important than counting the bolded words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] File:Ukrainian Language in Galicia 1845.jpg

[1]

@@ Line 534: / Line 534: @@
 ===Eighth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)===
+Commenting on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Ukrainian_language/Names&oldid=1189863916 this version] of the draft: Most of it is original synthesis of primary sources. The claim in the first sentence "[before mid-19th century] the language was usually named Ruthenian or Little Russian" is not really supported by the source. The source only makes the corresponding statement in a specific context, i.e. to specify the language it is talking about. Better have no section on names than that one. [[User:Rsk6400|Rsk6400]] ([[User talk:Rsk6400|talk]]) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 ===Back-and-forth discussion (Ukrainian language)===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards