Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"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
Wolf	Closed	Nagging Prawn (t)	29 days, 4 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	In Progress	Randomstaplers (t)	25 days, 8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Randomstaplers (t)	7 hours
Double-slit experiment	Closed	Johnjbarton (t)	8 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	18 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	18 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	6 days, 21 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	5 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	PromQueenCarrie (t)	8 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	8 hours	Gawaon (t)	4 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 09:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Armatura on 16:12, 25 December 2020 (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 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war#Suspected war crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Armatura (talk · contribs) Grandmaster (talk · contribs) Sataralynd (talk · contribs) Beshogur (talk · contribs) Solavirum (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Armenia and Artsakh accused Azerbaijan of using phosphorus munition against Artsakh, with France 24, The Independent and Le Point publishing supporting articles including an independent medical expertise by a French doctor. A sentence following these supporting citations by Grandmaster denies the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan and cites two Russian-language articles - one featuring Russian "expert" Murakhovsky who is known for 1) claiming that phosphorus burns at 1000 C despite 2,760 C prevailing in literature 2) being a Russian propagandist 12 3) calling for invasion of "Nazi Ukraine" 12 4) claiming that white phosphorus "is not used in modern munitions" which contradicts with the evidence of white phosphorus use in recent wars 12, 5) claiming the superiority of Turkish military UAVs is a "myth" 1 6) claiming the Ukrainain plane was not hit in Iran and some Russian and Azerbaijani "experts" whose purely theoretical arguments raise questions about their credibility. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[1]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? 1) Could uninvolved editors make a judgement whether the sentence denying the phosphorus use by Azerbaijan despite credible international publications saying the contrary has a right to stay in the article? 2) if yes, can you please make a judgement whether selectively citing the references denying phosphorus use by both Azerbaijani and Armenians only in the section about Azerbaijani war crimes but not in the section about Armenian war crimes is a fair approach to this article? Many thanks! Summary of dispute by Grandmaster Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Thanks for taking this for dispute resolution, however WP:RSN would probably be a more appropriate venue. In any case, let me present my argumentation. The use of white phosphorus is claimed by both sides of the conflict, but there's so far no in depth investigation by an authoritative independent organization, such as HRW and Amnesty international, whose experts previously investigated the use of cluster munitions and other violations of war conduct rules in this conflict. Reports in mass media are based on information provided by one of the sides, and cannot be considered as witness or expert account. But in any case, our role here is not to prove or disprove whether or not phosphorus was used, but to report what the notable sources say. Media reports are quoted in the article, and so are 3 military expert opinions. Military experts all say that there's no sufficient evidence to prove the use of phosphorus by either side of the conflict. Murakhovsky is only one of the 3 experts saying the same thing. He is only linked as a source in the article, for further information if anyone is interested. The main source is actually the other 2 experts, one of whom is colonel Anatoly Tsyganok, a well-known military expert in Russia, whose biography could be found on Forbes website: [2] I think our purpose is to present balanced information, and not just the claims that support a certain position. Therefore the opinions of military experts questioning the claims on phosphorus use are notable and important for objective presentation of information in the article. Also please note that those experts are neutral in this conflict, they do not take any sides, and they all say that both sides have not presented any reliable evidence that white phosphorus was used. Grandmaster 20:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Btw, I do not mind if expert opinions questioning the use of phosphorous are included for both Armenian and Azerbaijani allegations. I never said that they should only apply to the Armenian allegations. Grandmaster 10:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Sataralynd It is true that both sides accused each other about the use of white phosphorus. However, when comparing evidence about its use by Azerbaijan with evidence about the counterclaim, namely compare wounds confirmed by Armenian and foreign doctors who are operating under hippocratic oath with finding unexploded white phosphorus munition in Tartar, Azerbaijan and claiming it as evidence that Armenia used white phosphorus, it is not unreasonable to give higher credibility to the Armenian claim than the Azerbaijani one. We know both sides have engaged in an information war during this conflict but given the first hand nature of the evidence about the Armenian claim, and the reliability of their sources (a couple of which like The Independent is particularly listed in WP:RSP as reliable in this instance) we could rate the Armenian claim with a higher credibility. In summary, we are talking about medical evidence with a high level of reliability. Now regarding the sentence mentioned in the article Military experts did not find evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. it is in fact not accurate. This is because the sources didn't engage with the medical evidence but evaluated videos and verbal claims against some of the chemical properties of phosphorus. The evidence provided about the Armenian claim is medical, and only a doctor reviewing the wounds in person should be able to question it or deem it unconvincing. Attaching this sentence to the paragraph presenting the medical evidence is not warranted. Further, the way the statement is written as a blanket statement that gives the impression of there being a consensus among the community of military experts that there is no evidence of use of white phosphorus by Azerbaijan, which is clearly not the case, if you read the Russian sources. Finally, there has been claims questioning the reliability of the referenced Russian sources, and I agree with the suggestion to take that to WP:RSN first. In the final analysis, the course of action I recommend is to remove the above sentence, establish the reliability of its sources and then include a modified version that some military experts find the evidence inconclusive, and that this doesn't pertain to the medical evidence. --Sataralynd (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Beshogur Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not following the original discussion but seems like the user called me because deleted one of his text, which here it states: This, however, contradicts with the reports that the Syrian government .... deployed white phosphorus munitions via airstrikes and artillery on different occasions during the Syrian Civil War., where you see that it is clearly an OR mixed with old sources. No idea about the rest of the discussion tho. Beshogur (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Solavirum Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Suspected_war_crimes discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (War crimes discussion) Please read the rules for moderated discussion. Read them again if you are not certain. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. My first question is whether this dispute is primarily about the reliability of sources. If so, we might do better to ask the reliable source noticeboard to rule on the reliability of the source. My second question is for each editor to tell as precisely as possible what they want the article to say about the focus of the dispute. If the issue has to do with the reliability of claims that white phosphorus was used, then who was reported by what source to have made that claim? Do not reply to each other, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion. The statements by editors should be addressed to me, as the representative of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors Indeed, the issue is about the reliability of sources, since Armatura (talk · contribs) questions that. I also think that WP:RS might be a more appropriate venue. The claims on use of phosphorus were made by both sites of the conflict, but there's no independent verification by an authoritative organization such as HRW or Amnesty international, whose experts usually do expert assessments of war conduct rule violations. However the article quotes a number of military experts who see no convincing evidence that phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. Those experts have no connection to either side of the conflict, so they are neutral on this particular issue. Armatura questions credibility of one of them, and generally is against inclusion of skeptical views. But I think that in order to maintain WP:NPOV it is important to include all opinions, and not just those that support the narrative of the parties to the conflict. Grandmaster 10:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Many thanks, Robert McClenon. It is mostly about the reliability of sources with experts denying the phosphorus use in NKR, hence I don't mind if this discussion is transferred to WP:RS, if you think it is a more suitable place, I am still learning what to discuss where. My other objection was that sentence denying the phosphorus use by both sides was for some reason put under only suspected Azerbaijani war crimes but not under suspected Armenian war crimes. I appreciate Grandmaster (talk · contribs)'s readiness to fix that, but I am still questioning the initial logic of selectively posting a seemingly neutral content to deny a war crime by Azerbaijan only. I argue that the citation 537 featuring highly controversial and unreliable "expert" Murakhovsky's claims should be deleted and it looks like Grandmaster agrees at least with that. I also question the reliability of the other reference - it is a Russian language article from Kavkaz-Uzel, that features two Russian experts who, basing their opinion purely on the appearances of the video of alleged phosphorus use by Azerbaijan, published by Armenian ombudsman, question whether it was phosphorus at all. One Russian expert - captain Vasilyh Dadikin is reported saying the video was not convincing and that it could be anything up to smoke grenades (Василий Дандыкин счел видео, опубликованное Арманом Татояном, не убедительным. "То, что там изображено, может быть чем угодно, вплоть до дымовых шашек", - сказал он.). The other Russian expert, Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Russian Center for Political-Military Studies is reported saying "In videos of phosphorus munition use by Israel against Gaza one can see a rocket flying, then opening and spraying phosphorus, but here we don't see it ("Известно, что фосфорные боеприпасы применял Израиль против сектора Газа. Сохранились видеосъемки: летит ракета, раскрывается и из нее сыплется фосфор. Здесь же этого нет", - указал он.). The trouble with Kavkaz-Uzel article is that 1) there was no expertise done beyond just looking at the video 2) it interviews an Azerbaijani expert Azad Isazade (who goes as far as implying that it might have been the Armenians burning their own forests to create a smoke cover - "армянским военным