Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Nivkh alphabets	In Progress	Modun (t)	22 days, 23 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 4 hours	Kwamikagami (t)	19 hours
Wudu	In Progress	Nasserb786 (t)	14 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 14 hours	Nasserb786 (t)	2 days, 9 hours
Repressed memory	Closed	NpsychC (t)	6 days, 22 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 5 hours
Thunderball	Resolved	Moneyofpropre (t)	4 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 21 hours
Queen Camilla	Closed	SKINNYSODAQUEEN (t)	4 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 2 hours
15.ai	In Progress	Ltbdl (t)	4 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	Cooldudeseven7 (t)	9 hours
Hypnosis	New	Skalidrisalba (t)	3 days, 2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Talk:Karima Gouit	Closed	TahaKahi (t)	1 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 hours
Asian fetish	Closed	ShinyAlbatross (t)	1 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	21 hours
Algeria	New	Monsieur Patillo (t)	6 hours	None	n/a	TahaKahi (t)	4 hours
2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence	Closed	AmitKumarDatta180 (t)	3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 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 19:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Dontmakemetypepasswordagain on 04:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action#Legal aspects of Iran.E2.80.99s threat of genocide - is it a random fringe.3F (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk · contribs)
• Yagasi (talk · contribs)
• NPguy (talk · contribs)
• Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• Vesuvius_Dogg (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

1st Talk link2nd Talk link --- Although I only recently became involved, there has been a dispute since about September 2015 at the Iran nuclear deal article. Inclusion was attempted of some material regarding significant criticisms by very prominent legal figures regarding the propriety of allowing privileges and sanctions relief without Iran having to cease threatening Israel. See this NPOV noticeboard post for a complete explanation of the sourcing and proposed text. It all seems pretty reasonable if you ask me, but Inclusion of any of this material was relentlessly opposed and reverted on the claimed basis that it was a "FRINGE" view, which is frankly preposterous given any close inspection of the WP:FRINGE policy. The behavior continued after I rewrote and restored some of the material. However, I think those insisting on exclusion were not forthcoming in seriously discussing any policy basis for removing the material. One user actually purported to assess the quality of the legal view itself based on his own knowledge, which I think is also preposterous. Another user appeared to reluctantly support some kind of inclusion but made a dubious argument that since two of the scholars were already cited for a separate criticism it would be undue to cite them again, but in any event he repeatedly reverted too. Both made the puzzling claim that the criticism of the nuclear agreement was not relevant to it. Myself and the other user supporting inclusion are in disbelief, I think, that such a bald violation of policy is being claimed as an enforceable consensus.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I posted to the NPOV noticeboard; see link above. I did not notify the others because my goal was to gain outside opinion, not continue the debate in another place. Two users responded without any reference to policy, with one attacking my motives—these responses explain my decision to seek mediated discussion rather than opening an RFC—but there was in my opinion one good substantive response, from administrator Masem.

How do you think we can help?

Mediate a discussion where all are expected to set forth clearly stated policy justifications for a desired outcome. Disfavor simple and conclusory use of "fringe" as an adjective to describe a claimed minority viewpoint, without reference to the policy language and examples. Act as referee. I think there is, as yet, no serious argument that well-sourced opinions in the relevant field by experts of this stature come within a country mile of the WP:FRINGE prohibition.

Summary of dispute by Yagasi

The proposed edits are based on opinion of prominent legal experts. To be a fringe theory, the edits must challenge a mainstream idea broadly supported by legal scholarship in reliable sources. No such scholarship sources were mentioned by proponents of the fringe claim and they have not affirmed the existence of a mainstream idea supported by scholarship. This violates WP:FRINGE.

Furthermore, the proponents of the fringe claim have presented viewpoints of some Wikipedia editors as a mainstream idea by giving these viewpoints undue weight and calling the legal experts "minority". This violates WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight that plainly requires: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."

Moreover, the proponents of the fringe (marginal view) claim have presented their viewpoints as editor consensus. This misrepresentation violates WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. Wikipedians must keep in mind that "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia... It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Yagasi (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The fringe claim was supported by a subsidiary argument based on a Wikipedia editor legal interpretation of the Convention: "The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide..." This clearly violates the WP:NOR policy which cannot be overruled by editor consensus. Moreover, this argument is fallacious and cannot be accepted. Under Article I of the Convention "The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish". In its judgment in the Bosnian Genocide case the International Court of Justice decided: "The ordinary meaning of the word “undertake” is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation." Yagasi (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NPguy

The first and largest problem with the cited claims about the genocide convention is that they appear to be without legal merit. There are assertions about what the Genocide Convention requires and prohibits that lack support in the actual text of the Convention. The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide, though incitement to genocide is punishable. So each of the legal claims is an extrapolation that departs significantly from the actual obligations in the convention. Since none of the sources appears to make an actual legal argument (i.e. an argument based on specific provisions of the Convention) it seems appropriate to treat them as fringe political views rather than serious legal claims.

The second difficulty is the argument that Iran has acted in a way that triggers the convention by allegedly threatening genocide against Israel. Most analyses indicate that statements by Iranian officials that Israel should not exist are rhetorical and political arguments, not actual threats. But there are serious sources who treat these as serious threats, so it seems appropriate to recognize this view.

But the argument that this supposed threat of genocide requires other states to refrain from any agreement with Iran unless Iran abandons its supposedly genocidal threats is extraordinarily broad. As far as I can tell, it is completely unsupported by any theory of domestic or international law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which the proponents have not provided. NPguy (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Neutrality

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

I heartily agree with, and endorse, the statements of Vesuvius Dogg and NPguy. There is not much more to add. Perhaps this is not an issue of fringe so much as an issue of undue weight; the weight of consensus is not to include this text regarding extremely marginal arguments. The article, as it stands now, extensively discusses supporters of the agreement and critics of it. To add the quite marginal views that some editors would like to would not be encyclopedic.

