Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
![]() |
|
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 Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
|
Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
Neith | In Progress | Potymkin (t) | 21 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours |
United States and state-sponsored terrorism | Failed | Kof2102966 (t) | 6 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 6 hours |
Kuči | New | Setxkbmap (t) | 3 days, | None | n/a | Setxkbmap (t) | 2 days, 5 hours |
Kyoto International Junior and Senior High School | Closed | Meganinja202 (t) | 2 days, 20 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 3 hours |
Heterodox Academy | Closed | Free Speech Wikipedian (t) | 2 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 6 hours |
Defense of Sihang Warehouse | New | Adachi1939 (t) | 2 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 21 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 21 hours |
Joseph Barbera | Closed | Whatsupkarren (t) | 1 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 23 hours |
Dominika Banevič | Closed | 88.216.164.52 (t) | 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 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 23:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Romani people in Hungary
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
There is disagreement about the inclusion of 3 items in the text, and the title of one section:
1: Should a section be entitled "Anti-Roma sentiment" or "Anti-Roma sentiment and controversy"
2: Should two paragraphs of text deleted from the beginning of this section be restored.
User_talk:Boynamedsue#Text_deleted_from_Anti-Roma_sentiment_section
3: Should the comments of Attila Lakatos be included in the article.
User_talk:Boynamedsue#Statements_of_Attila_Lakatos
4: Should the Anti-Roma comments of Zsolt Bayer be included in the text, and in what form.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Hopefully a moderated discussion will allow clearer discussion with regards to wikipedia's policies, possibly leading to a resolution. If no resolution is possible, advice from the moderator on correctly/neutrally seeking RfC or Third Opinion will be useful.
Summary of dispute by KIENGIR
The summarization of the dispute of the nominator is not correct and consistent, as well the user cannot claim the discussion was not clear, it has been overly expalined with highlights, timestamps and diffs, the user have shown an extremely rarely experienced non-understading. There are three points of the discussion;
(A) we include everything and restore the last stable version, before the user started arbitrarily remove content (then point 1. will be irrelevant)
(B) the page remains as was before the user started to insert their edits on the concerned parts, as it has been told only those will have consensus if the necessary amedments and NPOV repairs came along with (status quo ante)
(3) Besides this we started a consensus building of a third solution, in which concerning the issue 4 we would restore the section without any personal manifests (partially abandoning 3 connected to here along with others the user here did not mention), in case the user would agree the rephrasing and correction of some other additions which still suffered from inaccuracy and lack of NPOV (which has been a permanent problem of the user's additions), plus 1 (we agreed on everything, the user did not on the latter, and abandoned consensus building, that is quite odd, since any of the solutions proposed, overly 90% and 95% the user's desire would trial, given the extreme patience and generosity towards the user's direction).
All three solutions are in line with the existing policies, even being a standard, of course I'd be open another consensus building - once the one has been done the user abandoned just before finishing - regarding the other section (please note the user erroneusly separated points 2/3/4, as the subject are two sections, in which the content are overlapping by these in some instances). The user never really understood the issue, and even left consensus building, however, appropriate understanding is a basic necessity.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC))
Romani people in Hungary discussion
First statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I am beginning moderated discussion of this dispute. The editors are asked to read the usual rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Remember that overly long statements are often not read, which is why there is a common acronym in Wikipedia, Too Long, Didn't Read, so be concise. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so I will start by asking exactly what parts of the article each editor either wants to change, or wants to leave the same. Since it appears that there are three parts to the dispute, you may provide three one-paragraph bullet points. If they are too long, you will be asked again to shorten them. It is not necessary to explain why you want to make the changes; I will ask that soon. At this time, only say what you want to change where.
Do not respond to each other, except in the box for back-and-forth discussion, which will be ignored. Address your answers to me on behalf of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
First statement by Boynamedsue
- I feel that the article should include the section title "Anti-Roma sentiment" and the two deleted paragraphs linked above.
- The paragraphs relating the statements of Attila Lakatos (linked above) should not be included, nor should any mention be made of him.
