Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Galloglach21 (talk | contribs) at 07:01, 1 December 2023 (→‎top: Adding my version of events). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)
    Shortcuts

    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?

    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.

    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
    Peugeot 505, Peugeot 5CV Resolved Avi8tor (t) 21 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 days, 21 hours Robert McClenon (t) 7 days, 21 hours
    Norse Deity pages Closed Dots321 (t) 13 days, 19 hours Robert McClenon (t) 22 hours Robert McClenon (t) 22 hours
    List of South Korean girl groups Closed 98Tigerius (t) 13 days, 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 4 hours
    Benevolent dictatorship In Progress Banedon (t) 12 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 hours
    Talk:Taylor Swift Closed Gsgdd (t) 12 days, 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 days, 21 hours Robert McClenon (t) 11 days, 21 hours
    Kylie Minogue Closed PHShanghai (t) 10 days, 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 4 hours
    African diaspora Closed Kyogul (t) 6 days, 20 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 21 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 21 hours

    If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
    Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 19:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    Current disputes

    Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

    – Discussion in progress.

    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

    The crux of the issue hinges around two points. The first is the question of including polling and support for the amendment. The second is whether the section on the Mexico City Policy should be reduced or kept the same.

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

    [1]

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    I hope a compromise can be made over the disagreements and/or clarification by uninvolved parties as to what is the best way to settle the dispute.

    Summary of dispute by 3Kingdoms

    I believe that there is enough support to include a Marist poll about American views on the funding of abortion overseas for the article. Besides the Helms Amendment being the governing policy as it relates to the polling in question, reliable sources have also mentioned the polling in the context of the amendment or vice versa [2], [3], [4]. Also, I believe a section on groups that support the amendment should be included along with.

    Regarding the Mexico City Policy, while I do believe it should be mentioned in the see also section and maybe a brief mention in the article, I do not believe that a full summary of the policy's history and how each administration since Reagan enacted or rescinded it needs to be included. Helms is a separate policy than the MCP. Also, the current opening line for the MCP part "While the Helms Amendment put a stop to the efforts of USAID and similar organizations to promote safe abortion overseas, it did not satisfy some anti-abortion activists." To my mind violate NPOV and should be removed or at least reworded.

    Summary of dispute by Wes sideman

    I'm in favor of including information about the Helms Amendment that is included in reliable sources that discuss the Amendment in depth. There are numerous reliable secondary sources that discuss the relationship between the Amendment and the Mexico City policy: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].... the list could go on forever if I wanted to copy-paste for a few more days.

    In contrast, sourcing linking a single Marist poll 2 years ago, commissioned by the Knights of Columbus (a strongly anti-abortion organization), to the Helms Amendment is extremely weak. The Forbes source mentions the Marist poll in passing, once. The 2nd source is an article from the Catholic News Service, on its face not a reliable secondary source, obviously, and besides, mentions the Helms Amendment once, in passing. The third source, a Deseret News article (newspaper owned by the LDS Church) is an article about a completely different piece of legislation, the Hyde Amendment. It mentions the Helms Amendment briefly, and later, with no connection between the two, mentions the Marist poll once. It feels like a WP:COATRACK situation to crowbar a Marist poll commissioned by an anti-abortion religious org into an article with good reliable secondary sourcing on everything else. Wes sideman (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act discussion

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


    First statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

    I am ready to moderate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, which is the rules covering disputes over a contentious topic. Please be aware of the ArbCom decision on abortion, which finds that abortion, broadly construed, is a contentious topic, and disruptive editing is subject to special sanctions. Do not ask me for expertise about the Helms Amendment or the Mexico City policy. It is the responsibility of the disputing parties to provide the moderator with any necessary information, just as it is the responsibility of the editors of Wikipedia to provide readers with information. Please acknowledge that you understand and will comply with the rules.