Dontmakemetypepasswordagain argues that his desired text must be included because it is "published in three independent RS." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of inclusion. Just because something is published does not mean that it deserves to be quoted or cited to. (This is particularly true with the Beres piece, which is a blog-style piece published in a specialty Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill—which is reputable for news purposes, but neither scholarly nor of wide circulation. If this was a more substantial analysis published in, say, the journal Foreign Affairs, it might be a different story).

In particular, policy certainly does not dictate that the view contained in every op-ed be included in every article, particularly when the article covers a very broad topic and the views expressed in the op-ed are quite marginal.

Moreover, to the extent that the views of the authors of the pieces at issue are significant, we already quote two of the three elsewhere in the article. To add yet more text about their views would simply be undue weight. Neutrality^talk 00:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Vesuvius_Dogg

I agree with NPGuy's explanation and reasoning. I've said that while I prefer the material be deleted, if it is to be included, it should not be written so as to misrepresent the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Even Beres concedes that "the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement" regarding genocidal statements or incitement. I've read the treaty and various op eds (or should we call them "motions"?) and find them highly novel from a legal point of view. Also, it should be noted Dershowitz's offhand comment was apparently made to NewsmaxTV and quoted on that non-RS site, making it problematic to give it weight on Wkipedia given that he has not published nor made this argument elsewhere, to my knowledge.

For what it's worth, I don't recall making more than a single edit on this issue, though I did comment on the Talk page. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Joint Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action#Legal_aspects_of_Iran.E2.80.99s_threat_of_genocide_-_is_it_a_random_fringe.3F discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion on the talk page. The listed editors have been notified of the filing. One editor, User:Joshua Isaac, has commented at the talk page but has not been invited to the discussion, and should be notified. Waiting for statements from other editors, since participation is voluntary although encouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not originally notify User:Joshua_Issac because he did not at any point remove, object to, discuss, or otherwise address the material regarding complaints about Iran's threats against Israel. I have gone ahead and notified him, but if he chooses not to participate, I strongly urge that this should not be taken as a reason to close the mediation—because IMO he was never involved with this dispute in the first place.

On an unrelated note, I gather that the protocol for discussion going forward is for us not to respond to each other directly, but instead wait for the next "round" of statements once everyone has either posted a summary or declined to participate? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, first all the summaries and then responses. Yagasi (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Dontmakemetypepasswordagain, Yes, after the second summary gets completed.

• Volunteer question - Does this case have a moderator? If so, who? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Volunteer comment – It looks like you opened it. Who volunteered to take it then? KSFT^C 20:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Question to moderator. @ThePlatypusofDoom: I saw that you suggested that we "discuss the problem civilly with other users" and thus I wrote a reply to Neutrality's "summary of dispute" posted today. But now I'm not sure your comment was meant to encourage us to reply to each other. Would it be acceptable for me to post a reply addressing Neutrality's comments? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator

I see no evidence that this case has a moderator. If so, will the moderator please so state? If not, I will be the moderator. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Concise posts are more informative than overly long ones. Comment on content, not contributors. I expect every participant to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours. As noted, please do not engage in threaded discussion with other editors. Address your comments to the community or the moderator (there isn't any real difference). Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Discussion at the article talk page may be ignored by accident. Will each participant please summarize, in one paragraph, what the issue is about the article and how it either should be changed or how it should be left as is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors

I'll be brief. My view is that the proposed text from my earlier noticeboard post should be added to the article and then not be reverted out by the editors here. The question is whether to exclude the prose above, along with the underlying views and sources reflected. A few specific policy arguments have been raised, but on a more general level, it is argued that a WP editor is empowered to force an exclusion of expert commentary based on the editor's own belief as to whether the source is right. That is, if a particular user believes an influential figure's view is wrong, can he forcibly prevent other users from reflecting it in a centrally related article—thereby allowing the first editor's unpublished personal legal theories and political preferences to override both important source material and the activity of other editors? Alternatively, can the view be excluded if it is claimed to be a minority view? Isn't this all specifically forbidden by each and every sentence that appears in the first paragraph of WP:V? Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Before continuing the content disputes, I would like to know: 1. Who are the present participants? 2. What happens if at least one of them does not accept your mediation? 3. What happens if one of them does not submit his statements after 48 hours? Yagasi (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

First, I will answer the questions of User:Yagasi. The participants are any editors who have submitted statements or otherwise agreed to take part in mediation. If at least one of them does not accept mediation, I will make a decision whether it will be useful to continue mediation with less than all of the editors, or whether I will close the case, and will probably recommend an RFC in that case. If an editor does not submit a statement within 48 hours, but discussion is still continuing by other editors, the lateness will not be noted and discussion will continue. If discussion stalls for 48 hours, with no comments, the case will be closed.

One editor, DMTPWA, has submitted a statement that I do not find helpful, because it doesn't identify what text they think should be included or excluded. It is also argumentative in using very non-neutral words such as "forcibly prevent" and "force an exclusion". Maybe that is what the other editors are doing, but we need to talk about article content, not contributors.

Once again, be concise in stating what article content should be included or excluded. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

My statement is as follows. Wikipedia's declared fundamental principles include: being an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view and having no firm rules. It does have policies and guidelines that are in effect and must be respected, but these may be changed at some time in the future. As I summarized above, some of effective policies and guidelines were violated when the genocide related issue was repeatedly removed, first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe. The most concerning was the third revert when the so called "consensus" was established without even mentioning a single reliable source. If a group of editors is eligible to establish such a kind of consensus and remove text based on opinion of prominent legal experts, then this must be properly disclosed to the community and to the public. However WP:RS requires articles to be based "on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority view". In conclusion, I would like to state that the text of the third revert or the text proposed by the filing participant should be included in the subsection (or section) "Continued criticism" of the article. Copies of both texts will be added to the mediation. Yagasi (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator

I asked the editors to provide a concise statement as to what text should be included or excluded. The above statement, which is only about the policies and not about the specific text, is too concise on the point of the text (containing nothing about the text) (as well as being argumentative). Will each editor please state concisely, in one paragraph, what they want included or excluded? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