использовать фосфорное оружие выгодно - Это создание помех для средств воздушного нанесения ударов азербайджанской армии".) but not Armenian experts, and this raises a question about the impartiality of the authors of the article (Russia's is the 149th out of 180 countries in terms of press freedom index), 3) the article cites Azerbaijani expert saying that "Azerbaijan signed the convention on chemical warfare use, that prohibits the phosphorus munition use. ("Азербайджан подписал Конвенцию о запрещении разработки, производства, накопления и применения химического оружия и его уничтожении, которая регулирует запрет применения фосфорных боеприпасов"), however this contradicts with France24 publication which highlighted that "the use of white phosphorus is strictly regulated under an international agreement that neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia have signed", this raises a question whether Kavkaz-Uzel has vigorous editorial process at all to verify the claims in the article. What are the solutions I see? 1) One option is removing the phosphorus-use-not-used Kavkaz-uzel expert opinions at all. 2) Or, cite them under both Azerbaijani and Armenian suspected war crimes with greater attribution and clarity, like "two Russian military experts, after viewing the video evidence provided by the Armenian side, did not find it to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". Plus, if we are citing opinions based purely on visuals, add the Atlantis Global's DRFLab's investigation based on analysis of satellite images that supports the phosphorus use. One may argue that medium.com has been highlighted as unreliable source, however Modern Diplomacy' Turkish author cites it, and I don't think Kavkaz-Uzel's article's credibility is higher than DRFLab. Armatura (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Actually, I do not mind if it is written as "Two Russian military experts, after viewing the video evidence provided by the Armenian side, did not find it to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict". Regarding the comments on the article at Kavkaz-Uzel, the article as a whole is not used as a reference, only the opinions of military experts are referred to. We can find faults with any article, but that does not invalidate the opinions of experts quoted there. Coming to medium.com, it is a subject for another discussion. But I can briefly note that the fact that if an author of a highly partisan article at Modern Diplomacy refers to it, that does not make it a reliable source, considering that medium.com was highlighted as unreliable. Grandmaster 17:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (war crimes discussion) The majority of the participants in this discussion either agree with taking it to the reliable source noticeboard or are silent. So it will be taken to RSN. The editors have not stated the issue with sufficient clarity that I am ready to open a thread at RSN. Will one of the editors please either: Open a thread at RSN, or State clearly below what the issue is for RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Dear Robert McClenon I stated all my reasons for questioning the Kavkaz-Uzel article reliability in a numbered list in the beginning of back-and-forth discussion, as clear as possible. I don't know whether RSN is for discussing the reliability of a specific article (rather than the whole Kavkaz Uzel), but if you think it is, could you kindly move this discussion there, please? I am afraid I don't have the necessary knowledge for the making the move. Regards, Armatura (talk) 12:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors (war crimes discussion) Third statement by moderator (war crimes discussion) Grandmaster says, in the back-and-forth discussion, that they think that we are done, and that there has been agreement. If no one disagrees, I will close this dispute as Resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC) @Robert McClenon: We only agreed on the sentence content IF Kavkaz Uzel article reliability is proven. Could you please help with that? Regards, Armatura (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Third statements by editors (war crimes discussion) Fourth statement by moderator (war crimes discussion) I will open an inquiry at RSN. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Will one of the editors please state concisely what the source article is, so that I can open the inquiry properly? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Can someone please open the inquiry? I don't read and write Cyrillic. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Robert McClenon I will, if you could explain a bit where / how. Does it have to be about the magazine as a whole or can the reliability dispute be about an article? Best regardsArmatura (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC) I looked at RSN repeatedly, and I see no reason why it cannot be about an article. You can also ask about the magazine if you wish. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks, Robert McClenon, this discussion can then be closed, please. Regards, Armatura (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (war crimes discussion) Fifth statement by moderator (war crimes) Has the issue of source reliability been taken to the Reliable Source Noticeboard yet? If not, will it be taken there? Can this discussion be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (war crimes) . Back-and-forth discussion A newbie question - would WP:RSN be appropriate for discussing the reliability of a particular article rather than the whole Kavkaz Uzel? I see issues in this particular article more than the resource as a whole. Specifically: it quotes its own reporters as the source (Источник: корреспонденты "Кавказского узла"), implying that the military experts were interviewed by reporters rather than quoted from their social media posts. However, the quotes from military experts are presented without preceding questions (very weird for an interview, isn't it?), without detailed elaboration of their opinion (interview with an expert cannot start and end with ultra-laconic, raffinated "nope, doesn't look like phosphorus" statement, can it?), without addressing (as one of the editors rightly noted) the published medical expertise and also the available analysis of satellite images (DRFLab's report is widely shared, in Russian language too, and the experts must have been aware of it). it quotes two Russian experts, an Azerbaijani expert, but no Armenian expert while Armenia and Azerbaijan both are accusing each other. an expert is reported saying "phosphorus is unlikely to be used as it is internationally prohibited", without that logic being challenged by the fact that prohibited cluster munition were indeed used. Is this fair journalism? an expert is is reported quoting that "Azerbaijan cannot have phosphorus as it signed the convention", without being challenged by international publications saying the contrary. it is unclear whether the articles has gone any editorial process to address the issues above, there is not even the usual phrase whether the editors of Kavkaz-Uzel agree with / claim no relation to the statements, making the article look like a haphazardly compiled referat. Due to the signs of unprofessional journalism above, I challenge the cited Kavkaz Uzel article's inclusion at all. Whether it requires WP:RSN or just a decision here - admins/community to kindly decide, please. If, in the end, it is decided that it can stay, then only in a form that would make crystally clear who said what based on what and not reflecting what, to avoid false generalisations. Regards, Armatura (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC) I don't see any valid reason to challenge the source. The journalists are not supposed to post their own questions, it is a common practice to only publish the answers. The publication does not have to quote both Armenian and Azerbaijani experts, and that does not make it non-neutral. However they do quote the Armenian ombudsman, thus presenting the position of the Armenian side. And it is not our job to engage in original research in order to prove or disprove the statements of the experts. Our task is to present all the notable points of view, and not only the claims of the Armenian or Azerbaijani sides, or sources that support their position. The experts are perfectly neutral, they do not take any sides, and they cast doubt on claims of both sides that phosphorus was used. Also, as I wrote above, Anatoly Tsyganok, the head of the Russian Center for Political-Military Studies, is a well-known military expert in Russia, often quoted in Western media too. I understand that the opinions of the experts might be inconvenient for a certain narrative, but we are here to write the articles in an objective and balanced manner, and not to discard the sources that go contrary to the position of one or both of the sides to the conflict. In this case, the experts challenge the claims of both sides, and I see no reason why the skeptical views should not be quoted. Grandmaster 21:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC) Given that the experts didn't comment on the medical evidence, and they by no means constitute the majority of military experts I would suggest we add a line-break, and modify the sentence to the following: Two military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. --Sataralynd (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC) I don't think that military experts could comment on medical evidence, since it is not their area of expertise. But you make a fair point, we cannot speak for all military experts, so you proposed edit makes good sense. I agree that we could modify that line as you propose. Grandmaster 10:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Sataralynd, Grandmaster, thanks for productive discussion. I think it is important to mention those two experts are Russian, as Russia is entangled in this conflict (this conflict widely viewed as part of Russia-Turkey proxy conflict) and as Russia in the sphere of both Azerbaijani and Armenian influence. The weight of what they state may be different from what two military experts - one from Papua New Guinea and the other from Switzerland could have said. If the decision is that the referenced Kavkaz-uzel article passes the reliability threshold, then I think this version would describe what they said as neutrally as possible: Two Russian military experts did not find the video evidence provided by the Armenian side to be convincing, and expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. And the suspected Armenian war crimes section will need this to be added Two Russian military experts expressed their doubts that white phosphorus was used by either side of the conflict. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC) That is ok. We can mention that they were both Russian. But I see no point in repeating the same line twice. I think it would make more sense to make one section "Alleged white phosphorus use", and merge information about use allegations from both sides there, and add the comment by Russian experts there, so that it would apply to both sides. Grandmaster 10:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC) I don't mind at all if all phosphorus-related sentences go into one section. As for all the other suspected war crimes - rather than dividing them by countries, it would make more sense to have a list of categories of crimes, with sentences describing what each side has done under that category. Regards, Armatura (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC) That is also possible. There could be sections on indiscriminate shelling, abuse of prisoners, etc. But those new sections are something that should be discussed at the talk page of the article. I think we are done here, thanks everyone for constructive participation. Let's create for now a section on phosphorus, and merge all the information there. It could also be a subsection to the war crime section. Grandmaster 12:52, 3 January 2021 (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.