- The statements of Zsolt Bayer should be included in an "Anti-Roma sentiment" section.
edit for clarity: the positioning of the sections would be similar to the first edit here
Boynamedsue (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
First statement by KIENGIR
I keep my word and remain consistent, the following options are possible:
- Solution A: full inclusion of everything, as last stable ([1])
- Solution B: zero inclusion, status quo ante (Revision as of 22:54, 3 September 2020 upper section and Revision as of 22:18, 9 September the lower one)
- (C) New consensus, in which the requirements laid down ([2]) should be fulfilled
- The three preliminary conditions for C would be indeed necessary, as it corrects erroneus/POV assertions, however it's outcome would fulfill that 3rd point of the nominator, as well one of the point in his/her 2nd point. The 1st point could be a subject of another consensus building, however, the vast removal of everything not added by the nominator is not negotiable, per WP:OWN and per the talk page discussion, which have been more times demonstrated the invalidity of such claims (despite the moderator asked I should not necessarily put the reason now as they will be asked, but like this the whole demonstration is compact and most easy to overview, since all this issue based on the fact the nominator wish to fulfill his/her 2nd point, per WP:JDL)(KIENGIR (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC))
Second statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
We need to use the current version of the article (regardless of whether that was the stable version before the disputes began) as the reference, in order to be sure exactly what we are discussing. The current version has not been changed in two weeks and should not be changed while discussion is in progress. So please state what you want to change in reference to the current (26 January) version of the article. It is even more important to be precise than to be concise, so do not worry about being too lengthy if you are providing exact material. Other than that, be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Boynamedsue says that there should be a section on "Anti-Roma sentiment". There is a section on "Discrimination, racism, and social exclusion". Would this be a change in the title of the section, or a subsection within that section, or a separate section.
Boynamedsue refers to omitting the statements by Attila Lakatos. Where should those statements not be?
Please provide the quote from Zsolt Bayer.
Kiengir refers to full inclusion or zero inclusion. Please provide the full text of anything for which full inclusion is an option.
Second statement by Boynamedsue
The deleted anti-Roma sentiment sub-section would be restored within the "Violence against Roma" subsection following the paragraph ending "The government was forced to pay damages to the Roma victims." The two paragraphs of deleted text would be restored immediately following the new subsection title, before the paragraph starting "Members of mainstream Hungarian political parties..."
The text re. Zsolt Bayer would be positioned after the paragraph of the current "Violence against Roma" section which ends "Pásztor replied that his statements were not based on statistics, but on mentions of offender ethnicity in reports made by victims of crime." Its text could be the following, or similar:
[[3]]
The paragraphs containing the statements of Lakatos are not currently in the text, the first was at one time positioned at the end of the deleted two paragraphs, and the second was at the end of the Zsolt Bayer text linked above.
edit-apologies, I now realise I was imprecise, I should have used "sub-section" all along to refer to the "anti-Roma sentiment" title
Boynamedsue (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Anti-Roma sentiment
Anti-Roma attitudes and discrimination have existed continuously in Hungary since the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these views have often been mirrored or encouraged by anti-Roma policies and rhetoric from political parties and several governments.[1] The 2019 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Hungarians held unfavorable views of Roma.[2] According to the Society for Threatened Peoples, the Roma are "consciously despised by the majority population," while anti-Roma attitudes are becoming more open.[3] A range of negative views of Roma are common among the majority population, research in 2011 showed that 60% of Hungarians feel Roma have criminality "in their blood" and 42% supported the right of bars to refuse to allow Roma to enter.[4]
In 2006, in the town of Olaszliszka, a schoolteacher was lynched by family members and neighbours of a Roma girl who he had hit with his car, the locals erroneously believing that the girl had been killed or seriously injured in the incident.[5][6][7][8] This crime was utilised by the extreme-right racist political party Jobbik to introduce anti-Roma discourse into the Hungarian media, characterising the murderers as a "gypsy mob" and demanding a solution to supposed "gypsy crime".[6][7][8][5] According to Feischmidt, this identification of gypsies with crime, which is not supported by statistical evidence, is fomented by new media accounts linked to the far-right, which leads to further racism, discrimination and violence against the Roma.[9] The "Gypsy Crime" narrative serves to present majority ethnic Hungarians as an in-group who are victims of an inherently criminal Roma out-group, serving the racist nationalist narrative of far-right groups.[6][7][8][5] The moral panic around so-called "gypsy crime" has been identified as a contributory factor to the very real racial violence suffered by Hungarian Roma, which police authorities frequently refuse to identify as hate crimes.[8][3][10] Attila Lakatos, the Roma Voivode of Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County (inofficial historical title among the Roma community) approved and openly declared that gypsy criminality is an existing phenomenon:
"Some type of crimes are connected to Roma primarily. Not exclusively, but mostly. It's undeniable."[11]
LOWER SECTION
In 2013, the governing Fidesz party refused to condemn the comments of their leading supporter Zsolt Bayer,[12][13] who wrote:
"a significant part of the Gypsies is unfit for coexistence... They are not fit to live among people. These Gypsies are animals, and they behave like animals... These animals shouldn’t be allowed to exist. In no way. That needs to be solved - immediately and regardless of the method."