Your statements have been puzzling, because (1) your First Statement by Volunteer Moderator asked for a summary of how the article should be changed, not a detailed explanation with sourcing and proposed text, which we of course could not present in one paragraph; (2) the proposed text was quite conspicuously and obviously linked in both my initial request for moderation and my First Statement, above; (3) the proposed text is more than one paragraph, yet you are asking us to both include the proposed text and argue "concisely" for its inclusion in a single paragraph. Do participants who are arguing for addition of text perhaps get an extra paragraph to post the proposed text? If not, why is linking to the proposed text not acceptable? Also, doesn't the side that insists on exclusion have to say something, or is it solely our burden to jump through hoops? Finally, I did not mention any editors or even specific edits, but rather the policy questions at issue, and I don't see how to discuss this without mentioning those policy questions. Ok, now here is the proposed text crammed into one "paragraph".Proposed text 1: In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, attorneys David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argued that while the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposed an "obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide," Iran remained publicly committed to Israel's elimination.Proposed text 2:In September 2015, emeritus professor of international law Louis René Beres argued that Obama's refusal to demand Iran abandon its genocidal incitement and threats, before being permitted to nuclearize under the deal, constituted a serious violation of U.S. treaty obligations under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and, thereby, also of U.S. law due to the priority given to international treaties under the Supremacy Clause and related case law. Beres also argued that the deal might encourage Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty entirely, relying on the new deal as permission to nuclearize while abandoning all commitments under the NPT.Proposed text 3: Talk:Mawlid Law professor Alan Dershowitz argued in an interview that the convention against genocide prohibits aiding genocide, and that by giving money to Iran under the deal, the U.S. was "aiding genocide. We're accessories to terrorism." Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

References

I'd like to try again to get another editor Neutrality involved in this discussion. That editor earned an editor's barnstar for edits to the page in question and was very active on the issue in dispute, but has not responded yet on this page.

There's one point above that I did not address in my initial comments. That is the claim by Beres that Iran might withdraw from the NPT and rely on the JCPOA as permission to nuclearize. First, this is not a legal opinion and therefore cannot be considered a claim by a subject matter expert. Second, it overlooks the fact that the JCPOA is actually premised on Iran's continued adherence to the NPT. Abandoning one in favor of the other is not an option. NPguy (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Forgive my delay in responding - I have added a comment above. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Former Closing Statement by Former Moderator

I made this statement, and am now asked to allow the case to be re-opened. Here was my closing statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am having to close this case as failed. After asking three times for concise statements of how the article should be changed or left alone, I have received, first, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, second, a lengthy statement of Wikipedia policies, third, a wall of text. Even if it is true that the other editors are trying to suppress the presentation of a minority viewpoint by misuse of the fringe policy, the filing party isn't presenting a concise summary that permits mediation. At this point, I would recommend that the approach that is most likely to resolve this dispute would be a Request for Comments. However, I would strongly advise all parties that the wording of the RFC should be neutral and concise. If the RFC is either non-neutral (e.g., argumentative) or overly lengthy, it will not establish consensus and will just allow continued quarreling. So a neutral concisely worded RFC is the most likely way to resolve this issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I am now marking this case available for another moderator. If a moderator does not accept this case at this noticeboard, the participants may request formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Accepted Case By New Moderator

I accept the role of moderator in this dispute. I will be here at least once every 24 hours, to moderate the dispute. Please explain the issue and I'll see what I can do to resolve it. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First Volunteer Moderator Statement

Please explain the issue in one reasonably-sized paragraph. Do not make it too long, no longer than 8 sentences. Explain what the problem is, what your proposed solutions are, and notify everyone in the case if they haven't been already. If possible, discuss the problem civilly with other users. I will check in once every 24 hours, all users are expected to check in once every 30 hours, or as much as possible. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The case in a nutshell by editors

A fragment of the article, based on the opinion of prominent lawyers published in three independent RS, was entirely excluded. The lawyers have expressed concern that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was not in full accordance with the terms of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The fragment was reverted — first under a claim of fringe theory, then under a claim of editor consensus on the fringe — as a result of giving undue weight to the personal views of Wikipedia editors compared with the legal opinion from RS. The primary issues of the case are: 1. Is it appropriate to include in an article on international treaty/deal, particularly on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, criticism or other legal opinion on it given by prominent lawyers? 2. Can such a criticism or legal opinion be excluded from the article due to the above claims or these arguments prove the contrary? Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The exclusion of the above "proposed text" numbered 1-3 is based on an agreement among a few editors that the material in question represents "fringe" viewpoints. Despite the agreement by multiple editors, this argument is essentially based on the assertion by a single editor that he is a better source of legal analysis than highly influential legal experts whose views have been vetted and published by reliable sources that are subject to professional editorial control. The editor also claims that, having reviewed certain pieces of primary source material himself(!), he does not believe the experts' legal views are correct, and thus on the strength of this personal analysis, they should not only be treated as fringe views, they should actually be regarded as not being legal views at all—despite the fact that the authors and publications do present them as legal views, and despite the fact that, in the first instance, it was the established legal expertise of the authors that led to their views being selected by the RS's to supply published discussion of the JCPOA. There is no basis whatsoever for the claim that these exclusions reflect proper editing; in fact, these editor claims are clear original research even though the editor has not tried to include them in article prose. Since the material in question is well in keeping with all applicable policies, and since the arguments for exclusion have no validity and no support in WP policy, the reversions should cease. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

First proposition by editors

I propose to agree that the reverted fragment should be restored and, if somebody has concerns about a specific detail of it, this can be disputed here as the next stage. Yagasi (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Moderator Statement

Okay, those were good summaries that explained the problem at hand. Can you give me more information about the lawyer who is being discussed? The opposing side, please present your counterargument. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Second statement by filing party