    The purpose of conflict resolution is to improve the encyclopedia, because that is the purpose of all editing of the encyclopedia. So please start by making a one-paragraph or two-paragraph statement as to what you think should be changed in the article, or what you think should be left the same that another editor wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

    • I'm an interested party in this dispute. I've re-read rule set D and agree to follow it. Based on what I know now, I'd prefer to trim the Mexico City Policy content (to something about a paragraph long, and not in it's own section) and continue to exclude the poll content. I'm open to changing my mind based on further evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand and will comply with the rules. I believe the change should be as follows: First a separate section called support that reads along the lines of "The Amendment is supported by the Catholic Church and anti-abortion organizations such as the Susan B. Anthony List" Followed by: Polling has shown around 75% of American oppose funding for abortion overseas. For the Mexico City Policy, I say as a compromise it reads: "Some anti-abortion activists felt that the Amendment did not go far enough which led to the creation of the Mexico City Policy in 1984 which prohibits federal funding to NGOs that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning."3Kingdoms (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The long-stable version of the article included sourced paragraphs about the Mexico City policy and its relationship to the Helms Amendment. I added some sourcing to that and some minor touch-ups, and believe that section is fine as is. The Marist poll is one of countless polls about abortion in the USA, it was commissioned by a pro-life organization, and to cherry-pick that one poll, with only the most tenuous of connections to the subject of the article, reeks of POV-pushing, in my opinion. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Second statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

    It appears that there are two issues. The first is whether to leave the current language about the Mexico City policy as is, or to trim it down. The editors who want to trim it down may also want to remove the section heading. The second issue appears to be whether to include or exclude the Marist poll. Will each editor please state, briefly, what they think should be in the article about the Mexico City policy? A compromise may be possible, and is desirable if possible. Will each editor please state whether they think that the Marist poll should be included? The issue of the poll appears to be a yes-no question, but if anyone has a compromise idea, please state it. If there are any other issues, please state them, concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Second statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

    I think we should mention that the Mexico City policy was an expansion of the Helms Amendment restrictions, briefly describe the policy's effects, and briefly summarize its history across the following presidential administrations. I still think this can be about a paragraph long. I don't think we should include the Marist poll, and I don't have a compromise idea. I would change my mind if there were more reliable sources mainly about the Helms Amendment that draw a connection between it and the poll; so far I think only the Forbes piece makes the cut. I don't believe there are other issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Third statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

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

    At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Mexico City policy, but rather agreement that coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down. If anyone disagrees, please say so.

    At this point, it doesn't appear that there is disagreement about the Marist poll, but rather agreement to leave it out. If anyone disagrees, please say so.

    Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Third statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

    I still disagree about the exclusion of the Marist Polling due to the it being rated one of the best polling sites. The objections about the Knight of Columbus sponsoring the poll I do not find convincing. The Guttmacher institute is pro-abortion but is used as a source. I do not see why a poll from a highly rated place should be disregarded because it was sponsored by a group that is anti-abortion. The other objection about a lack of connection I understand, but still unconvinced by. If the poll is excluded I still think a small section in support for the helm amendment from the Catholic Church, the Knights, and anti-abortion groups is worth having.3Kingdoms (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The main reason for excluding the poll is that there isn't significant coverage from reliable sources connecting the poll to the Helms Amendment. Wes sideman (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. One source comes from Forbes Staff the other from Desert news which are both listed as a reliable source. America is not listed but is generally regarded as reliable. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are countless sources that report on polls about abortion, and some of them mention the Helms Amendment. If we mentioned every single poll that exists in an article that mention the Helms Amendment, the article would be 200,000 words very quickly. Wes sideman (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At least three reliable sources mention this poll giving it notability. Along with the fact that Marist is highly rated for polling. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

    There appears to be agreement that the coverage of the Mexico City policy should be trimmed down.

    There appears to be disagreement about the Marist poll. I will ask those editors who oppose including the Marist poll to state whether they oppose it on grounds of reliability of the sources, as undue weight, or bias.

    Are there any other issues or areas of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The only reason thing I can think of is deciding if the article should include a section mentioning organizations that support the amendment. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I oppose including the poll based on non-reliability of the poll. (Undue weight for ONE poll paid for by a non-neutral organization.) "Marist surveyed 1,004 adults Jan. 4-9 via landline or mobile numbers and interviewed respondents by telephone using live interviewers". - The two sources which mention this poll, qualify it by who paid for it. (Forbes qualifies it even more: "A majority of Americans are broadly supportive of abortion rights, but a Marist poll conducted in January for the Knights of Columbus—which is opposed to abortion..." as if it is a strange exception.) It doesn't even seem to be available on the website of Marist, only on the KofC's site (who paid for the poll). As I said earlier, abortion polls are notorious for getting wildly different results based on the specifics of how they are worded, and in this case, maybe who they ask. How many educated people answer phone polls when an unidentified number shows up on caller ID? (Support for abortion is well documented to be higher among more educated people.) ---Avatar317(talk) 07:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No back-and-forth except in the section for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the point, but feel that Marist's respected status as a polling group justifies it Pollster Ratings - Marist College | FiveThirtyEight Anyway cheers! 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So just a very quick search without more investigation finds this 2021 opinion piece by a reproductive rights organization which cites a poll which directly contradicts the Marist poll: "Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans support funding global health programs that provide comprehensive reproductive health services, abortion included. The same poll showed a majority of Americans want to repeal Helms." We could do more searching for polls, but I predict the results will be wildly inconsistent, especially if the polls are funded by pro/anti groups, rather than neutral organizations. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The link to the polling for the article did not work for me. Is it the polling referred to in this article? Jayapal’s claim that ‘the majority of the country’ supports federal funding of abortion - The Washington Post 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know, the link didn't work for me either, so I couldn't investigate that poll. Thanks for finding the WaPo story, though! It supports what I was saying: We’re often wary of polls commissioned by advocacy groups. In this case, Jayapal is relying on a poll done for a group that wants more public funding of abortions. The outcome of polls often depends greatly on the framing of questions. ---Avatar317(talk) 02:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fourth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