However, some members of the party openly criticised the statement's style and form or condemned it as not suitable. Deputy Prime Minister Tibor Navracsics criticised the statement. Later Bayer declared his words were taken out of context and misunderstood, as his goal was to stir up public opinion, but denied racial discrimination and reinforced he wish to segregate from the society only those Roma people who are "criminal" and "incapable and unfit for co-existence". The comments led to an advertising boycott of Bayer's Magyar Hírlap newspaper.[14] Afterwards, Attila Lakatos declared - by referring to the preceding incident, the manslaughter in Ózd - that there is no excuse for such crimes and approved Bayer's description.[15]
Second statement by KIENGIR
First I react to the moderator's general statements:
- clarification: the current version on the concerning sections are status quo ante (before any editor added anything)
|
- Full inlcusion (A) is provided below, highlighting the two compact sections we are talking about. Please note this is the last stable revision's text, and does not contain any new proposals or elaborations laid down here and/or outlined in (C).
- Hence I have to answer here to the moderator's question regarding what I wish to change reference to the current revision of the article, as I outlined already, I have optional preferences:
- 1. if full inclusion preferred, the necessary related amendments laid down in (C) are necessary.
- 2. if zero inlcusion preferred, still the related amendments laid down in (C) are necessary
- 3. (C) contains a new consensus proposal based on the aforementioned requirements, in which the proposed text to inlcude is provided (this would solve the lower section, and may be amalgamated with my 1. proposal, replacing there lower section as stated).
- Hence I have to answer here to the moderator's question regarding what I wish to change reference to the current revision of the article, as I outlined already, I have optional preferences:
UPPER SECTION
Third statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
Okay. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. It should not be necessary and is not necessary to refer to the other editor by name, let alone with critical comments. So here is what we will do. I have created a draft of the article for each of you. The drafts are at Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR and at Draft:Romani people in Hungary/Boynamedsue. This may not be how draft space is primarily meant to be used, but it works. (I am not allowed to create subpages in article space.) I have started each of the drafts with the current content. Edit your draft to indicate what you want, and make a brief statement explaining what your changes are and why. If either of you also needs a second draft, let me know and I will create it for you. It should not be necessary to identify other editors in order to explain what you want in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Third statements by Boynamedsue
I think my edit speaks for itself, it is well sourced with good quality sources that support the content. If there are felt to be any problems with NPOV, I am happy to discuss them with reference to the text. Boynamedsue (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Third statement by KIENGIR
As well per our discussion of the moderator, I assume the collapsed content he read and interpreted. Technically I highlighted literally only Solution A without the necessary amendments to save space, and the possible other support solutions may be inferred from this, which I reinforce now with simple mathematical/logical operators, like:
- MOD1 = A + relatedA(C)
- MOD2 = relatedB(C)
- MOD3 = full(C) + appmerge(MOD1, X)
where X would assume the former consensus proposal for the lower section.
If the moderator considers all of these proposals should be as well inserted for direct visibility (replacing what I highlighted now, so all the three options would be visible at once), then please openly ask for this. Besides that, I am as well opened for any discussion for any content related these proposals.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC))
Fourth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
Many editors think that in DRN, the moderator will choose between different versions of the article. DRN doesn't work that way. (And DRN can't decide to work that way even if wanted to know. All dispute resolution methods except RFC and ANI are voluntary.) So I won't be choosing between versions of the article. I didn't attempt to parse and review the complex material that I collapsed. I didn't understand the details, and didn't make much of an attempt to understand the details. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so what I want to see is what you are proposing that the readers will see. The readers will not be reading the article by parsing diffs.