The disputed commentary is sourced to four authors who are all very prominent legal academics and/or lawyers, with two having extensive experience in government policy-making or advocacy roles. The first is a renowned academic, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who at 25 years old became the youngest full professor at Harvard Law School, where he has remained; he enjoys an endowed chair; (extended bio here). The second is renowned constitutional lawyer David B. Rivkin who served in the administrations of two U.S. presidents, has specialized in international public law and litigation before the International Court of Justice, and has testified before the U.S. Congress numerous times on various legal matters; (extended bio here). The third is former U.S. Justice Department and Department of Energy lawyer Lee A. Casey, co-author of the Rivkin piece, who represented 26 states in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of certain Medicare revisions contained within Obamacare; (extended bio here). Finally, we have Louis René Beres, an international law professor who has written numerous books on nuclear policy as well as hundreds of scholarly and opinion articles in publications like The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School), the International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the Journal of the U.S Army War College, as well as all the top newspapers in the U.S. (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, etc.); (extended bio here). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Note by editor: As I mentioned on the NPOV noticeboard, long before the JCPOA talks Professor Irwin Cotler has analyzed the Iranian incitement to genocide and called the international community to fulfill its obligations to prevent genocide as announced in the Genocide Convention. Irwin Cotler is an Emeritus Professor of Law and a former Director of the Human Rights Programme at McGill University, former Canada's parliamentarian, Minister of Justice and Attorney General. He is considered an expert on international and human rights law. Cotler has taught as a Visiting Professor at Harvard and Yale, and has written extensively on war crimes justice. Cotler has served as Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the International Criminal Court. Yagasi (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Opposing views

Haven't we done this already? See the summaries of he dispute by NPguy, Neutrality, and Vesuvius_Dogg above. NPguy (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Copy-Paste the argument if you want, if it's short enough. Please give specific examples, though. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What do you want specific examples of? NPguy (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

NPguy, Just copy paste the first argument, or give a description, link to the talk page, and state your case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of repeating points that are directly above on this talk page. But here goes:

The first and largest problem with the cited claims about the genocide convention is that they appear to be without legal merit. There are assertions about what the Genocide Convention requires and prohibits that lack support in the actual text of the Convention. The convention is focused on actions of persons and enacting criminal penalties for such actions. I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide, though incitement to genocide is punishable. So each of the legal claims is an extrapolation that departs significantly from the actual obligations in the convention. Since none of the sources appears to make an actual legal argument (i.e. an argument based on specific provisions of the Convention) it seems appropriate to treat them as fringe political views rather than serious legal claims.

The second difficulty is the argument that Iran has acted in a way that triggers the convention by allegedly threatening genocide against Israel. Most analyses indicate that statements by Iranian officials that Israel should not exist are rhetorical and political arguments, not actual threats. But there are serious sources who treat these as serious threats, so it seems appropriate to recognize this view.

But the argument that this supposed threat of genocide requires other states to refrain from any agreement with Iran unless Iran abandons its supposedly genocidal threats is extraordinarily broad. As far as I can tell, it is completely unsupported by any theory of domestic or international law. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which the proponents have not provided.

Two other editors, Neutrality and Vesuvius_Dogg, have made supporting statement above, but I leave it to them to (re)state their positions. NPguy (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I, too, don't understand the need to copy-and-paste my previous statement, but here it is:

I heartily agree with, and endorse, the statements of Vesuvius Dogg and NPguy. There is not much more to add. Perhaps this is not an issue of fringe so much as an issue of undue weight; the weight of consensus is not to include this text regarding extremely marginal arguments. The article, as it stands now, extensively discusses supporters of the agreement and critics of it. To add the quite marginal views that some editors would like to would not be encyclopedic.

Dontmakemetypepasswordagain argues that his desired text must be included because it is "published in three independent RS." That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of inclusion. Just because something is published does not mean that it deserves to be quoted or cited to. (This is particularly true with the Beres piece, which is a blog-style piece published in a specialty Capitol Hill newspaper, The Hill—which is reputable for news purposes, but neither scholarly nor of wide circulation. If this was a more substantial analysis published in, say, the journal Foreign Affairs, it might be a different story).

In particular, policy certainly does not dictate that the view contained in every op-ed be included in every article, particularly when the article covers a very broad topic and the views expressed in the op-ed are quite marginal.

Moreover, to the extent that the views of the authors of the pieces at issue are significant, we already quote two of the three elsewhere in the article. To add yet more text about their views would simply be undue weight.

Neutrality^talk 16:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with NPGuy's explanation and reasoning. I've said that while I prefer the material be deleted, if it is to be included, it should not be written so as to misrepresent the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Even Beres concedes that "the language of the Genocide Convention does not explicitly require any such precise enforcement" regarding genocidal statements or incitement. Perhaps that sentence should be quoted, so that a Wikipédia reader would understand that these supposed legal arguments are wishful interpretations, not grounded in historical practice or understanding? I've read the treaty and various op eds (or should we call them "motions"?) and find them highly novel from a legal point of view. Also, it should be noted Dershowitz's offhand comment was apparently made to NewsmaxTV and quoted on that non-RS site, making it problematic to give it weight on Wkipedia given that he has not published nor made this argument elsewhere, to my knowledge.

For what it's worth, I don't recall making more than a single edit on this issue, though I did comment on the JPCOA Talk page.

Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Moderator Statement

Please discuss the problem civilly. Make your points in this discussion. I will take part, and after it comes to an end, we can resolve this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I am opening the discussion. Please discuss the problem, and find a solution. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article is quite long and many opinions are presented in it, but none of them discuss genocide. Is not the opinion of recognized legal experts on this issue significant enough to be presented in relation to this international treaty/deal? I think it is. Yagasi (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not convinced on how valid that opinion is. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rivkin and Casey wrote: "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention." No other legal experts' opinions were introduced here to disprove this. Yagasi (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, @NPguy:, your opinion? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my original comment, the claim that the Genocide Convention requires or prohibits certain actions, if made as a legal claim, should be backed up by a legal argument that cites provisions of the convention and principles of international law. None of the cited sources makes any such argument. The convention is not a difficult read, but it is difficult to find provisions that support the claims being made. I would also point out that Beres is not a lawyer, so he cannot be considered a subject matter expert with respect to his legal claims.

