Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Line 328: | Line 328: | ||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> |
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> |
||
{{DRN archive bottom}} |
{{DRN archive bottom}} |
||
== http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9 == |
|||
{{DR case status}} |
|||
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 02:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1527733285}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! --> |
|||
{{drn filing editor|2601:803:C401:BA88:E19C:9060:17AC:80EF|02:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> |
|||
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> |
|||
* {{pagelinks|http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> |
|||
* {{User|General Ization}} |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> |
|||
There is a sentence on the “Yahweh” page that reads “The Israelites were originally Canaanites, but Yahweh does not appear to have been a Canaanites god” |
|||
The issue is with the first half of the sentence “the Israelites were originally Canaanites..” |
|||
It is a contended position and one that i edited out, the editor General Ization re edited, and asked to list source, i misunderstood, but eventually did list a source for the contention that Israel and Canaan were seperate people groups |
|||
The source is here |
|||
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites |
|||
And all i asked of him was a simple revision |
|||
That the sentence read differently |
|||
I would even suggest |
|||
“Many contend that Israelites were originally Canaanites, though a recent study on the DNA of ancient skeletons from Canaanite cities in the Levant, found that the Canaanite genetic marker can be found in modern day Lebanese, not Israelites; which brings credence tonthe idea that they were two distinct people groups.” |
|||
Or something to that affect |
|||
his response was “still not intersted, thanks” |
|||
And he continues to re edit the sentence as before, despite the evidence that the information is contested |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> |
|||
I tried to just edit the first part of the sentence out, no replacement |
|||
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> |
|||
View the source and if it is found as legitimate, tell General Ization that it is, at the least, a contentious position and should be worded differently |
|||
==== Summary of dispute by General Ization ==== |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> |
|||
=== http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9 discussion === |
|||
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> |
Revision as of 02:21, 17 May 2018
|
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.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Genesis creation narrative | Resolved | Violoncello10104 (t) | 6 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 1 hours |
Algeria | Closed | Lord Ruffy98 (t) | 5 days, 1 hours | Potymkin (t) | 1 hours | Potymkin (t) | 1 hours |
Yasuke | New | Tinynanorobots (t) | 1 hours | None | n/a | Tinynanorobots (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 16:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Trans man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Userwoman (talk · contribs)
- EvergreenFir (talk · contribs)
- Grayfell (talk · contribs)
- Rivertorch (talk · contribs)
- Equinox (talk · contribs)
- TaylanUB (talk · contribs)
- MollyMac13 (talk · contribs)
- Colonial Overlord (talk · contribs)
- The Raincloud Kid (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Disagreement over how to define trans man. One side states that any person who is born male is a man (male human) and the other side states that any person who identifies as a man is a man (masculine identity). Both sides argue that their position is supported by alternate interpretations of the same sources.
This edit was made on the trans woman page without any preceding discussion.
08:43, 19 October 2016 Picture of a Sunny Day (First sentence was unnecessarily verbose. Trans women are women according to MOS: IDENTITY)
Previous definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman.
Current definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Userwoman (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive discussion on trans man talk page by the current author and by others on the trans woman page. Userwoman (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
How do you think we can help?
Evaluate the available sources to determine the current understanding of the term trans man. Userwoman (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by EvergreenFir
The filing user has failed to provide any RS on the article's talk page. Much of the talk page discussion has been taken up by explaining the basics of Wikipedia to the user. If the user still doesn't understand that their own arguments based on their own opinions does not mandate change on Wikipedia, I'd recommend they use the Help Desk more.
I am concerned that this dispute resolution filing is an attempted to extend the debate further, still without any sources given. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Grayfell
As explained on the article's talk pages multiple times, the sources fully support the current wording, even if they don't pedantically repeat the exact same phrase.