KIENGIR: So if there is a version A that you will accept, please copy it into Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR A. If there is a version C that you will accept, please copy it into Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR C. If you need a third version created, ask me to create it, or create it yourself.
Also, Wikipedia has an article on prejudice against Romani, which is called antiziganism. We should include a link to the article.
Each of you may make a concise statement about either your version or any other versions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Fourth statement by Boynamedsue
I would like to see the other user's proposed edits before commenting on the difference between them and my own proposal, if possible. I think I know roughly what they are but I would like to be sure. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Btw, I agree with the moderator about the necessity of linking to antiziganism, I would also have added the contents of its "Hungary" subsection to the article around a month ago if it hadn't been for the current impasse.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Fourth statement by KIENGIR
I did not assume what the moderator clarified, I just wanted to express I am fine with more solutions, as well I understood the voluntary manner. However, I would suggest to review at least the collapsed material for technical reasons, which contain important details as well about it (without parsing he preferred versions, which will be visible in the created drafts).
Please create for me a B version which I could set as well, until after I have put on hold the reaction to your last sentence. As well, you may tell where and how you would put Antiziganism into the article, so I may update my drafts accordingly.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
Fifth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I have created a third sandbox for User:KIENGIR, which is Draft:Romani people in Hungary/KIENGIR B. I have tried to understand the collapsed comments, and do not understand them yet. Either editor may comment on the other editor's versions of the article in the Fifth Statements, and the editors are requested to comment on the other versions. At some point we will either need a compromise version that will be accepted, or to compose an RFC to ask the community to choose between versions. So please try to explain why you agree or disagree with the other editor's versions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Fifth statement by KIENGIR
I inform the moderator I finished also the B version, hence my reaction to what was on hold, is that I can only make statements from the other user's version if all of mine has been reviewed (however I see the discussion went forward and already reactions were made, despite I was not ready, hence I'll wait one more round to give time for the review of B, if I am informed it's done, then I will make my reactions, accordingy). Hence, your request in your fifth statement on commenting & agree/disagree parameters I will fulfill the next round as well (= the fifth statement of Boynamedsue and the moderator's sixth statement will be as well ansered/implemented in my next statement.)
Also, the moderator have to specify in case what he could not understand from the collapsed part, in case (specifying any syntactical/semantical parameter in case).
Procuderal asks from the moderator:
- there is an orphan "Fourth statements by editors (Hungarian Romani)" section, by mistake, please remove it
- what is the difference between "Back-and-forth discussion" and "Discussion between editors" by purpose? (you just said the earlier you will ignore, the latter is meant for the future min48hr-appr.4-5days compromise trial)(KIENGIR (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
Fifth statements by Boynamedsue
- The two closest versions are my draft and “Version A”, there is a cosmetic difference in language on Fidesz, where the other user feels the term “governing party” is inappropriate. It is actually sourced, but I am happy to compromise here. The other difference is the inclusion of two references to the comments of Attila Lakatos.
- Lakatos is a self-styled “Roma Voivode" of a Hungarian region, with close links to the ruling party. He holds no official position within the Roma community, but now has a small degree of media prominence due to his proximity to the government and involvement in a campaign against immigration. He does not have an entry in the Hungarian wikipedia.
- The first of his comments on "gypsy crime" is not supported by an adequate source. It is an interview from a local news website (uncertain if RS, per Hungarian user in talk page) giving his personal opinion. Academic sources are superior to news sources, and local news sources are not meant to be used for national level stories when national and international ones are available. Introducing the opinion of this individual, and this individual alone, is giving WP:UNDUE weight to his views. Effectively it is selection bias, if his comments are relevant, so are those of every individual quoted in a local, national and international media source on this question. To create WP:BALANCE would require a range of views to be present.