The reason I am pressing for stronger legal arguments is that the claims being made are extraordinarily broad. They are extrapolations that leave many gaps in reasoning that need to be filled in. NPguy (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The convention is not a difficult read, but to interpret it you need special skills. I have already presented here an example of a very wrong interpretation of the Convention by a Wikipedian ("I could find no obligation to prevent threats of genocide..." But let us look at it in another way. Whom would the community prefer to choose for representation in court, a lawyer mentioned here or one of the Wikipedians taking part in the discussion?

The authors of the pieces about genocide prevention have addressed specific audiences, but that has not made their opinion less accurate. According to the bio Beres lectures and publishes widely on matters of international law. Yagasi (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: it's not common for opinion articles in newspapers to be laden with legal citations and technical arguments—nor is there any requirement that we use an academic source in the first place. Moreover, I don't see any "gaps" in the reasoning that is presented.

Even more moreover, the aim of WP content policies is to reflect significant published viewpoints, not to rebut, challenge, or otherwise take a stand against them. Making sure WP articles don't take sides in a public debate is the whole point of NPOV. You're coloring outside the lines. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If he is not a lawyer, why should he be included, if this is not his area of expertise? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The title of Beres is Professor Emeritus of Political Science, International Relations, Terrorism, and International Law at Purdue University. The title was granted by the university and under this title he should be introduced. He taught International Law at universities and published dozens of law articles in academic law journals. Yagasi (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: the details of Beres's C.V. reveal a rather large number of books, journal publications, panel memberships and speaking engagements on topics of foreign policy, international law, and nuclear policy and strategy. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

One avenue we have not explored is what other legal scholars think of some of these arguments. For example, here is an effective rebuttal of Rivkin and Casey: More Weak Arguments For The Illegality of the Iran Deal, by Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General in the George W. Bush Administration. A key quote from that article: "That Convention does not by its terms, as they say, 'impose an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide.'" This is in line with my previous commentary, which Yagasi mocks above.

I took another look at Beres's CV. Although his CV does not list a legal degree or other formal legal credentials (which is what I looked for at first), he did teach international law and has quite a few publications on on international law. Despite those apparent qualifications, his arguments are not credible. To take one example with which I am familiar, the claim that "Here, the most ominous risks have to do with permitting Iran to enrich uranium after 15 years. These plainly ironic allowances contradict the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" is - if intended literally - mistaken. Enrichment per se does not contradict the NPT.

That's all for today. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Somebody else posts a numbered list of "a few quick responses" on a blog he founded, therefore we exclude the more prominent, actually published view by arguably more prominent authors—because reasons? Sorry, can you connect the dots for me? And FWIW, I am adequately persuaded that you do not agree with the published view by Rivkin et al. and that you do agree with published views to the contrary. That established: so what? This is not sarcasm, it is a serious question. Why should a significant published POV be excluded because you disagree with it? That's directly contrary to numerous policies, but especially NPOV and WEIGHT. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The key quote from Jack Goldsmith — "Convention does not by its terms, as they say, 'impose an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide.'" — looks very strange, since:

• (2007) In its judgment in the Bosnian Genocide case the International Court of Justice decided: "The ordinary meaning of the word “undertake” is to give a formal promise, to bind or engage oneself, to give a pledge or promise, to agree, to accept an obligation."
• (2009) Professor of Public International Law at Liverpool University Dominic McGoldrick wrote about states that were parties to the Genocide Convention: "Thus, the Contracting Parties had a direct obligation to prevent genocide."
• (2011) Cotler called "the international community... to fulfill its obligations under international law, including the obligations to prevent genocide and to punish incitement to genocide, as announced in the Genocide Convention."
• (2011) Andreas Zimmermann, Professor of Public Law, European and Public International Law at the University of Potsdam, wrote about genocide: "With regard to genocide, the situation is, given both the wording of Article 1 of the Convention, as well as the 2007 judgment of the ICJ, relatively clear-cut. In particular, the Court has determined that the obligation to prevent, which the Court perceived as due diligence obligation amounting to use any means 'as the circumstances permit', does not presuppose any territorial link of the State obliged to take measures to prevent genocide. Rather all States, depending on their capacity effectively to influence the actual perpetrators of genocide, have, according to the Court, to employ all means reasonably available both de facto and de jure to them, so as to prevent genocide so far as possible."
• (2015) Rivkin and Casey wrote: "The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide imposes an affirmative obligation on all convention parties to prevent genocide and threats of genocide. Iran remains publicly committed to Israel’s elimination, an unequivocal threat of genocide in violation of the Convention."

Yagasi (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of Iranian incitement to genocide was presented in the article "Combating State-Sanctioned Incitement to Genocide: A Legal and Moral Imperative" by Cotler. While negotiating with Iran the P5+1 states, each of them separately and all of them collectively, had at their disposal the means to influence Iran (which was interested in lifting economic sanctions on it) to stop the genocidal declarations of its current leaders. After the JCPOA was agreed by the parties without any provisions against "direct and public incitement to commit genocide", the P5+1 have much less means to comply with their obligation to prevent genocide. As far as I can remember, nobody asserted here that other States should "refrain from any agreement with Iran", as some participants of the discussion claim, but a better deal could be achieved. Yagasi (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@NPguy: this dispute has already festered for 8 months. You have had quite enough time to marshal any policy arguments you think support the exlusion of these POVs. Please do not delay your participation in this discussion any further; it's been almost 48 hours without a response from you. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been busy. For now i'll just add that the chain of logic is extraordinarily tenuous. First: does the Genocide Convention require any specific action against a purported threat of genocide? That is in dispute. Second, Does Iranian rhetoric against Israel -- that the country should not exist -- constitute a threat of of genocide? This is very much a minority position, if not a fringe. Third, does this combination require parties to the Genocide Convention to refrain from any dealing with Iran that might be of any benefit to Iran? The is the boldest, most extraordinary extrapolation of all. If it were true, all of the P5+1, the entire European Union, and many other states would be in violation of the convention.