2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Steverci on 01:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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. Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Steverci (talk · contribs) CuriousGolden (talk · contribs) Grandmaster (talk · contribs) Solavirum (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have proposed making a number of changes to the belligerents list in the article's infobox, and backed them all up with many sources. Armenia, like Turkey, did not officially declare war despite both nations being heavily involved. For example, no fighting took place in Armenia's borders, even when enemy forces reached them. Both Armenia and Turkey should be listed under a "Supported by:" or being listed as full belligerents. Personally, I support the former because it better reflects how no fighting could take place in their borders due to a lack of declaration of war. However, Erdogan's support has been stated by many sources to have been vital and decisive, so he should also be listed in the leaders. Russia should also be removed as a belligerent completely because the Russian government made an official statement that it doesn't support Artsakh. And "Armenian diaspora volunteers" should be removed from the infobox, because these are individual cases and not the result of organization's official backing, unlike the Syrian mercenaries (which were recruited and deployed by Turkey). Thus, it is giving them too much undue weight. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2020_Nagorno-Karabakh_war#Infobox_belligerents_changes How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would like for users that have no personal bias in the subject to review the arguments and evidence put forward, and help discuss what changes should be made. Summary of dispute by CuriousGolden I'm not too involved in this discussion, but the user's proposals of additions and removals are simply wrong. They're using unreliable sources or are cherry-picking from various sources to match the additions/removals they want to implement. I stopped engaging in the discussion after Steverci asked what's wrong with an obviously non-WP:RS, biased source, yet questioned the reliability of Al Jazeera, as I realized the discussion wasn't going anywhere. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Grandmaster Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Edits proposed by Steverci are absolutely unacceptable, as I tried to explain to him. First of, Armenia is a party to conflict, it is directly involved in it, and moreover, it is legally recognized as a belligerent. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement was signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with Russia as a mediator. If Armenia is not directly involved in the conflict, as a belligerent, how could it sign the ceasefire agreement? Armenia agrees to stop fire, and according to the text, "The Republic of Armenia shall return the Kalbajar District to the Republic of Azerbaijan by November 15, 2020, and the Lachin District by December 1, 2020". If Armenia is not involved directly, how could it occupy districts of Azerbaijan, and agree to withdraw from them? It defies common logic. In addition, most of Armenians fighting in Karabakh were soldiers and officers drafted from Armenia. Just yesterday dozens of Armenian soldiers were taken prisoner by Azerbaijani army, it turns out they were all from Shirak Province in Armenia, and their relatives are protesting now. [3] If Armenia is not involved, how did those soldiers from Shirak get to Nagorno-Karabakh? As for role of Turkey, there's no reliable source to support direct involvement of Turkey in the conflict as a belligerent. Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan by training personnel and providing arms, and also expressed political and diplomatic support. But Turkish army was not involved in the hostilities. Most of mainstream sources do not support this claim, and marginal sources are not sufficient to support it. And Russia is not listed as a belligerent. "Armenian diaspora volunteers" were involved in the fighting, and their presence is well documented and is confirmed by the Armenian side as well. I see no reason why infobox should not reflect this verifiable fact. Grandmaster 16:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Solavirum Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Every single WP:RS mentions Armenia as a belligerent in the war. Even Armenia has confirmed it on several occasions. They literally were the ones to sign the ceasefire agreement on their and Artsakh's behalf. Thousands of soldiers from Armenia were killed, and they were buried in Armenia Even Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights had reported that a huge chunk of the ethnic Armenian soldiers in Nagorno-Karabakh were from Armenia. Removing Russia is a joke. Russian government made an official statement that it doesn't support Artsakh, so what? This isn't the first time we've seen a giant power denying that it finances a proxy in a war. Iran might've denied the reports but has yet to prove its claims. Many ethnic Azerbaijanis in Iran also protested the country serving as a gateway for Russian arms. If we remove Russia, we'd have to remove the Syrians too. As there's also no direct evidence on their involvement, and that they've officially denied taking part in the war. Claiming that Turkey took part in the war directly, as a belligerent, is WP:OR and the user's own interpretation. Only the Armenian government and Armenia-funded Russian partisan sources like WarGonzo claims such a thing. There's not a single WP:RS that states Turkish forces were fighting in Karabakh. Removing the Armenian volunteers is, again, a false narrative. There are reports that ethnic Armenians from Lebanon, US, Syria, and other places, numbering in hundreds, and possibly thousands had taken part in the war. Thousands of individual cases (as Sterverci put it) are well enough to show that non-Armenian nationals took part in the war. In the meanwhile, these reports also give organized involvement, like ex-ASALA members and the Nubar Ozanyan Brigade of the SDF. Sterverci seems like he wants to show the as Artsakh vs. Azerbaijan, Turkey, Syria, while it isn't the case at all. He can head to Armenian Wikipedia for such things, as English Wikipedia isn't preferred for a narrative pushing. References --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (NK War) Please read the ground rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask the questions, because I expect that you will obey them anyway. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The first step is to determine what the scope of the conflict is, and how it will be resolved. Will each editor please make a brief statement saying whether the conflict is limited to the infobox, and also saying what their position is about the infobox. Also, will each editor please state whether they want moderated discussion in order to reach a compromise, or whether they want a Request for Comments. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors (NK War) The dispute is about infobox. I think that the infobox should be left as it is now. No additional belligerents should be added, due to reasons I stated above. Also, I believe third party opinions might help to resolve the dispute. Thank you. Grandmaster 00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC) It is limited to the infobox. Both Armenia and Turkey should be listed as either supporting belligerents. Erdogan should be added to the leaders. Russia shouldn't be listed as a belligerent at all. Neither should "Armenian diaspora volunteers". I hope a third-party will be able to review the arguments put forth and help decide on a solution. --Steverci (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC) The dispute is limited to the infobox. It should stay like how it is now. No additions are required per my comments above. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (NK War) I was asked by the filing party to reopen this case as having closed it prematurely. It appears that the dispute is about the infobox. Will each party say whether they want to engage in moderated discussion, leading to a compromise, or whether they want an RFC? Also, please either state what you want changed in the infobox, or provide your own version of the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors (NK War) 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war Part of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the Russia–Turkey proxy conflict For a more detailed map, see the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict detailed map Location {{{place}}} Belligerents Azerbaijan Turkey Syrian mercenaries Artsakh Supported by: Armenia Commanders and leaders Ilham Aliyev Zakir Hasanov Najmaddin Sadigov Mais Barkhudarov Hikmat Mirzayev Hikmat Hasanov Elchin Guliyev Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Arayik Harutyunyan Jalal Harutyunyan (WIA) Mikael Arzumanyan Artur Sargsyan † Nikol Pashinyan David Tonoyan Onik Gasparyan Tiran Khachatryan I believe it would be best for a third-party to help reach a compromise. I propose both Russia and Armenian volunteers being removed and Armenia listed as only playing a supporting role, for reasons I previously cited. I also propose Turkey being made a full belligerent and Erdoğan listed as a leader, in addition to the reasons I previously cited, and also because I just realized the infobox, in its current state, is lying. The Syrian mercenaries are listed under Azerbaijan, when it is Turkey that recruited and mobilized them ("The presence of the Turkish fighter aircraft ... demonstrate[s] direct military involvement by Turkey that goes far beyond already-established support, such as its provision of Syrian fighters and military equipment to Azerbaijani forces" per a source already on the article). I included a version of the infobox with mainly just the syntax being changed, for simplicity. --Steverci (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC) I think we are just going in circles. I have nothing new to add to what I have already stated in my previous statement. Steverci's proposals are totally unacceptable, for the reasons I stated above. Turkish army was not directly involved in hostilities, therefore Turkey cannot be listed as a belligerent. One source is not enough to claim that Turkish involvement is a generally accepted fact. And even that one source Steverci refers to make no sense whatsover. If Turkey is to be considered directly involved in the conflict just because it stations its planes in Azerbaijan's territory, then so is Russia on a much bigger scale, because it has a military base in Armenia. Armenian army was directly involved, moreover, Armenia signed a peace agreement, undertaking to withdraw its army from Azerbaijan's territory. If Armenian government admits that it is involved in hostilities, how can we say that it is not? Armenian and Russian volunteers were directly involved, which is why they should be listed. I don't see why this discussion was reopen, there's clearly no consensus for your proposed edits, and you have nothing new to add to what was already discussed. Grandmaster 12:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (NK war) I am trying to avoid taking a position, because one editor would like for help in reaching a compromise. I would however say that any formulation that does not list Azerbaijan as a belligerent on one side and Armenia and Artsakh as belligerents on the other side is a strawman, not a compromise. Go ahead and try to work out a compromise on who are supporting the sides. If anyone wants to leave out Azerbaijan, Armenia, or Artsakh as belligerents, that is sufficiently one-sided to require an RFC. So: Do you want to try to compromise on who is supporting whom, or do we want an RFC? If we have an RFC, it can be multiple-choice, to list each candidate country as a belligerent, supporting, or nothing. Compromise on supporting parties, or RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Third statements by editors (NK war) Thank you for your opinion, Robert McClenon. Your efforts are much appreciated. The way I see it, this is not going anywhere. As you noted, it is impossible to not to mention Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh as belligerents, and this was said by every other editor here. Yet here we are discussing the same thing over and over. Supporting parties were also discussed many times, and there's the same person who is not satisfied with the lack of consensus for his ideas. I think further continuation of this discussion would be just a waste of everyone's time. Grandmaster 22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC) I would be willing to compromise on Armenia being listed as a full belligerent as long as Turkey is as well. Artsakh should be listed above Armenia though. --Steverci (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (NK war) I will not try to work a compromise when one editor takes a non-mainstream position. I suggest that an RFC on the infobox is in order, and will go forward with it if at least two editors work with me. The RFC will be structured to ask whether country X or faction Z should be listed as (a) a belligerent; (b) supporting; (c) not listed. While it is obvious to me that at least Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Artsakh were belligerents, we can ask about them also. Each editor is asked to list as many possible participants as they want to list, such as Turkey, Syrian mercenaries, Iran, whatever. If you really want the RFC to ask about North Korea, or lizard-men, we can list them. So please identify what countries or factions should be included in the RFC as possible parties in the war. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (NK war) Through the Syrian mercenaries, Turkey's role in the war is undeniably mainstream accepted. American, British, and French media and even the French president have accused Turkey of deploying thousands of combatants. --Steverci (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC) I oppose: adding Turkey as a direct belligerent, rather than Supported by; adding Armenia as Supported by rather than a direct belligerent; removing the Armenian diaspora volunteers as a direct belligerent; removing Russia from arms supplier. Reasons: Turkey's direct role is only alleged by the Armenian government and a partisan and Armenian-funded WarGonzo. There's not enough third-party sources or evidence on direct Turkish involvement. The Turks made a joint drill with Azerbaijan in the same year, and when the war began, they couldn't leave. Turkish planes in some remote area of Azerbaijan doesn't mean Turkey was directly involved in the war. If that was the case, we would have to add Putin as the leader of the Russian troops stationed in Gyumri. Also, about Macron, this is Wikipedia, not a Paris-owned organisation. On the other hand, Armenia's direct involvement is confirmed by the third-party sources. Its also not a shocker to acknowledge that the Armenian forces from the Armenian Armed Forces fought here. Pashinyan himself has said that in Shusha the Armenian Armed Forces had taken part. Removing the volunteers part is also WP:JDLI. They're not citizens of Armenia, thus, they're a different party. The Russian arms supply was reported by the Azerbaijani and Iranian media. These reports caused large-protests in Iran, resulting in the arrests of hundreds and statements from Tehran government. Iran doesn't even deny sending trucks to Armenia during the war. Like the case of the Syrians, removing this is simply lying to the readers, just for the reason of both beign reported and amassing mass reaction and lacking direct evidence. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 15:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC) The role of Armenia has been discussed here and sorted out. And the role of Turkey as a belligerent in the war is not "undeniably mainstream accepted". Quite the opposite, it is generally accepted that Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan, diplomatic, military, etc, but Turkey had no boots on the ground, i.e. no Turkish soldiers were directly involved in the hostilities. Syrian mercenaries are not Turkish army, being a belligerent means sending its own forces into the battle, and not assisting third parties. By that token, Syria is also a belligerent, because it assisted Syrian Armenians to travel to the conflict zone. Grandmaster 21:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC) References Fifth statement by moderator (NK war) We are not, at this point, trying to resolve what countries are belligerents. At this point we are only trying to resolve what countries to list in the RFC. I will list Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Artsakh only if anyone questions their status as belligerents. I will list Turkey, and Syria, because you are discussing whether they are involved. Who else should be listed in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (NK war) It's not the country of Syria, just mercenaries from Syria were part of the Syrian National Army, so actually enemies of the country of Syria. In addition to RFC listings, Russia should be removed from the belligerents altogether because for doing nothing to support either side, Armenian diaspora volunteers should be removed for referring to individuals and not any organization, and Israel should be added back to supporting Azerbaijan as is currently being discussed. --Steverci (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC) Sixth statement by moderator (NK war) Please do not say who not to list in the RFC. I am only asking what countries and non-state actors to list in the RFC. If you do not want a country listed in the infobox, you will say so in the RFC. At this point, think of this as printing the ballot. Who should be listed in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC) Sixth statements by editors (NK war) Adding Turkey (full belligerent) and Israel (as arms suppliers). --Steverci (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC) No additions to the infobox. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 03:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC) I support leaving the infobox as it is. No additions are necessary, as it was extensively discussed at the talk. Grandmaster 00:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Seventh statement by moderator (NK War) The infobox currently lists Azerbaijan, Armenia, Artsakh, Syrian mercenaries, Armenian volunteers. It lists Turkey as supporting and Russia as an arms supplier. There is a request to upgrade Turkey to a belligerent. There is a request to add Israel as an arms supplier. What other requests are there, so that I can print the ballot? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC) COMMENT Robert McClenon I have not been invited to this discussion initially, but I participate in infobox discussions on talk page currently. Can the ballot please include remove Russia as arms supplier if were are defining arms supplier as supplier which continued arms supply during this war and add Russia as arms supplier to both Armenia and Azerbaijan if we are defining arms supplier as supplier which supplied arms during or before this war? It is no secret that Russia supplied arms to both countries before the war, and the speculations of Russia's continued arms supply to Armenia during the war are largely based on one resigned military official's statements. Thanks, Armatura (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC) We are using war-time arms supplies. Israel also supplied Azerbaijan before the war, but other editors are keen to add it because some Saudi-government owned website said so. The "speculations of Russia's continued arms supply to Armenia during the war are largely based on one resigned military official's statements," this is abruptly false. Hakobyan stated that after the war, while there were reports and protests in Iran about Russian arms supply. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 10:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Seventh statements by editors (NK War) Eighth statement by moderator (NK War) The draft RFC is available for view at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/NK war RFC. You may comment on it below, or you may tweak it if your changes will be non-contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC) I would like to get this RFC running. Eighth statements by editors (NK War) Back-and-forth discussion 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.