    • I'm not sure if the Marist poll issue is resolved, but I haven't changed my mind. It seems like the only other pending issues are
      1. working out exactly what the trimmed Mexico City Policy content would look like
      2. deciding whether there should be a support section
      . I don't think there's a draft proposal on the table for either, so it's hard for me to weigh in. I'd be equally fine with reviewing proposals here or through normal talk page discussion or editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      2 - I oppose a support section withOUT an opposition section, and if we have that, both should be sourced to INDEPENDENT/Neutral Sources, not the Catholic News service.
      3 - I'm ok with continuing this discussion on the Talk page. ---Avatar317(talk) 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no objection to an opposition section. I do not agree about the sourcing. In my experience CNA gives reliable information even if wording is done from a Catholic viewpoint. Furthermore, it is independent of the USCCB. If Guttmacher is used as a source I do not see a reason to oppose this one. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That is oversimplifying of sources. Guttmacher would not be a good source for who supports and opposes the Helms Amendment, (and I don't think they publish that type of content) just like CNA is not a good source because CNA would give greater coverage to Catholics and their viewpoint rather than Evangelicals for example; for supporters/opponents we should stick to mainstream news sources.
      Guttmacher is highly respected and cited by both sides of the abortion debate for their DATA and statistics about abortions (number, demographics, etc.) so they are a Reliable Source for any of that type of content. ---Avatar317(talk) 06:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand what you’re saying, but wiki also does not object to a source just because they have a bias. Given that this would only be one sentence I think including the CNA source is fine. If it was being cited across much of the article I agreed it would seem overused. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fifth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

    See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D.

    There seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House. You may use the section for back-and-forth discussion to work out a trimmed version.

    If there continues to be disagreement about the Marist poll, an RFC may be in order. Does anyone want to propose an alternative resolution?

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

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

    Fifth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

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


    Sixth statement by moderator (Helms Amendment)

    See Rule D.6 in DRN Rule D.

    There still seems to be agreement to trim down the discussion of the Mexico City policy, which has its own article, and that perhaps it is sufficient to say that it changes depending on the political party in the White House.

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

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

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

    Sixth statements by editors (Helms Amendment)

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

    Back-and-forth discussion (Helms Amendment)

    I don't know the procedure for editors to offer opinions on DRN; this is my first post here.

    I support trimming the "Mexico City Policy" section by concatenating the last three paragraphs into one saying something on the order of "Democratic presidential administrations have removed it, while Republican ones have re-instated it"; (the years and presidents can be seen in that article)...maybe including the small comment about Trump's expansion. It shouldn't be its own section.

    Single poll should be excluded; doesn't sound like this is representative of true population's opinion based on the sources and who commissioned the poll. Abortion polls are notorious for getting wildly different results based on the specifics of how they are worded.---Avatar317(talk) 23:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I also support trimming the back-and-forth Democratic-to-Republican admins policy reversals into a single simple sentence. Was actually going to to do that myself, but then this discussion was launched, so I held off. Wes sideman (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png

    – New discussion.

    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

    Me (User:Theknine2) wants to use the US/international single cover, but User:QuestFour wants to use the less relevant UK single cover. My overall justification is the US/international cover is more widely used (in almost all past and current releases of the single), is more relevant since Mariah Carey is an American artist, and the song is notable for being her 12th of 19 US Billboard #1 singles. These listed reasons are more than valid enough to replace the current single cover. However, QuestFour repeatedly cites WP:CONSENSUS and “cover that represents the release date of the single”, which are both vaguely valid rationales at best, in my opinion. This hence resulted in an edit war of back and forth reverting covers.