This is what led me to conclude that the claim simply does not pass the laugh test and does not deserve to be taken seriously. So no, I haven't given it a lot of thought, just as I don't spend a lot of time wondering whether the Earth is flat. NPguy (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by Mawlidman on 14:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Mawlidman (talk · contribs)
• Saheehinfo (talk · contribs)
• MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a dispute regarding which edit should be accepted for the article: this edit (mine) or this edit (opposing editor). I argue in favour of mine for 2 main reasons: 1) It has sub-sections because there are 2 distinct sections to the 'Permissibility' section: one for and one against. This gives the section greater clarity. 2) My edit simply quotes the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya, hence it is uncontroversial and fully self-explanatory. I argue against the other editor's version for 2 main reasons: 1) without sub-sections, the 'Permissibility' section looks very unwieldy. 2) in this version the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya is described as complex, even though plenty of other sources do not make mention of any such "complexity". This description is a matter of dispute, hence such controversy should be avoided--especially when my version easily offers a non-controversial solution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried extensive discussion on the talk page, sought a third opinion (but was rejected because a 3rd editor was nominally involved).

How do you think we can help?

Just to give fair advice about which arguments have merit and to offer a respectable opinion that can lead to a resolution to this ongoing dispute.

Summary of dispute by Saheehinfo

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

I'll start with point 2) above because this is the major dispute we are having.

The existing version is based on the work of a respected academic scholar named Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and is peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. This clearly passes WP:RS and so I do not understand why it should be removed.

I have also seen other works from reliable sources which also seem to support the current text such as: Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL

The problem with the suggestion made by Mawlidman is that it seems to be a primary source. The source is a direct translation of one of Ibn Taymiyya's works. I do not see the need to refer to a primary source such as this translation when a number of secondary sources exist such as the one above by ukeles. Further, within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular.

For the record, I have no problem incorporating all reliable secondary sources regarding Ibn Taymiyya's views and am happy to expand on the existing version.

Regarding point 1) above, the disagreement regarding subheadings was a minor issue which I assumed had been resolved as Mawlidman stated previously that Regarding the sub-headings, i can live with their removal.

Anyhow, I was somewhat reluctant to have explicit sub headings of "support" and "opposition" as it gives the impression that only 2 views exist - I.e. either one is for the Mawlid or against it. In reality a wide range of opinions exist such as the fact that some historic scholars accepted certain parts of the mawlid but forbade others. Ironically Ibn taymiyya seems to be of those who were neither totally for or totally against the mawlid.

I am on holiday at the moment so may not respond in a timely fashion. apologies for any delays. Saheeh Info 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood discussion

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

• Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The two listed parties, while the main parties to the discussion, are not the only parties. Other parties who have commented should be listed. All of the editors should be notified of this filing. This case is being left open to allow for addition of other parties and for proper notice to be provided. (I will not be moderating the discussion if this case is opened.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment – I can open this case for moderated discussion once all of the involved editors are properly listed and notified. KSFT^C 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment – @Mawlidman: This is a reminder that all involved editors need to be notified on their talk pages before the case can be opened. It is your responsibility as the editor who filed the case to notify them. KSFT^C 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment – I am now opening this case for discussion. @Saheehinfo and MezzoMezzo: If you are willing to participate, reply here. KSFT^C 15:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mawlidman: Can you respond below to Saheehinfo's points? KSFT^C 11:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if we dealt with point one first of all.
1) When i said i can live without sub-headings this was done as a goodwill gesture, but i never initially intended to remove them for any other reason i.e. i always believed they were appropriate. But since no goodwill was reciprocated i have put the issue back on the table. Anyway, to hold me against a past claim that i now so obviously disavow is a bit insultingly dismissive of my request. 2) Regarding the claim that there is no distinct 'Support' and 'Opposition' and that there is "a wide range of opinions [that] exist", if you read each scholar's ruling then you will see that each one has a general opposition or support towards Mawlid. They only elaborate on this support or opposition by setting conditions to their general rulings eg. some that support it then condition their support on the basis that Mawlid is conducted in a certain manner; some that oppose Mawlid then condition their opposition by saying that the month in which Mawlid is celebrated is special etc. Despite these conditons you will never find a conflict with their general support or opposition i.e. you don't have a 'support' scholar then saying that they oppose Mawlid. There are 2 distinct general views: 'support' or 'opposition'. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you respond to Saheehinfo's second point about your removal of a source that he claims is reliable? Why shoudn't it be included? KSFT^C 23:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: Yes, sorry. In answering his questions, i oppose Saheehinfo's version for several reasons:
1) This current version was first added by an obscure one-off editor called Thehistorian1984 here. This is the version Saheehinfo is defending based upon his claim that this is the consensus version as he states here in the first paragraph, Talk:Mawlid#Ibn Taymiyyah. As you can see the content is identical except that some extra sources have been added. Note that Saheehinfo had no qualms adding sources that supported the initial edit; however, he stubbornly rejected any of my edits that countered this edit—even if my edits were supported by worthy sources.
2) Now, as can be seen, Thehistorian1984's foundational edit cited one source: the pivotal Ukeles-authored work. Of all my searching for this source i have been unable to acquire it or to inspect whether its citation matches the content espoused in the edit. Likewise, even Saheehinfo has admitted that he has never seen the source and whether it matches the edit's content, as he admits here: [1] (to find press 'ctrl' + 'f' and type 'book' and it is the first one highlighted). I find it ridiculous that he has so staunchly defended this foundational 'consensus' edit even though he has admitted he has no proof to defend it.
3) The words "complexity of the issue" in Saheehinfo's version is rather subjective and open to dispute. While there are indeed sources that mention Ibn Taymiyyah's (IT's) views using adjectives like 'complex' (as the source quotes of Saheehinfo's version make clear) there are also sources that present IT's views using no such adjectives (some can be seen here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#Sources that don't raise issue of complexity). Likewise, the words "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" in Saheehinfo's version are also open to dispute, as my above sandbox link shows. When something is open to dispute and conflicting opinions exist i don't see why one version gets to take precedence over the other. If there is such dispute then the best action to resort to is to add content that is neutral. My edit (shown here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#My proposed edit) offers this solution: it simply quotes IT and presents his view clearly and objectively.
4) Saheehinfo objects to my version because he claims i am using a "primary source". In fact this is untrue. The source is not a book of IT or a translation of a book of IT; it is a book by the scholar Muhammad Umar Memon, published in the scholarly publishing house Walter de Gruyter. This makes it in fact a secondary sources that just happens to include IT's quoted opinion. Quoting IT doesn't make it a primary source. The source quotes IT—which is how i added IT's personal view at length. Note also that Muhammad Umar Memon makes it quite clear what he personally makes of IT's view on Mawlid here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox#Sources that don't raise issue of complexity (last quote); it certainly isn't in agreement with Saheehinfo's version. So once again we have differences of opinions expressed by several authors, hence why i call for only adding IT's own quoted view and let that do the explaining—rather than conflicting authors. I also find it strange that Saheehinfo objects to quoting IT, yet the article has 2 quotes already in the Permissibility section. Why doesn't Saheehinfo count these as primary sources too? If a scholar like Al-Suyuti can be quoted at length, despite authors not being divided about his support for Mawlid, then why can't IT be quoted at length when his views are open to dispute among authors? If anything, Al-Suyuti shouldn't be quoted, but rather authors should quickly summarize his view because it is considered so uncontroversial. Saheehinfo also claims that "within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular." Again he is incorrect: i only quoted from IT what was relevant to his views on Mawlid. Everything of IT's words that precede and succeed this quote were not added because they veered of course talking about other issues. If "there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject", as he claims, could Saheehinfo please draw attention to them?
This is my reply to Saheehinfo. All i desire is to remove controversy by letting IT speak for himself—instead of others disputing over his views. Memon's source, as the only secondary source i could find that quotes IT at length, offers that solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Saheehinfo: You need to check this page regularly. If you don't respond soon, I'll have to close this case as failed. KSFT^C 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: If he doesn't respond soon does that mean that my case is rejected? --Mawlidman (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If I close the case because he doesn't respond, it will mean that you were unable to discuss the issue, so no consensus could be reached. KSFT^C 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: Well wouldn't that be very convenient for him not to respond? So i put in the effort to resolve this issue here most likely for nothing...how does such a system sound fair? If i had known that that's how it works then i wouldn't have bothered because from much experience the other editor is not approaching this dispute in good faith and seeking a fair solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@KSFT: and @Mawlidman: Apologies for the delay - I am genuinely abroad at the moment and the Internet access here is very poor. I would very much appreciate a delay so that we can reconvene when I am back from holiday.