- The second quote, referring to the comments of Zsolt Bayer, is supported by a single source from what appears to be a national level Hungarian site. Again using the quote is giving WP:UNDUE weight to the views of one individual, and is bringing WP:FALSEBALANCE into the article when only one individual outside of the Hungarian government is quoted, and that person is a supporter of the government who is not cited as such. His views are pretty much WP:FRINGE as even Bayer's party colleagues rejected his comments as unacceptable. Once again, a range of views would be needed for WP:BALANCE
TLDR: All problems are solved with the removal of Lakatos statements.
Boynamedsue (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
*Edit in response to KIENGIR's 5th statement* I have read draft B, and nothing in it has changed the content of my post above. The items of disagreement remain the title "Anti-Roma sentiment" and the inclusion of references to Lakatos. Boynamedsue (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
KIENGIR: It appears that Boynamedsue does not want Attila Lakatos mentioned. Are you willing to agree to that, and to come up with a way to avoid him?
Now that each editor has made one to three proposed versions of the article, I will open up discussion so that the editors are asked to talk back-and-forth to each other about the details of the draft versions. This discussion will last for at least 48 hours and maybe four or five days, as long as it is focused on the wording of the text. Off-topic comments will not be permitted. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article. Be civil and concise. I would like to encourage the editors to work out a compromise. If compromise is not possible, we will use a Request for Comments to choose between two proposed versions and the existing version as status quo. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- User:KIENGIR - Please comment in the section marked Discussion Between Editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion between editors (Hungarian Romani)
Apologies, my summary above was incorrect, I missed out the section title, "Anti-Roma Sentiment" or "Anti-Roma Sentiment and controversy". I feel "and Controversy" to be weasel words, implying there is some debate on the existence of "Anti-Roma sentiment" and that the examples given may not equate to "anti-Roma Sentiment", when neutral sources on the subject refer to them as such. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's amazing again to hear to confuse facts and make it appear as my feelings. It is a fact that in Hungary the Hungarian government is governing, which is formed mainly from the Fidesz-KDNP coalition. As well, it has been already discussed and demonstrated that the source does not have this on the referred section, but "Fidesz party leadership". The repetitive coining attempts are highly alarming at this point, as I expressed already in the talk page. However since the user accepted the compromise, let's get over this. For the Lakatos part I'll react elsewhere.
- The Roma community not necessarily makes self-styles, they have their own rules about election voivodes among them (however, just being justified even foreign sources consider the issue notable). The user's other additions contained persons with much more closer ties of the party and much more an involved in such campaigns, so, what are we discussing about, an apparent double measure and invention of arguments, which anyway leads to conradiction in spite of this. The media coverage was not really so small, and it's irrelevant if it has a Hungarian Wiki page or not.
- False, these has been already refuted, even clarified and reinforced by another editor, it's an RS, and yes, it had a significant coverage on the related media, and this is the starting of balance, as the user added one-sided and often inaccurate content, lacking of NPOV or being POINTy overall
- Ditto, the "single source" is a new claim, like if it would not be single sources elsewhere, while the source is a highly relevant RS (so DUE is out of question), especially the greatest voice of the opposition, hence it is very unprofesisonal I hear arguing and putting labels like supporting the goverment or supporting Fidesz, even in a spurious way to individuals/opinions in order to make them appear less relevant and biased. Of course, as it has been already explained, balance startes with balanced opinons, not one sided cherrypicked ones to illustrate a point (but of course, if other individuals's opinions are added who are as well would be supportive to the goverment, then if course this is not a problem, if they have an opinion the user embrace, as this has been demonstrated overall not just in the talk page, but illustrated here. The key word is NPOV, it is highly problematic if only opinions from one side are supported, as it has been the genereal problem from the beginning.
- All problems would be solved if our community rules would be appreciated and the already too much generous situation and consensus offers would be accepted, in which 90-95% the user's will are would be already represented
- There are no weasel words, since the "and" conjuction is marking two instances of content, Anti-Roma sentiments and controversial issues (which the user added indeed, then the responsibility should be taken for this, or just simply remove controversial issues)
- Answer to the moderator:
- I already offered the Boynamedsue a fair compromise, MOD3/Draft C, in which one part of the Lakatos comment would disappear, it should be accepted, anyway the vast majority of the user's addition with small amendments were accepted (see referred percentages). WP:OWN is not a solution, neither WP:JDL. An administrator also approved there is no consensus for removal. Despite I came out with a generous offer, to satisfy the user.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC))
- You talk about NPOV, why do you feel the text would have a POV without the Lakatos comments, and how could that be remedied?Boynamedsue (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Moderator here: I will make some comments and ask some questions to try to reach a compromise. The objective is to try to agree on a new version of the article.