Peter Navarro

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Karagory on 02:22, 4 January 2021 (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 Peter Navarro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Karagory (talk · contribs) Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Soibangla (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It is claimed that Peter Navarro holds economic views that are "fringe" and extensive references are given about his views on China trade. After dialog, I suggested that the wording should be changed to "controversial" since the wiki is a biography of a living person and thus a higher degree of sensitivity should be used. Mr. Navarro holds similar views with Bernie Sanders as it relates to China trade thus, I believe, negating the term "fringe." I believe the statement "fringe" is inflammatory at best and slanderous at worst; totally unnecessary. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Peter_Navarro#Fringe_Economic_Views_2021 [4] Third opinion 22:13, 3 January 2021‎ TransporterMan talk contribs‎ 11,146 bytes −351‎ →‎Active disagreements: Remove Talk:Peter_Navarro, 3O given by Teishin; list is empty How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please examine the sentence at issue and the subsequent discussion. Summary of dispute by Snooganssnoogans There is no need for dispute resolution. The text in question is long-standing and has been duked out on the talk page since 2017 or so. What we have here is one editor who is calling on us to ignore what RS say because the editor believes the RS are biased. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MrOllie This is premature - talk discussion has only been ongoing for a few days, and one side of the dispute recently stated that they haven't even had time to read all of the relevant sources yet. - MrOllie (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Soibangla NY Times: "books like “The Coming China Wars” and “Death by China” that put him on the radical fringe of his profession"[5] Reuters: "Navarro’s economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe'"[6] Times of London: "When Donald Trump was elected president, Peter Navarro was viewed as a fringe character"[7] Politico: "economic theories that were considered fringe even by the confrontational standards of the field"[8] soibangla (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Peter Navarro discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (Peter Navarro) I want to hear from both sides why it should stay the same or change. First statement by editors (Peter Navarro) The term "fringe" is inflammatory and unnecessary. Both Bernie Sanders and Peter Navarro are strongly against the Trans-Pacific Partnership and support tariffs on China which is repeated over and over in the articles referenced as the reason for Peter Navarro's economic views as being "fringe." I do not think Bernie Sanders ideas are "fringe," thus I believe Peter Navarro holding the same economic views are also not "fringe." I think the word in the sentence should be changed from "fringe" to "controversial." Editors have yet to specifically address what views of Mr. Navarro that are "fringe" despite being asked on multiple occasions. Karagory (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)karagory (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Statement "because the editor believes the RS are biased." I definitely do not believe anyone is biased. Where did I claim someone was biased? I do not understand this claim. My view can best be describe as I wrote on the talk page: "The term "fringe" is being used as a pejorative. Thus, to meet the principles laid out in Wikipedia's 'Biographies of living persons' the common definition of fringe must also be met so as to not be be slanderous. The definition of fringe includes a purely number requirement. That requirement of "peripheral" has not been met as evidenced as both Mr. Sanders and Mr. Biden (and multiple other individuals; the aforementioned being the most prominent) hold similar views as Mr. Navarro regarding China trade. " Karagory (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC) "The text in question is long-standing and has been duked out on the talk page since 2017..." Firstly, this is a discussion and the analogy to fighting ("duke out") is out of place in a rational discussion and borderline threatening. Secondly, things have changed since 2017; Mr. Trump will no longer be President and soon to be President Biden's thoughts on China trade have evolved since 2017. Just as Mr. Biden's thoughts on the matter have changed, Mr. Sanders' and Mr. Navarro's thoughts on China trade have become more mainstream. The editor(s) are failing to keep up with the times. Karagory (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Second statement by moderator I will first ask whether this is a dispute where compromise is possible. If there is a choice between words, as appears to be the case, a Request for Comments may work better. Please read the usual rules and follow them. In particular, comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. If you can describe a viewpoint without naming the editor, describe the viewpoint only, because we are trying to improve the article, not to discuss each other. So, are there any issues besides "fringe" or "controversial"? Be concise. Participation in DRN is voluntary, but if there is an RFC, you may be able to provide input to the RFC. (Everyone will of course have input to the RFC after it is posted.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Second statements by editors Thank you pointing me in the correct direction regarding viewpoint only; I have made edits to my comments to focus on content. If I have failed in this regard, anyone please point them out and I will make corrections. No, unfortunately, I do not believe that compromise is possible, because the editors do not see the need for further discussion on the subject matter. There are no other issues besides the wording of "fringe" (a pejorative) or "controversial." Karagory (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I apologize if I have confused anyone; I have read all of the articles referenced that are not behind a paywall. The majority of the articles again reference Nr. Navarro's China trade policy. Wikipedia:Criticism: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." The word in question, "fringe," points to Fringe_theory where in the first part of the Wiki states: "The term fringe theory is commonly used in a narrower sense as a pejorative, ..." "The president-elect wants a coalition of democracies to pressure Beijing to curtail what he sees as unfair practices; Xi Jinping has been thinking along the same lines," Wall Street Journal, "Biden Plans to Build a Grand Alliance to Counter China. It Won’t Be Easy." Jan. 6, 2021 2:20 pm ET. Karagory (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." The summary of the dispute by an editor points to four articles that were not included in the inline citation. The three articles referenced by the inline citation where one unnamed Economists opinion piece, one Bloomberg opinion piece written by an Australian economist at the University of Michigan, and another Bloomberg opinion piece written by an economics editor for Bloomberg Businessweek. None of the referenced articles even mention what of Mr. Navarro’s ideas are “fringe.” Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons further states: "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." Maybe a comprise can be made by examining the top 5 or 8 sources in the United States regarding current economic thought (which could include Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, ETC) and if 3 or 4 or 5 instances of Mr. Navarro's specific economic ideas are being quoted as "fringe" then the sentence can remain with the newly cited references. Karagory (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Navarro) I am about to close this dispute because the other editors have not responded. If there are no comments from the other editors, I will advise that discussion resume on the article talk page, and that any editor can submit an RFC. Third statements by editors (Navarro) I agree; close the dispute. The other editors involved appear not to want to discuss or compromise. Thank you for your assistance. Karagory (talk) 04:16, 12 January 2021 (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.

Nissan S30 Berliet_T100

– New discussion.

Filed by Avi8tor on 06:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Nissan S30 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Berliet T100 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Avi8tor (talk · contribs)
• Mr.choppers (talk · contribs)
• Stepho-wrs (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I believe I have been following the Wikipedia manual of style Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement on the page Nissan S30 where I changed the primary power unit to kW per the manual of style. User:Mr.choppers continually reverts the page. A discussion took place on User talk:Mr.choppers and Talk:Nissan_S30#Complying_with_Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_for_a_Japanese_Car. I subsequently edited Berliet T100 which Mr.choppers also reverted, he appears to be checking items I edit.