The former lede of the article (from 2016) was not previously mentioned as part of the proposed change, but it's being presented here as the central part of the dispute. Introducing a new argument, unpersuasive as it is, at this late point suggests shifting goal posts. If we cannot define the dispute, we cannot resolve it, and therefore this is a non-starter. Also, as far as I can tell, neither TaylanUB, nor Equinox, nor MollyMac13 have edited either Trans man or Talk:Trans man, making their invitations appear to be canvassing. Spreading drama from other similar articles is disruptive, to put it mildly. For these reasons, I'm extremely reluctant to lend legitimacy to what I see as WP:CIVILPOV, and have no desire to participate further. Grayfell (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Rivertorch
Summary of dispute by Equinox
I don't think that any kind of argument, regardless of its scientific backing etc., is going to work here. It's too politicised and it's one of the few areas where Wikipedia is not neutral. I don't have any particular issue with trans men or trans women but it's strange to me that the articles seem to assume that transgender is the norm (ignoring e.g. "TERF" attitudes) whereas e.g. Criticism of Christianity gets an entire article. Equinox ◑ 02:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by TaylanUB
I have to broadly agree with Equinox above; this issue seems extremely politicized, and the majority of the involved editors too indulged in their ideology. The page on man clearly states that a man is a male person, where male is defined in the usual biological way we all (hopefully) know. This corresponds with common use and scientific use of the words. The trans man page is in direct contradiction with these definitions. I find it particularly telling that the section titled "Confusion reigns" of the trans man talk page was locked under the claim that it's "pseudoscientific trolling at worst." Apparently, everything on the male page on Wikipedia is pseudoscience now, and not thinking so is trolling? See also this past state of my user page, in which I had documented a ton of biased behavior on the part of editors who could be assumed to be in support of the worldview of the contemporary transgender movement. It took me a long time and a ton of stubbornness to establish that the most popular feminist website of Canada is, in fact, a reliable source about feminist viewpoints. Imagine that.
Getting back to this particular topic, I think Userwoman stood behind their position quite well. It seems that none of the opposing editors were able to cite a source that clearly states that trans men are men. Instead, they seem to have flooded the talk page with irrelevant content from the cited sources, personal conjecture, references to theories put forth by individual sociologists, or to sociological theories whose bearing to the topic is rather questionable, and so on. The lead section should summarize the topic in terms that are factual and not ideological. Trans men are people who are assigned female at birth, generally because they are/were female, who profess to identify as male. It's amazing how complicated people are making this.
(Yay, I'm still below 2k characters.) Taylan (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MollyMac13
Summary of dispute by Colonial Overlord
Summary of dispute by The Raincloud Kid
Talk:Trans man#Biological_vs_Social_View_of_Man discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been extensive talk page discussion. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Also, this noticeboard is not always suitable for resolving a dispute with a very large number of editors. If discussion on the article talk page has not worked, a Request for Comments may be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Closed for at least two reasons. First, the filing party failed to notify the other editors of this filing, although they had more than 72 hours after the failure to notify was mentioned. Second, this noticeboard isn't really the best forum to resolve disputes in which 9 editors have been identified. Normally a Request for Comments works better when there are a large number of editors. The editors are advised that they may resume discussion on the article talk page, and any editor may post a neutrally worded Request for Comments. I am willing to assist in wording the RFC if I am requested to do so (on my user talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon Why was this discussion closed? I did notify all authors on their talk pages. Userwoman (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- User:Userwoman - In looking over the contributions of the other participants, I see that you did provide a cryptic notification. I didn't recognize it as a notification on the first review of your thread, and I didn't recognize it as a notification on the review of your thread to see whether I should close it. (You just said "FYI" with a diff, although there is a template for the purpose, or a note can be used. I don't think it was a very good effort at notification, but I am re-opening the thread.) It is still my opinion that DRN is not the best forum for issues involving large numbers of editors, and that a Request for Comments is in order instead. I will leave the thread open to see if a volunteer will accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon Why was this discussion closed? I did notify all authors on their talk pages. Userwoman (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- My apologies. I wasn't aware that the notification had a formal template available. If you prefer, I can repost the template on each author's page again, but I think that several have responded because they received the notice. If no one will volunteer to moderate this thread, I will submit a request for comments. Thank you for reopening the thread. Userwoman (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
- Volunteer note - Is this a one-against-many dispute, or many-to-many? If the former, then I am not really sure that this noticeboard is the best way for one editor to continue to push their position. (I am aware that DRN is a common next stop in one-against-many disputes, but I am not aware of it being a useful next stop.) If the latter, then either formal mediation or a Request for Comments might work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it does seem to be a many against many dispute. Several editors have brought up the same issue that I am currently bringing up, but at different times, so they were dismissed because a consensus could not be reached. I think that it is unfortunate that no discussion took place to justify the initial change and I am posting here because I think that this discussion is still valuable and necessary. If no progress can be made here, I will look into your suggestions. Thank you for your time. Userwoman (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Riot shield#From_Wikipedia's_main_page,_regarding_my_objection_to_this_page_having_appeared_as_a_%22Did_You_Know%22_entry_there
Closed. The author has started a Request for Comments. This takes precedence over other forms of dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Borderline personality_disorder
Closed as premature. While there has been brief discussion on the article talk page, it has not been substantive or extensive, and further discussion might be useful. (Then again, it might not, but we have to try.) The filing party has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page after reading the original research policy, the medical reliable sources policy, and other policies. (Also, usually User:Doc James and User:Jytdog are right about policy, and they are worth listening to. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Infobox_flags
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
I cite WP:INFOBOXFLAG to allow for use of flag in infobox in human geographical articles. Caradhras claims that the addition of flag in infobox is nationalistic agenda of sockpuppet and thus should be reverted. However, the flags in the articles in question Shanghai, Wuhan and Beijing have longstanding had a flag in the infobox. Caradhras cites that consistency across articles is necessary as majority of cities in China on WP do not have flags in infobox. I say most major cities do
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Spoke on the talk page
How do you think we can help?