FYI - I do now have access to the work by Ukeles. The summary currently in the wiki article is an accurate reflection of her lengthy work so I really do not see why we should remove the existing version of the article. I scanned the pages before going on holiday with a view to provide the relevant quotes but unfortunately the Internet access here is so poor that the scanned documents do not open. You can also buy the book from Amazon if you do not believe me (it is not expensive). Can we therefore put this on hold until I am back? Saheeh Info 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment – I am putting this case on hold until Saheehinfo can participate. Saheehinfo, let me know here when I should reopen this case. KSFT^C 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Saheehinfo: A time frame on your return to editing action would have been nice. Regarding your acquisition of the book, all i ask, when you return from vacation, is that you show me that the source says something like "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" (which was in the edit). I'm not concerned by whether the cite mentions "complexity" because as i have shown the "complexity" adjective is a matter of dispute between different authors, i.e. plenty of authors don't think the issue is complex. --Mawlidman (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll be back on Saturday and will respon then.Saheeh Info 18:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator's note: I've extended the archive date of this case 9 days until May 15 to allow for the hold. If not resolved by then, then the case will be automatically archived and, in effect, closed if any 24-hour period passes with no edit made to it. If May 15 approaches without resolution or manual closing, KSFT may then extend it beyond May 15 by adjusting the "Do not archive until" date in the case header, but the best practice is not to do so unless there is active ongoing discussion and some hope of resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

I will not extend the archive date unless Saheehinfo is back and discussion has begun. KSFT^C 11:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Steel-cut oats#discussion_on_groat

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by MrX2077 on 06:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Steel-cut oats#discussion on groat (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved MrX2077 (talk · contribs) Mutt Lunker (talk · contribs) Dispute overview 1.1.What is a groat? There is a lack of an explicit definition of the word 2.2. I included Matt Lunker talk page where we had "extensive discussion of the matter"; I placed it on his page because he was the one who took exception to my contribution. Please note, that I made three "good-faith attempts" to tailor the definition to accommodate his concerns, and every time an adverse determination was made, the article was reverted back to the previous version. 3.3 Maybe I was not clear, every time I try to meet his criteria, he shoots me down, as far as he is concerned if you want more information, one should click on the groat wiki-link; Before Wikipedia or even the internet was introduced to the general public, I found that articles employed a type of Socratic method, namely before discussing a matter in depth, one would define the terms that would be used through out the article. I understand, why a wiki-link would be used if one wanted more information. But if it over-used, it promotes a form of intellectual laziness, where a person does not take the time to develop their ideas so it can become more accessible. Now for a person who is just beginning to understand the subject matter, it is like asking some to look up a word they do not understand, and then find out it is explain in terms of other words they do not understand (sort of like a nested loop). I was under the impression that Wikipedia mission, is to make knowledge accessible to all, but it is hard to do if the other party decides the matter is closed. Have you tried to resolve this previously? spoke to him on his talk page and also used mediation page How do you think we can help? I want to place an explanation of what a groat is Summary of dispute by Mutt Lunker Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Steel-cut oats#discussion_on_groat discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:ThatPerson903&action=edit&section=3