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

User_talk:Mr.choppers,Talk:Nissan_S30#Complying_with_Wikipedia_Manual_of_Style_for_a_Japanese_Car, Talk:Berliet T100

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am under the impression that if the country is metric then the SI unit is the lead unit. The exceptions in the Manual of style list the United States and the United Kingdom as exceptions. If the source material (US publication) lists Horsepower, Mr.Choppers thinks this unit should take preference on a Japanese or non US or UK vehicle, despite an eloquent explanation by Stepho on the intent of the manual of style. Clarification is needed by another party. Thanks.

Summary of dispute by Mr.choppers

The metric horsepower (for some reason abbreviated "PS" in Wikipedia) is also metric and was the unit universally used in metric countries until it began to be gradually replaced by kilowatts in 1972. This changeover is still not complete, with horsepower still in frequent use, in particular when discussing cars built pre-SI. As per MOS:UNIT there are allowances for "such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions". For the Berliet T100, the manufacturer, all sources I can find (here is one), the French WP entry, and the country at the time all use metric horsepower. The truck even carries a giant "700 ch." plaque in its grille (ch. being the French abbreviation for horsepower).

While not universal, it is exceedingly rare to find a reliable source discussing an older vehicle using kW as the leading unit. Generally, any such descriptions use the units in which the vehicle was designed and marketed, occasionally followed by kW output in brackets. For metric countries, this unit is the hp (metric). Similarly, we use hp (imperial) when discussing US, UK, or older Australian automobiles. To make it clear, there are two kinds of horsepower: the metric hp equals 735W while an imperial (or US) horsepower is 746W. This often causes confusion as people erroneously equate the two, converting and reconverting and muddling the numbers.

As for the Datsun 280Z, this was a car developed by Datsun for sale in the United States. The engine was in special federalized trim, and was rated by the manufacturer in hp. All reliable sources, modern or period, describe the car using hp. The 280Z was never even offered in Japan. Japan itself only began using kW rather than PS after 2000. Under no circumstance have I ever suggested we ought to lead with an imperial unit on a metric car just because the source happens to be American.

After Avi8tor's three edits to Nissan S30 introduced several factual errors and a number of WP:STYLE offences due to general sloppiness (e.g. changing 151hp to 152hp, 160PS to 210hp, "5&mph bumpers" leads with mph as it refers to a US legislation - it is a "quantity set by definition" as per MOS), I did indeed check their edit history and reverted them at Berliet T100.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Stepho

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

This was covered in more detail at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Pferdstarke_(PS)_units.

My gut feeling is to lead with modern units (kW) to help modern readers - the ratio of readers more familiar with kW than PS or hp will increase with time and us old timers will eventually fade away.

The use of a rough approximation of the vehicle power in PS on vehicle names, badges, etc can be discounted as marketing. Similar to how many cars had the engine capacity in cubic inches as part of the name and many cars continue to use the engine capacity in cc or litres as part of the name. Marketing names should not be used to relate engineering figures unless the engine power figure is not available in any other form.

Harder to dismiss is the use of PS in magazines. Period magazines of course use the units of that period and are therefore not relevant to modern readers. But many modern magazines about classic cars continue to use the older units. This is the argument that I find hard to dismiss. If the modern sources continue to use the older units than this prompts us to also lead with the older units.

So I find myself unable to decide between catering to modern readers (kW first) and following modem magazines for classic cars (PS first).

Beware that the same argument of following magazines can also be applied to all the other dimensions such as vehicle lengths, engine capacity, bore, stroke, etc. Which conflicts with the idea of being relevant to modern readers.  Stepho  talk  21:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Nissan S30 Berliet_T100 discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Please notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Volunteer Question - Is this a request for moderated discussion leading to compromise, or is this a request for a non-binding Fourth Opinion (where Third Opinion is not available because there are already three editors)? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Sorry, I thought I had notified them but apparently the method I chose did not work. Hopefully ping plus user name will work. We have 2 editors in agreement but the other still reverts changes, either Stepho.wrs and myself is mistaking the manual of style or Mr.choppers is. I'm new at this so not sure of the correct terminology, but someone else needs to be involved. Avi8tor (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Hasmonean dynasty

– New discussion.

Filed by ImTheIP on 09:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Hasmonean dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ImTheIP (talk · contribs)
• Watchlonly (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute is over the use of biblical texts as sources for historical claims. There is a community consensus that such sources are unreliable (see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and Scripture as sources) and I have removed them from a group of pages. Another user, Watchlonly, appears to have taken it upon themselves to follow me around on Wikipedia to revert such edits. I have tried to explain to them that biblical sources are unreliable (see Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Books_of_the_Maccabees and this message on their talk page) but they don't get it. One of the sources they keep reinserting is the Book of Maccabees which describes how an attempted temple plunder by a king is stopped by horse ridden angels that flog the king. It is, in my opinion, completely unconscionable to use sources that take angelic intervention as facts to narrate history.

Other pages where watchlonly keeps reinserting biblical sources: Jonathan Apphus, Battle of Elasa, Sanhedrin, Mount Gerizim.

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

Talk:Hasmonean dynasty#Books_of_the_Maccabees, their talk page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Hopefully, you can convince Watchlonly that biblical texts aren't reliable sources.

I've explained to you many times that primary sources are reliable with attribution, including biblical verses. Parts of the article on the Hasmonean dynasty relates to the narrative found in the First Book of the Maccabees. Also you removed Josephus' account in an article, which is widely accepted as a source by historians across the world who study classical Judea and even Roman history in general.--Watchlonly (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hasmonean dynasty discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing party has not listed or notified the other editors. Please list and notify all of the editors who have taken part in the discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• What is going in now? I have listed Watchlonly and also notified them. ImTheIP (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Vitalik Buterin

– New discussion.

Filed by HocusPocus00 on 20:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Vitalik Buterin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• HocusPocus00 (talk · contribs)
• Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs)
• Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Vitalik Buterin is the founder of Ethereum, a blockchain and cryptocurrency platform. Reliable sources have stated that it is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization behind Bitcoin and the most actively used blockchain.

The following edit was made to the Vitalik Buterin article: "In 2014, Buterin launched Ethereum, which has become one of the most actively used blockchains in the world and the second-largest cryptocurrency platform by market capitalization." It included cites to Bloomberg and Fortune articles which supported those facts. Two editors deleted the second portion of the sentence that it was the "second-largest" and "most active", stating in the edit summary that it was a promotional edit. The initial editor who added the content has argued against the deletion, stating that it is not promotional, as it is written in the NPOV, supported by facts and reliable sources, and illustrates why the subject of the article (Vitalik Buterin) is notable.

Relevant cites:

• https://fortune.com/2018/01/08/ethereum-price-ripple-price-bitcoin-xrp/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-04/ethereum-becoming-more-than-crypto-coder-darling-grayscale-says

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

Yes, relevant discussion as well as a summary of arguments is here: Talk:Vitalik_Buterin#LEDE_promote

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Is the sentence "In 2014, Buterin launched Ethereum, which has become one of the most actively used blockchains in the world and the second-largest cryptocurrency platform by market capitalization." promotional or is it appropriate to include in the Vitalik Buterin article?

Summary of dispute by Ladislav Mecir

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

1. In contrast to HocusPocus00, I do not think that the questioned edit illustrates well why Vitalik Buterin is notable.
2. The claim that Ethereum was the "most actively used blockchain" can indeed be found in one of the cited sources, but it surely isn't a fact. The answer to the question "Which blockchain is the most actively used?" is subjective and depends on the criterium used. Note that an objective criterium may be one of: the number of transactions recorded per a time unit, the quantity of information recorded per a time unit, the transacted value (expressed, e.g. in USD) per a time unit or some other, entirely different quantitative measure of blockchain use. Even if an objective criterium was used as suggested by WP:NPOV, it would not be a permanent characteristic, i.e. it would require some additional information when...
3. The claim that "Ethereum is the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization" is not a fact when presented this way, as the respective source confirms, saying that Ethereum just became the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization at the time the aricle was written, i.e. that it was not the second largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization before. This confirms that the second "characteristic" is not permanent as written.
4. It is not true that the information contained in the claim is confirmed by two reliable sources. In fact, the information is a synthesis of two distinct sources, without being, in the presented form, present in any of them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jtbobwaysf

This article is subject of WP:GS/Crypto and editors that frequent this space such as myself and David Gerard (talk · contribs) we spend a lot of time clamping down on WP:PROMO edits. The relatively new user that opened this DRN is almost solely editing cryptocurrency articles (which in itself is fine). However, many of the edits are promotional and this user tends to WP:BLUDGEON the process as far as I have noticed. The user is very fixated on adding rankings of cryptocurrencies and we had a long discussion of it here Talk:Ethereum#Lede, at Talk:Uniswap#Rankings, and also at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Biased_list_of_altcoins. The theme of the disputed edits has been that a few of us find the edits to be promotional and often focused on the Lede rather than the body of the article. From a practical level, cryptocurrency rankings change daily, and it would be an unreasonable amount of work to try to keep this up to date. I can understand we might add as-of values and rankings to a historical section (not the lede), but this has not been discussed with this user that I recall, again it is almost always about the lede.