Give a third opinion and assist in preventing an edit war
Summary of dispute by CaradhrasAiguo
For the sockpuppets in question, refer to the relevant investigation. This sockpuppeteer has also openly admitted to socking, further demonstrating the WP:POINTy nature of his edits. I have not formally reported his latest batch of IPs because the latest 2 batches that were reported have been ignored.
As to the timeline of the flags being included in the infoboxes, I would describe none of them as "longstanding", considering the age of Wikipedia as a whole: Beijing (4 Jul 2016 by a single-purpose account), Shanghai (22 Aug 2016 by a single-purpose account), Wuhan (18 Feb 2018). All 3 edits were unexplained. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
User talk:CaradhrasAiguo#Infobox_flags discussion
- @Waddie96 and CaradhrasAiguo: Thanks for resorting to DRN to avoid an edit war. I've taken up this case because this is something I frequently come across while editing articles related to military history. I'll go through all the discussions and put forward an opening statement by the end of tomorrow. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Diannaa#Copyright violation_on_Train_horn.
Closed for various reasons, including as outside the scope of this noticeboard and as questionably filed. The filing editor says that they are willing to let a third party decide, but a third party, MarchJuly, has already said that if User:Diannaa says that it was a copyright violation, it probably was a copyright violation. So now a fourth party says that if User:Diannaa and User:MarchJuly say that it was a copyright violation, it was a copyright violation. Wikipedia takes copyright violation very seriously. This noticeboard is not the forum to question an administrator's opinion about a copyright violation. The filing party is advised to ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse, who will explain (possibly in great detail) about copyright violation. The filing party is also reminded that copyright violations can result in being blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Talk:Honda Super_Cub
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Closed as not discussed recently. Maybe this is the same question that was asked three years ago. If so, it still hasn't been discussed recently. When the template asks whether there has been recent talk page discussion, it is asking whether there has been significant recent talk page discussion. The filing party is advised to register an account if they want to engage in dispute resolution. The filing party is also advised to follow the instructions and actually try to discuss this on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:General Ization#/talk/9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is a sentence on the “Yahweh” page that reads “The Israelites were originally Canaanites, but Yahweh does not appear to have been a Canaanites god” The issue is with the first half of the sentence “the Israelites were originally Canaanites..” It is a contended position and one that i edited out, the editor General Ization re edited, and asked to list source, i misunderstood, but eventually did list a source for the contention that Israel and Canaan were seperate people groups
The source is here http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/ancient-dna-reveals-fate-mysterious-canaanites And all i asked of him was a simple revision That the sentence read differently I would even suggest
“Many contend that Israelites were originally Canaanites, though a recent study on the DNA of ancient skeletons from Canaanite cities in the Levant, found that the Canaanite genetic marker can be found in modern day Lebanese, not Israelites; which brings credence tonthe idea that they were two distinct people groups.”
Or something to that affect his response was “still not intersted, thanks” And he continues to re edit the sentence as before, despite the evidence that the information is contested
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to just edit the first part of the sentence out, no replacement
How do you think we can help?
View the source and if it is found as legitimate, tell General Ization that it is, at the least, a contentious position and should be worded differently