- KIENGIR, you wrote: "However since the user accepted the compromise, let's get over this." Does that mean that there is a compromise that has been agreed on? If so, where is it, and can we resolve this?
- KIENGIR, your comments are long. In the future, can you please try to be concise? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Boynamedsue,
- we already discussed this in the talk page, numerous times, as well here, surprized, if you endorse one-sided opinions and exlude others, how could it be neutral? The remedy should be the generous offer of C..why do you think not making concessions is an option, with still 90% your addition represented (more fair offer could not even exist)?
- Moderator 1st question -> that agreement you refer has been part of the consensus building trial of C (referred at my First statement's second diff), namely Proposal 2.
- Moderator's 2nd remark -> Ok, I'll try.
Seventh statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
I will ask each editor to state what they disagree with in the other editor's version(s). I would like to see if a compromise is possible, and, if not, what versions to send to RFC.
User:KIENGIR - Please state exactly what you disagree with in the version proposed by User:Boynamedsue.
User:Boynamedsue - Please state exactly what you disagree with, if anything, in draft B by Kiengir. I see that drafts A and C include a statement by Attila Lakatos with which you take issue. Do you still disagree with version C? Is there anything else in those versions with which you disagree?
You may continue to discuss with each other in the Seventh Statements by Editors, but you are specifically asked to respond to my questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Hungarian Romani)
- Robert McClenon Kiengir's draft B excludes these two paragraphs of well-sourced neutral text, and the section title "Anti-Roma Sentiment". I do not feel this to be a valid option based on any wikipedia policy. I still disagree with the inclusion of Lakatos in version C, and I would prefer for the Hungarian government ministers' statements in the Zsolt Bayer case to remain, though I have discussed their deletion on the talk page of the article. Boynamedsue (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Seventh statement by KIENGIR
Moderator's question -> Boynamedsue's draft is missing the Lakatos statements, as well the three amendments laid down in C, thus the worst version possible from all, altogether (4 NPOV violations, including erroneous statements). Disclaimer: I just checked the related parts which were coined in this discussion, not the article alltogether, so what I said binds those parts.
Boynamedsue's 7th statement -> again it is clear by any means the user wishes to exclude statements completely which he/she does not like, as it may have seen before and after the events here, this is not an option. Offer C removes 50% from it, which is fair, but consensus building does not mean you will have always 100%. At least I proved I am able to give up and collaborate for consensus, but your draft shows 0% concession (however, mine, except draft B - which the raw status quo with two amendments from C - all other drafts having 90% of your additions...). These percentages tell more than thousand words.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC))
- Could you possibly explain where you feel the NPOV violations to be in the version I proposed, with a view to making them neutral? You should refer to specific text, as your statements so far have been general and I do not understand which parts of the text you object to.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Hungarian Romani)
It appears that there will not be agreement on a compromise, so we will use a Request for Comments. I will offer the community three choices:
- 1. The current version of the article.
- 2. The version submitted by User:Boynamedsue.
- 3. One of the versions submitted by User:KIENGIR.
User:KIENGIR - Please choose one of the versions as your best version to offer for the RFC.
Both editors: Please prepare a summary stating exactly how your version differs from the status quo version. This is for the benefit and information of the community. Both editors: Please also state concisely why you think that your version is better than the status quo. Do not state why it is better than the other editor's version. Do not reply to each other. Any conversation must be in the space for back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
reply to moderator
There has been agreement on one small part of the text, I will make that edit to the draft version I submitted if that is ok? Boynamedsue (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Hungarian Romani)
Back-and-forth discussion (Hungarian Romani)
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Guglielmo
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "European Public Opinion Three Decades After the Fall of Communism — 6. Minority groups". Pew Research Center. 14 October 2019.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
IRBC
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Bernat, Anna; et al. (2013). "The Roots of radicalism and anti-Roma Attitudes on the Far Right". Tarki.