Note, I eventually conceded at the Uniswap article as I found it interesting that the subject seems to be #1 ranked, and that led to its notability (the article is otherwise sparse). As for the Ethereum rankings (by proxy the subject of this DR, but not directly) we can also see that sometimes Tether (cryptocurrency) is also ranked #1 see bloomber saying tether is #1 However, the ranking notability of the Ethereum is not salient to this BLP article, and notability is easily established for Ethereum and Vitalik Buterin. It appears rather to be moving the dispute about rankings to yet another article for discussion. Note the user was quite unhappy relation to the now removed logos from Talk:Cryptocurrency which MrOllie (talk · contribs) and Smallbones (talk · contribs) also wanted them deleted. I have written too much, but in summary this is an issue where we are trying to stop promontionaism in the cryptocurrency areas of wikipedia. Comments welcome on our approach. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Vitalik Buterin discussion

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

• Volunteer Note - The filing party has not yet notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Filing Editor Note - Notice has now been posted on each editors Talk page. HocusPocus00 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Comment: I've placed a comment on the article Talk page. Deb (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comment Deb. I'd prefer to keep this on DRN and give others the opportunity to weigh in if possible. I don't think a consensus was reached on the article Talk page as it was 2 editors in agreement versus 1. I believe removal of sourced edits made in the neutral narrative is disruptive. I can respond to each of the editors points above if it is appropriate. For reference, the reliable sources which provide the information that has been deleted from this article are a dime a dozen. See re "most actively used": Bloomberg 2 Bloomberg 3. See also re "second largest": CNBC 1, Bloomberg 4 NY Times 1, NY Times 2, NY Times 3, Reuters HocusPocus00 (talk) 14:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think the fact that they are "a dime a dozen" is exactly the point the other users are trying to make - that individual references may support your view but are likely both to vary and to change over a short period of time. They would also argue that your narrative was not neutral. Deb (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've proposed adding typical WP:ASOF language as a compromise, but the other two editors have said no. I'm willing again to add this information as a compromise if the other editors agree. Ethereum has been the second-largest cryptocurrency for the past 3+ years so I don't think this is even really needed. If the facts change, editors can update the article based on WP:RS's. Wikipedia covers current events and edits articles as information changes. I think their argument is akin to "Who is going to update the Donald Trump article when he is no longer the President of the United States?" HocusPocus00 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

PragerU

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Noteduck on 07:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• PragerU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Noteduck (talk · contribs)
• Shinealittlelight (talk · contribs)
• Springee (talk · contribs)
• MasterTriangle12 (talk · contribs)
• Hipal (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Unflattering facts repeatedly questioned and deleted, result is false balance and whitewashing by omission. "Critiques of videos" Prager controversies repeatedly deleted:

• PragerU vids with Owen Benjamin backed by 3 journalistic sources [9]
• PragerU vid on Robert E. Lee, backed by 2 journalistic sources[10]
• PragerU vid with Douglas Murray backed by 4 sources[11]
• PragerU's known[12] links to far right repeatedly deleted despite 2 academic sources[13].

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The 3 eds often deleting material-Springee, Shinealittlelight and Hipal (formerly User:Ronz)-have edited this page since May 2017(Hipal/Ronz)[14], (Feb 2019) Shinealittlelight[15], Sep 2019 (Springee)[16] Hipal clearly has preoccupation with editing [[PragerU and Dennis Prager pages. Their talk page history has many mentions of PragerU,eg one of many here[17][18] Nearly 200 edits of PragerU page by Hipal (and 100+ on Dennis Prager page) much of it revs of new material. False balance is real problem. I contend there's partisan desire to remove unflattering facts. Can provide much more relevant evidence from talk page + archives

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

• Arbitration request, which was premature and I apologise,arbitrators suggested going to DRB[19]
• attempt at BRD compromise, but I maintain result was very unsatisfactory[20]
• endless to and fro on page, see [21]
• many revisions, counter-revisions eg[22]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This page is unsalvageable - there is endless debate about what is due weight for inclusion, what sources are reliable, why material shouldn't be included. I believe result is status quo stonewalling, misunderstanding of consensus policy, whitewashing of PragerU controversies by omission. I believe mediators will agree when presented with full range of evidence. I believe controversial page like this have full admin protection if consensus cannot be reached, which unfortunately is likely

Summary of dispute by Shinealittlelight

I'm happy to participate, but I don't see a content proposal here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Springee

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

I agree with Hipal. Coming here with the assumption that a content dispute is due to issues other than RS, WEIGTH etc will make it hard to reach an amicable resolution. Springee (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MasterTriangle12

This dispute is about what is considered DUE and what is considered a RS. There are many specific additions that are caught up in this but it is primarily a dispute about whether criticism of the content produced by PragerU from widely respected sources is notable enough to be added to the page. PragerU is a highly controversial entity and has garnered massive criticism for their content, I do not believe that the extent of this should be diminished on their Wikipedia page. The addition I was attempting to make was a single sentence in the introduction referencing the large amount of criticism that has been levied at PragerU for the content they produce, the discussion of this is found here. In this discussion the only reasonable issues I (self) identified was a possible problem with synthesis since I was making the claim that criticism was widespread by referencing several respectable sources, although a few specifically mentioned the claim I was synthesising, and the wording possibly being too harsh. But these were not why it was blocked, there was a belief that all the sources were either of "low quality" or their commentary could not be used due to bias, I believed the claims to that effect were poorly supported, but my refutation of these claims was barely engaged with. I have only had a little engagement with some of the other content discussions that were mentioned by Noteduck, but despite the different content it seems the disputes are very similar in scope and extent. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hipal

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

I'm not sure if I'll participate if Noteduck cannot more closely follow our behavioral policies. I've found it an incredible waste of time to try to educate new editors on content policy when behavior policy is not being followed first. If Noteduck's opening comments here are not heavily refactored, I don't see how we can make any progress. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and witchhunts tend to end poorly.

So far, what I can make of the dispute is that a new editor, Noteduck, is unhappy with the PragerU and related articles, and is having a very difficult time understanding how Wikipedia works (eg the roles of admins, what are reliable sources, how to work to create consensus).

I'm happy to refactor this statement to more focus on the content issues, but at this point I don't see how we can move beyond behavior. --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

PragerU discussion

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

First statement by moderator (Prager)

As we and the arbitrators have agreed, I will mediate this dispute. This does not mean that I will decide on content; I will not decide on content, which will be decided in one of two ways by consensus. I will address one comment by the filing party up front. The filing party writes: "I believe controversial page like this have full admin protection if consensus cannot be reached, which unfortunately is likely". The article will not be locked. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We will try to achieve consensus in either of two ways. The preferred way is by compromise. The alternate way is by a Request for Comments.

Read the usual rules. I will repeat some of them. Do not reply to each other, except in the space marked Back-and-forth discussion, and we will not necessarily pay any attention to back-and-forth discussion. Reply to me and to the community (and I am the spokesman for the community and for the arbitrators). Be civil and concise. Some of the statements made have been too long to understand. Very long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so we will talk about the article.

Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. (If you edit the article while discussion is in progress, I may request that you be partially blocked, locked from editing the article.)

Each editor is asked to state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the article or what they want left the same. If you need more than one paragraph to say how you want to improve the article, you may create a subpage, or you may explain on your talk page. Keep your statements here concise. Make your statements in First statements by editors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Prager)

The bare bones of my complaint are that that this page is a whitewashing of controversial aspects of PragerU by omission. For ease of reading I won't add links to specific past talk page discussions or edit histories at this point but will happily do so upon request. I believe core issues here are false balance, status quo stonewalling and misuse of principles of undue weight and consensus - yes I have read said principles. Inclusion of material in the "critiques of videos" section of PragerU seems completely arbitrary. References to Prager vid on Douglas Murray greatly shortened without basis. References to PragerU vids with Owen Benjamin removed unjustly. References to PragerU Robert E. Lee vid removed unjustly. References to PragerU links to far-right removed without basis. "Reception" and "critiques of videos" far too short. Note that "Conflicts with YouTube and Facebook" subheading more sympathetic to Prager is 7290 characters (493 words) (per character count tool). By contrast "critiques of videos" section is just 3635 characters (370 words), "reception" is 5121 characters (465 words). Sources removed include references to:

• Journalistic sources: Washington Post, Mother Jones, The Australian, Los Angeles Times, VPM radio interview with renowned political scientist Larry Sabato
• Think tank or academic sources: Southern Poverty Law Center, academic journal Interface: A Journal on Social Movements, extensive reports by University of North Carolina professor Francesca Tripodi at non-profit research project (something like a think think tank) Data & Society, Georgetown University's Bridge Initiative (an extensively-staffed academic research project intended to discuss Islamophobia

And yes, I note that SOME material from Tripodi's reports has survived on the page, but too little. Good journalistic and academic sources removed on seemingly arbitrary basis - eg I can't see any reason why reference to Snopes is on PragerU page while above sources aren't. Only consistent feature of material removed is that it could be perceived as unflattering to PragerU. I fail to see why widely reported criticisms of PragerU from reliable journalistic or academic sources don't belong on this page. Removal of material so arbitrary that partisan bias only realistic basis. Looking forward to responses Noteduck (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Prager)

User:Noteduck, User:Hipal - Both of you! Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. A discussion at another noticeboard about another article is not important here. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article in question, not to discuss other editors.

User:Noteduck - What you said above appears to be a long complaint. Can you state, in one paragraph, what you want changed or left the same? If you have a long list of changes, please create a subpage, or a section on your talk page. What do you want changed?

User:Hipal - What do you want changed, or left the same?

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Prager)

User:Noteduck - Your statement is one thousand words shorter than your statement to the ArbCom. It is still hard to tell what you want changed. We know that you think that there is false balance. We know that you either think that material should be removed or that material should be added. So: Put everything in bullet-point fashion. Make a list of items that you think should be changed. Put it in a form such as:

• 1. Change X to Y.
• 2. Delete A.
• 3. Add B.

Put it in list form. Do not cite policies and guidelines. The objective is to improve the article, not to discuss how to improve articles in the future.