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by ThatPerson903 on 12:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved ThatPerson903 (talk · contribs) LL212W (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I edited the Splashh page adding a new label and put them in the right order in a better format. LL212W came and keeps reverting the edit (which also contains other changes to the page) claiming it is vandalism. It is not vandalism, and they are now saying I will be blocked if I edit again. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussion on my talk page How do you think we can help? Please provide a suggestion for what should be done here. Or inform LL212W (not sure if they are a bot or person) that I am not trying to do vandalism. Summary of dispute by LL212W Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User talk:ThatPerson903&action=edit&section=3 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Growth of_religion#Pew

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Bolialia on 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Growth of religion#Pew (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bolialia (talk · contribs) Jobas (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User: Jobas and I are having a content dispute on Growth of religion Wikipedia page on whether to keep the relative factors of Muslim population growth or not. We have tried to discuss on the article's talk page but were unable to reach any consensus so seeking a resolution as per Wikipedia norms. Here is the diff[2] for quick understanding. Thanks, Bolialia (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Have you tried to resolve this previously? We solve the problem and get to final solution.--Jobas (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC) How do you think we can help? Experienced editor on Wikipedia's content policy can help resolve this. Summary of dispute by Jobas Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Accroding to pew study page 70: The number of Muslims around the world is projected to increase rapidly in the decades ahead, growing from about 1.6 billion in 2010 to nearly 2.8 billion in 2050. Muslims are expected to grow twice as fast as the overall global population. Consequently, Muslims are projected to rise from 23% of the world’s population in 2010 to 30% in 2050.41 This significant projected growth is largely due to the young age and high fertility rate of Muslims relative to other religious groups. No mention here for the other factors. The study Pew Global muslim population study do show the factors of population growth (including Muslims) that you pushing in the article, These are factors of Muslim population growth, But the study do not mention or cliam that these are all the factors why Muslim population is growing faster than non muslims. While in the user here adding these factors as the reasons why Muslim population is expected to grow at a faster rate than the non-Muslim population, Which wrong since the study do not cited that.--Jobas (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Talk:Growth of_religion#Pew discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Yes, this DRN can be closed as we have reached a consensus. Bolialia (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd.

– New discussion.

Filed by Sekyaw on 20:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd. (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sekyaw (talk · contribs)
• Factoidmactoid (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I added info containing why and when the subject was recruited. Although referenced by in-line citations, Factoidmactoid is reverting the additions due to the info being prior to the subject's recruitment, to which he says is irrelevant to the subject because of that. Although it is prior to the subject's recruitment, it gives valid, referenced info of the reasons the subject was recruited. My attempts to resolve the matter on the talk page are not successful as he responds by reverting, stating the same thing on how it is prior to the subject's recruitment, and not by continuing discussion on the article talk page. A third opinion has stated that if the info is referenced with the correct info mentioned, which it is, it is a valid inclusion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I also attempted to contact the user on his talk page, to which he simply responded with the same reason in his edit reason (I copied/pasted his response on the article talk page discussion).

How do you think we can help?

The info I added is completely relevant to the subject and should not be removed just because it is prior to the subject's history. Other voices to help show whether the info is relevant to the subject may clear the air. Note that the opposing editor seems to not participate in talk page discussion.

Summary of dispute by Factoidmactoid

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

Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd. discussion

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

Talk:Stockton Beach

– New discussion.

Filed by JimMarlor on 03:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Stockton Beach (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DESiegel (talk · contribs)
• JimMarlor (talk · contribs)
• AussieLegend (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a local urban legend that the film "Mad Max" was partly filmed at the "Stockton Beach Tin City". A local newspaper did an investigative journalism piece two years ago, and concluded that this was not the case, and that it is a myth. The main internet Mad Max fansite has also chimed in stating that these scenes were filmed at "Avalon Beach" in Melbourne. Despite this, the user AussieLegend has continuously refused to include these contrary claims in the Wikipedia page, insisting that the myth be presented as fact. This has been ongoing for two years. Can we please be allowed to include both sides of the story to provide a NPOV?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Two years of edits and Talk Page comments by myself (as an anonymous editor), my boyfriend (as an anonymous editor), local historian Graeme Steinbeck, and the user "DES". We have pointed out that the evidence in support of the claim is thin (local tourist company claims, a retracted statement from a politician, and a caption from a photo site), while the newspaper investigation is rigorous.

How do you think we can help?

Provide guidance to include both sides of the story. Also, remove two incorrect references that have been provided in support of the claim: one is from a book (but on reading actually claims that Mad Max II - a different film - was filmed at Broken Hill, many hundreds of miles away), the other is a parliamentary claim from a politician about the film being made there, but in the Newcastle Herald article, he apologised for "misleading parliament" and retracted it.

Summary of dispute by DESiegel

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

Summary of dispute by JimMarlor

Here is the report from the local newspaper: http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac;jsessionid=B718982E12D3E1FDB2EA30DB6F80FE49?sy=afr&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=1month&so=relevance&sf=text&sf=headline&rc=10&rm=200&sp=brs&cls=18878&clsPage=1&docID=NCH131207K97A252G9NF

Here is the fansite citing that these scenes were filmed on Avalon Beach and that the film was made entirely in Melbourne Victoria: http://www.madmaxmovies.com/making/madmax/

.

Meanwhile, the following references in support of the claim are dubious:

* Australia, Explore (1 January 2010). Holiday in New South Wales EBook: Does not include the claim. It is talking about a different film and city entirely.

* NSW Parliamentary Hansard: This claim was rescinded in an interview with the MP in the newspaper article linked above.

.

The rest of the references are not rigorous enough to justify a single point of view, and just repeat the urban legend with no primary sources:

* "Tin City Sand Dune Adventure Tour" - a promotional claim from the defunct website of a cruise company.

* "Tin City Dweller" - single caption from a defunct photo site.

.

Let's include both sides of the story. A rigorous newspaper article should be at least as weighty as a caption from a photo site or a claim from a local cruise operator.

Summary of dispute by AussieLegend

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

Talk:Stockton Beach discussion

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