- ^ a b c Feischmidt, Margit; Szombati, Kristof; Szuhay, Peter (2014). Collective criminalization of the Roma in Central and Eastern Europe (In the Routledge Handbook of Criminology). Routledge. ISBN 9781136185496. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
- ^ a b c Vidra, Zsuszanna; Fox, Jon. "The Rise of the Extreme Right in Hungary and the Roma Question: The radicalization of media discourse" (PDF). Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. Retrieved 4 September 2020.
- ^ a b c Vidra, Z; Fox, J (2014). "Mainstreaming of Racist Anti-Roma Discourses in Hungary". Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies. 12 (34): 437–455. doi:10.1080/15562948.2014.914265. S2CID 144859547.
- ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference
AI
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Feischmidt 2014, p. 173.
- ^ O'Rorke, Bernard (2019). "Hungary: A timeline of killings, terror and collective punishment" (PDF). European Roma Rights Review (Winter): 13. Retrieved 5 September 2020.
- ^ Szabados, Gábor (16 September 2008). "Interjú Lakatos Attila vajdával". boon.hu. Borsod Online.
- ^ Paula, Kennedy. "Hungarians return awards over 'racist' journalist". BBC. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
- ^ "Award for 'racist' journalist in Hungary sparks protests". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2020.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
O'Rorke3
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Farkas Flórián nem foglalkozik Bayer Zsolt kizárásával". atv.hu. ATV Zrt. 11 January 2013.
Frederick S. Jaffe
![]() | We have said this before- the DRN is not the right place for this. Post on the article's talk page and an interested editor will review your request. We will not edit articles for you here I'm sorry. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
2024 Russian presidential election
![]() | Very limited discussion so far, which has been aggressive at best, combative at worst. Before you can file at the DRN there must have been extensive Good Faithed effort to resolve this dispute yourself. At this point, I would recommend extended (longer than 3 or 4 messages) discussion trying to find a compromise, or a WP:3O or maaaaaaybe an WP:RFC But at this point- a DRN is premature. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan%20lab%20leak%20story
![]() | filing editor is now topic banned. Problem solved. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Wikipedia:No Nazis
![]() | If you want to have a serious discussion about that article- be less combative and maybe they will engage in dialogue. As it is- you are trolling, and opening this DRN is further example of that. Now- we only accept content disputes after extended discussion. Since this is clearly not that- I'm gonna close it. If you believe you have a behavior problem- head over to WP:ANI just beware of boomerangs- the filer's behavior has not been in good faith on the talk page at this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Exxon Mobile
![]() | Rather than fix vandalism they found on a page, filing editor somehow made it to the DRN to complain about what a disgrace it was and will never return again..... So I'm closing this pointless DRN then I will go fix the vandalism. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Dave Anthony
![]() | Editors were able to resolve on their own. Withdrawn by filer. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC) |
Closed discussion |
---|
Music (2021 film)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- 188.220.86.46 (talk · contribs)
- Peterpie123rww (talk · contribs)
- Ssilvers (talk · contribs)
- Erik (talk · contribs)
- Feoffer (talk · contribs)
- Tailskin2021 (talk · contribs)
- Hcutts12 (talk · contribs)
- Nyxaros (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Firstly, there appears to still be disagreement over balance/NPOV in the article, especially with regards to its links to autism and the autistic community.
Secondly, there appears to be a moderate disagreement over where to actually locate the "Portrayal of Autism" section, as to if it should be before or after, or a subset of, the reception section.
Thirdly, and partially related to the first point, Ssilvers in particular seems to strongly disagree on the inclusion of Jensen's petition.
It may also be worth raising (to help get a more definitive answer and avoid the dispute becoming an issue again) that there was/is some disagreement over if spellings compliant with only US English, or spellings which comply with UK/CAN/AUS English, should be used.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
After the RfC and talk page discussions proved largely unfruitful, I am hoping perhaps a more formal moderated discussion may help to open up constructive communication, and confidently determine some consensus's as well as help avoid tensions escalating further.
If no resolution is possible, or this request is unsuitable, advice from a moderator on which avenues for content disputes (and/or if deemed necessary, conduct disputes) would be useful as I am less experienced in navigating these.