If you can't explain what specific changes you want made, the rest of us can't figure out what changes you want made. So provide a list of items. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Prager)

This is the minimum I believe needs to be done in terms of content:

• restore paragraph on Douglas Murray "The Suicide of Europe" Prager vid in full
• restore paragraph based on PragerU vid "The Charlottesville Lie" in full
• restore material on PragerU platforming far-right activists
• restore material based on Data & Society think tank in full
• restore paragraph on Owen Benjamin vids
• restore paragraph on Robert E. Lee vid

Note that this is without links to previous versions of the page or talk page content history, all of which can be provided on request. My other problem relates to ongoing problems on page regarding stonewalling, false balance, undue weight and consensus not being unanimity - but perhaps these are outside the scope of the current complaint Noteduck (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Prager)

User:Noteduck has identified six specific items that they would like restored or added to the article. (It doesn't matter whether they were deleted or were never in the article.) If other editors agree to restore the material, then we have agreement. If not, then the question is whether Noteduck wants a multi-point RFC on whether to restore or add the items. Do you want an RFC on whether to restore the items?

User:Noteduck raises general questions about undue weight, false balance, and other concerns. We don't discuss such concerns in general form at DRN. Please see Be Specific at DRN. If you think that another editor's conduct is problematic, you can report them at a conduct forum, such as WP:ANI (but be careful going to conduct forums). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Prager)

Statement by Hipal

Without better indication of exactly what changes are being proposed and what discussion has been made around those changes, then I don't see how we can make any progress as far as content is concerned. This is basic consensus making. --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC) .

Statement by Shinealittlelight

I agree with Hipal that "better indication of exactly what changes are being proposed" is needed, including proposed text and sourcing. If the paragraphs that Noteduck wants added were reverted, then please provide diffs. If they are new text, then please provide the proposed text with sources. Otherwise I have no idea what is being proposed, and I do not agree with Robert's statement that Noteduck has identified six specific items that they would like restored or added to the article. There is no specificity here as I see it, so I can't say whether I agree or not. There was a whirlwind of edits over the days before this drn case, and some proposals were made as compromises. So it's really hard to tell what Noteduck has in mind without specifics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Prager)

Noteduck has asked to restore or add six items. Other editors have asked for details as to what the six items are. So Noteduck is requested to provide links showing exactly what the six items are. Diffs are not required, except that a diff is sometimes the best way to provide a link. Putting the six items on a subpage or in paragraphs on a user page or user talk page would be one way to do this. After the six items are provided, I will determine where we go from here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors (Prager)

Statement by Noteduck

Note that I've added a seventh point - that a header for PragerU addressing its controversial nature be restored. The text underneath the following 7 subheadings has all been copied without any changes directly from the PragerU page history. I believe this is the MINIMUM I believe needs to be done. Virtually every one of these has been fought over extensively in the talk page or in reversals, so there may be a deluge of contestations.

• Note 1: I've observed that (5) and (7) need to be amended. (5) should be amended as to all appearances PragerU was not aware of Benjamin's neo-Nazi tendencies when he made those videos and this should be mentioned. As for (7), the statement is accurate and a header is essential but additional sources need to be added. A bevy of good sources, both academic and non-academic, link Prager to the far-right[23], in addition to propaganda and disinformation, so there's no reason to restrict it to the one source. PragerU is extremely controversial and is a target of frequent criticism from journalistic and academic sources, and there's no reason to excise material just because it's unflattering.
• Note 2: I suspect (6) might be most contested. Note that HillReporter is a journalistic source with editorship[24] and that several other sources reported similar things about the Robert E. Lee video[25][26][27]

1. Restore paragraph on Douglas Murray "The Suicide of Europe" Prager vid in full

A 2018 video about immigration to Europe presented by author Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'. Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric" but that the video wasn't fascist or white nationalist. The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right", while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right".

• Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[28]. For discussion on talk page see

References

2. Restore paragraph on video "The Charlottesville Lie" in full

The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. Tim Murphy in Mother Jones called the video an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected Cortes' notion, saying that "Anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand". Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump.

• Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[29]

References

3. Restore material on PragerU platforming far-right activists

PragerU has drawn scrutiny for platforming controversial figures including the far-right activists Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos and Stefan Molyneux.

• Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[30]

References

4. Restore material from Data & Society

/> PragerU's videos are often highly visible and accessible, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute finding that a YouTube search for the keywords "social justice" returned a PragerU video that was highly critical of the concept as the first result.

• Revision as of 01:05, 7 January 2021[31]

References

5. Restore, but alter material about PragerU's videos with Owen Benjamin

PragerU produced two videos featuring comedian, conspiracy monger, and holocaust denier Owen Benjamin in spring 2018. One video has Benjamin suggesting that right-wingers not argue with left-wingers. Varied parties have criticized PragerU for spreading Benjamin's views, including conservative writer Bethany Mandel and writers at Media Matters and the Southern Poverty Law Center. By early 2019, the videos had accumulated over five million views.

• Revision as of 02:38, 19 November 2020 (view source) (thank)[32]. For discussion on talk page

References

6. Restore material about PragerU's Robert E. Lee video

In November 2020, PragerU uploaded a video titled "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine.[33]

• Note that while this wording is mine[34] this was not unilateral but a synthesis of contributions by myself and other editors on the talk page, see[35]

References

7. Restore, but reword header including some of the criticisms frequently directed at PragerU

The company has been frequently criticised for the content they produce, being accusing of flawed historical revisionism, propagandistic teaching style, and misrepresentation of facts and concepts.

• source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=989318856&oldid=989182802

References

Statement by Shinealittlelight

Maybe we can take these one at a time?

The first item (the one about Murray) misquotes Pitcavage, fails to summarize the Murray video under discussion, and uses a redundant Bridge reference. Kotch is also apparently misquoted, and the quote of Kotch's opinion is not attributed to him. I do not think that the opinion of Kotch, a mostly unknown journalist writing for a website ("Sludge") that few people have heard of, is DUE. So I think the quote from him--even if it were corrected to be an accurate quote and attributed--should not be included. Finally, the proposed content misquotes Halper's piece in LAT. It never says "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right". Those words do not occur in the piece. We need to be careful to understand how quotation marks work! On the talk page, I had suggested the following version in light of these points:

A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate.[LAT] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that although he does not regard the video as being fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric."[SLUDGE] The SPLC described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right."[SPLC]

Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The second item (about the Cortes video). This is awkwardly written. It slightly mischaracterizes Cortes's claim about "journalistic malfeasance" (the piece in this context refers only to neo-Nazis, not white supremacists). It attributes the headline of the MJ piece to the author of the piece; this is just incorrect since authors rarely write their own headlines. In fact, the MJ piece says very little about the video itself; it just characterizes the video as a part of a broader attempt on the part of Trump's allies to "delegitimize “the media,” defend his most militant supporters, and cast the president’s opponents as violent radicals." The quote from Sabato does not refer to Cortes specifically, but says that "Anybody who tries to pretend that he wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand." Our previous source does not have Cortes talking about "white nationalists" but only about "neo-Nazis". Are we to assume that these are the same? Seems SYNTHy to me. The reference to Prager is a primary source; the Washington Examiner is not RS. I'm not opposed to including something about the Cortes video, but this proposal is a non-starter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The third item (about platforming alt-right figures) uses two sources, one by Kriegal and the D&S piece by Tripodi. The Kriegal piece simply refers to the Tripodi piece, so it is redundant. The Tripodi piece never says that PragerU "platformed" these figures. That's entirely made up. What it says is that "Prager’s amplification strategy also regularly promotes the ideas of white nationalist thinkers". I think what she's getting at is something our article already contains: her claim that there are "algorithmic connections" (whatever that means) between PragerU and the alt-right on Youtube. It seems to me that what Noteduck is trying to say here is just the same thing as this, which is already in the article. I do think that "algorithmic connections" could use some clarification. What Tripodi means is that Youtube's programming ends up suggesting alt-right videos to people who watch PragerU videos. I don't know why we don't just say that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The fourth item (about YouTube search results) seems to me more about YouTube than about PragerU. In any case, the proposal mischaracterizes the source. What the source says is The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video... Ok, so "highly critical" is not in the source, nor is "first result". Again, I don't know why this is due anyway, but if it is DUE, we have to accurately summarize the source, which basically just says that the Goldberg video came up one time when the author searched "social Justice" on YouTube. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The fifth item (about Owen Benjamin) appeals to Media Matters, Jewish Telegraph Agency, and Rightwing Watch. This sourcing could hardly be weaker: these sources do not seem like RS for this content, and do not demonstrate that the material is DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The sixth item (about Lee) is not DUE, per the talk page. As explained there, the Hill Reporter (the proposed source for this content) does not appear to be RS, the author in question does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree. Finally, in any case, the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish DUE weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The seventh item (an addition to the lead) is something we can return to after we finish the changes to the body. The lead should follow the body. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Springee

I think Shinealittlelight really hit on the issues here. This isn't a case of good content kept out because editors just don't like it. In every case there was a reasonable amount of talk page discussion explaining issues with the content. Springee (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Since sourcing has come up as one of the issues, I will note there is an on going RSN discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative which is one of the sources proposed for the PragerU article.[[36]] My read is the discussion is NOCONSENSUS regarding if the Bridge Initiative is a self published/primary source or a secondary RS. Noteduck feels consensus has been reached. Springee (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal

I don't know why poor and outright unusable references are still being considered after they have been rejected, but no consensus is going to happen if this cannot be corrected. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Prager)

It is not necessary for other editors to refute any of the points that an editor has requested be included in the RFC. Discussion of the merits of those points can be done in discussion of the RFC after the RFC starts running. (If you have made a lengthy refutation here that you think will be useful when the RFC is started, you can copy your comments.)

Please check whether any references are being rendered correctly. If there are Reference Errors, please either correct or delete the malformed references.

If anyone wants to identify any more points to go in the RFC, please list them, and be specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors

Statement by Hipal

Multiple references have been argued to be poor if not outright unusable, and they are not confined to just what's currently at RSN.

I expect editors to do more than simply repeat their previous comments without regard to rebuttals or other relevant discussion. Perhaps that's too much to expect, but in my experience rehashing like that is a serious behavior problem that stifles consensus-making. --Hipal (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (PragerU)

One editor says that there is a behavior problem that stifles consensus-making. This appears to be in reply to my statement that it is not necessary to refute any requests with which you disagree. There is no harm done in disagreeing with the edit requests, but there is, in my opinion, no good done either. The Bold Revert Discuss cycle has not resulted in consensus, and further discussion does not appear to be likely to result in consensus. That is why the dispute will be resolved by a Request for Comments, which does establish consensus. We do not discuss behavior at DRN, or in an RFC, and ArbCom has agreed that resolving the content issue should mitigate the conduct dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The draft of the RFC is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/PragerU RFC.

If there are any other article changes to be addressed in the RFC, please identify them as soon as possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (PragerU)

So we're going to keep obvious errors (like for example the inaccurate quotes I pointed out) in the RfC, and no changes will be made to the proposals based on the points I made above? No changes to the proposed text from Noteduck whatsoever? Robert, I feel that I genuinely don't understand what we're doing here. Are you not charged with applying policy to the content of these RfCs at all? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion

Robert McClenon thank you for agreeing to moderate. If my initial statement needs rewording or needs to be more concise I am happy to amend it. Regarding Hipal's statement, I find the particular contention that I don't understand the reliable sources and consensus policies to be patronizing and unhelpful for resolving the dispute. I am actively trying to resolve this dispute constructively and was directed here by Arbitration Committee Noteduck (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Like before, [37], I'll refactor if it helps. The facts remain. This comment was made by you just today. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Noteduck:, you've asked for content to be restored, which assumes it was added then removed. Could you provide relevant diffs, minimally of the last time the material was removed? Could you also indicate what discussion(s) on the talk page are relevant, if any? --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't said much but my view is that the proposed changes were not improvements to the article. I think there are two different types of changes in question. One of the proposed changes was high level and stating that PragerU has been subject to widespread criticism. The problem is this became OR since we don't have RSs saying this. [[38]]. The other questions related to specific video commentary/criticism. That applies to the material critical of the PragerU videos which covered Robert E Lee, Benjamin Owens, and Douglas Murray (exists in article already, dispute is over a substantial expansion). So here at a high level the PragerU wiki article shouldn't be a collection of every criticism we can find about any PragerU video. Enough editors have weighed in on these questions to say there isn't a consensus of editors supporting any specific criticism topic. Other than simply editor opinion how else might we decide if the criticism of a specific video is due? The most obvious might be to cover videos discussed by RS articles about PragerU. Note this isn't RSs about Owens or about Murray as that would tend to lend weight for inclusion in those articles. A second issue has been that many of the sources presented to support inclusion are marginal in terms of and/or reliability/weight. For example, the Owen's material was supported by three sources[[39]], Business Insider, an opinion article in The Jewish Telegraph Service and Mediamatters. Thus we have weak sourcing trying to support a specific video criticism that doesn't really contribute to the high level article which is supposed to be about PragerU as a whole. We have similar disagreements regarding the quality of sourcing that has been proposed for other content. For this reason several experienced editors have rejected these changes. While it might be hard to claim consensus against inclusion, consensus for inclusion certainly isn't there. Springee (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

In response to Shinealittlelight, I'm not against some of the material I've suggested being amended or discussed. However, what has repeatedly taken place on this page is the wholesale deletion of material. Point by point:

Point 1: The direct quote from the Kotch article is "The rhetoric of “suicide” and “annihilation” [in the PragerU video] evokes the common white nationalist trope of “white genocide” - hardly a misquote. Pitcavage was quoted accurately. Alex Kotch is not a "mostly-unknown journalist". He's written for The Guardian, Newsweek, Salon, VICE etc.[40] The Sludge source has been extensively discussed and justified as reliable on the RS noticeboard[41] The direct quotation marks should be removed for the Halper article, but otherwise, your point about the LA Times article is pedantic. Halper's point is clearly that some Prager vids echo the talking points of the alt-right...[including] the Dinesh D'Souza and Douglas Murrray vids.

Point 2: Your point about the difference between "neo-Nazis" or "white supremacists" is pedantic and somebody could have made a quick revision to this paragraph to clarify the terminology, but instead it was repeatedly deleted in its entirety.[42][43] Regarding the Sabato quote, VPM Radio interview makes it sound like Sabato was interviewed for a response to the PragerU video, but again this could have been amended to something like "Sabato rejected the contention Trump wasn't referring to neo-Nazis..." . You've mischaracterized the Washington Examiner as an outright non-RS, see here[44]

Point 3: It's possible that we could work this in to a different part of the article. "Promoting" instead of "platforming" does indeed sound like a more appropriate term in this instance. Note that there are other sources that explicitly mention platforming of controversial far-right figures by Prager[45][46]. The source material should be kept but may belong in another section. It may be worth having a separate paragraph on "platforming of controversial speakers".

Point 5: Regarding the Owen Benjamin content, I'm not sure on what basis Jewish Telegraph Agency and Media Matters for America are sources that "could hardly be weaker". Business Insider is not the best but is not deprecated. Benjamin's videos for PragerU have been mentioned by other sources including The Forward[47] and by another Media Matters article[48]

Point 6: You can't just assert HillReporter is not an RS - the fact that it has editorship and has been used on other Wiki pages has been discussed on the talk page. You haven't addressed the fact that other sources (which I previously referred to) also supported its contentions.

I partially retract point 3 of my complaint and maintain all my other points of complaint about the page. I am not averse to discussion and compromise, but note that large blocks of material are frequently deleted wholesale without any substantive discussion from this page.[49][50][51][52][53][54][55] The material I've pointed to should be restored as indicated. Noteduck (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

just a short response to Springee's latest statement: I don't necessarily agree that consensus has been reached regarding Georgetown University's academic project Bridge Initiative on the RS noticeboard (discussion here)[56] but rather that the objections raised aren't strong and that your understanding of consensus policy is not entirely correct. It's peripheral to this discussion anyway Noteduck (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just want to set the record straight on the misquotes:

• Noteduck's proposal attributes this quote to Kotch: "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'.
• Here is what Kotch actually said: The rhetoric of “suicide” and “annihilation” evokes the common white nationalist trope of “white genocide,”...
• Noteduck's proposal attributes this to Pitcavage: Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video"...
• Here is what Pitcavage actually said: “The video is “filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric. There is certainly prejudice inherent in the video…White supremacists are certainly almost all anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, so they would certainly agree with a lot of the things that [Murray] says.”

Perhaps we need to start an RfC to see how people think we should use quotation marks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Pitcavage, adding the caveat "almost" certainly wasn't my intention but it looks like I did so in error. The Kotch quote is a minor rewording that would be perfectly acceptable in an academic context, but at any rate, these are extremely minor points and raise the question: if editors are focused on improving this page, why not make these minor amendments to material instead of deleting whole blocks of text? None of this justifies the Douglas Murray paragraph being repeatedly deleted wholesale [57][58][59] Noteduck (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot reword what someone said and then put quotation marks around it as if it were a direct quote. I had plenty to say above beyond this, see above. I was just setting the record straight on this small matter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Impeachment

– New discussion.

Filed by Kent Bargo on 05:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Impeachment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kent Bargo (talk · contribs)
• BD2412 (talk · contribs)
• Ramzuiv (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It abrupt place a very large about Donald Trump without community approval. Now we need approval to get it removed?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment#Vote_to_block_Donald_Trump_on_article

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A temporary solution to remove any Donald trump picture on the article while a solid solution is found. The article already mention Donald Trump being impeached a twce

Summary of dispute by Kent Bargo

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

Summary of dispute by BD2412

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

It is highly premature to bring this here, and frankly not at all clear what the objection being raised is. It seems odd that the fact that a specific subject is mentioned multiple times in the article for their multiple impeachments would militate against having a picture of that subject. Note that I have proposed on the talk page that the best solution would be a collage of famous subjects of impeachment. This proposal has not yet been subject to discussion, nor has any specific proposal for what images would best suit the page. BD2412 T 05:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ramzuiv

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

Impeachment discussion

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

Eric Bieniemy

– New discussion.

Filed by Log47933 on 05:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Log47933 (talk · contribs)
• IceFrappe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am a football fan. I have I recently noticed that Kansas City Chiefs Offensive Coordinator Eric Bieniemy's Wikipedia article had an extremely long section devoted to Controversies that was over half of the total word count of his page, very much unlike other football coaches. I attempted to condense it to about 15-20% of his wikipedia page's total word count, although some of his actions were undoubtedly immoral, I did not believe a bunch of misdemeanors from thirty years ago and gossip from former players deserved to make up over half of the content of his page, so I condensed a decent bit while still leaving a good bit in there. IceFrappe, the user that had written over half of Bieniemy's Wikipedia page, all of it on these misdemeanors, and I kept reverting each other's work. I realize now that was not wise. I offered justifications for why I was making my edits (It took up too much of the page, other coaches with checkered pasts did not have such lengthy parts of their pages about their controversies) but IceFrappe kept reverting all of my edits, refusing to be edited. They claimed the wikipedia pages of other football coaches were irrelevant to the discussion and claimed I was pushing a personal agenda by editing their work. Finally, they reported me for edit warring after less than a day, refusing to accept any compromise and claiming I was attempting to sanitize Bieniemy but editing their work just a little. They claimed I was a paid editor, that I should be investigated for violating Wikipedia's conflict of interest, and accused me of being a sockpuppet.I am hoping a third party can bring about some sort of compromise. I did not want to escalate but it is tough when IceFrappe is attempting to get me banned without any defense of their edits or any discussion.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Log47933

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Bieniemy&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am not sure. I have tried to be reasonable, keeping a good portion of IceFrappe's edits. But I doubt any discussion will be productive while they are accusing me of being a sockpuppet and a paid editor with an agenda with no evidence.

Summary of dispute by IceFrappe

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

America discussion

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