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

    Talk:Honey_(Mariah_Carey_song)#File:Honey_Mariah_Carey_Single.png

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Need a mediator to select which single cover is most appropriate for the article, given the extensive list of reasons QuestFour and I have each listed.

    Summary of dispute by QuestFour

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

    File:Honey Mariah Carey Single.png discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    • Volunteer Notes - The filing party has not notified the other editor on their talk page. Please notify the other editor.
    A mediator would be more useful in this situation, so both of us can hopefully come to an agreement on which image to use, or take action where necessary if the other editor continues to be uncooperative. Thank you. I have also just notified the editor on their talk page. Theknine2 (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Volunteer Note - A third editor has joined in the discussion on the article talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion resolves the dispute, this case will be closed. If discussion continues to be inconclusive after another 24 hours, the third editor may be added to this case request. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ukrainian language

    – New discussion.

    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

    Disagreement on whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article.

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

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Establish whether the usage of the term Little Russian language by non-Russians, and in particular, by Ukrainians themselves, including those never subject to Russian imperial oppression, should be mentioned in the article.

    Summary of dispute by Rsk6400

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

    Comment I'm not opposed to this kind of dispute resolution, but I'm not sure about this, because there were a lot of other participants involved in the discussions. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary The question is not, whether the use of the name "Little Russian" by certain authors should be included, but whether it should be included without reference to good secondary sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Austronesier

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

    Ukrainian language discussion

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

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ukrainian language)

    I am still ready to try to mediate this dispute. Please read DRN Rule D, and reply whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to this set of rules, which include recognizing that the Ukrainian language is a contentious topic subject to the Arbitration Committee ruling on disputes about Eastern Europe. The contentious topics procedure has been provided in part to deal with battleground editing about world areas that have been historically real battlegrounds, or are current battlegrounds, and Ukraine is the area of the bloodiest war of the twenty-first century. An editor has said that there have been other editors involved in this dispute. After discussion, we may either use a Request for Comments to involve other editors, or invite the other editors to take part in this discussion.

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

    Zeroth statements by editors (Ukrainian language)

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

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

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

    Sam Altman

    – New discussion.

    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

    The dispute started over this diff:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Altman&diff=next&oldid=1186011017

    The issue went to RSN, at the request of (anti-inclusion) editor User:Nil Einne, with numerous additional sources listed as possibilities in case there were issues with the sources in the diff. RSN came back on the side that RS has been met, and the remaining issue to establish is DUE, not RS.

    Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others

    However, this has not resolved the conflict, with editors either continuing to pursue RS arguments (despite the RSN), or claiming that accusations are not appropriate BLP, even when labeled as accusations, are on a topic that they admit is serious, and are backed up by RS. Editors also generally do not dispute that the current article has bias problems and reads like hagiography; this was discussed in talk before the current topic came up.

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

    [12] Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    This request is for dispute resolution on the topic of whether "serious allegations" (the serious nature being agreed on by both sides), backed up by RS as determined by RSN, matching the description laid out in the sources and properly attributed to them, warrant a couple sentences in a BLP, or not.

    Also requested is a view on whether RS should stop being relitigated now that RSN has weighed in.

    Thanks!

    Summary of dispute by Nil Einne

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

    Summary of dispute by Grayfell

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

    Summary of dispute by Caeciliusinhorto

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

    I came across this dispute yesterday, through the discussion at WP:BLPN#Sam Altman. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether we should include some mention of the allegations in the article, but it seems to me that in the existing discussion there is at best no consensus to include them, and the most recent version included in the article (removed in this edit) is clearly in violation of WP:BLPSPS which requires that we "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article".

    If Rei can suggest text that they want to include which complies with WP:BLP, then discussion can take place as to whether inclusion is due. Their repeated assertion that the allegations are serious and therefore the content is due for inclusion has no basis in our policy on WP:DUE WEIGHT and is not helping their case. Indeed, one might argue that the seriousness of the allegations means that the threshold for inclusion is higher – these are accusations of criminal behaviour against a living person, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat them carefully and sensitively.

    I further note that, contrary to Rei's claim, the RSN discussion did not conclude that the sources they mentioned were reliable. Cortador said that the Mary Sue article was an opinion piece; ActivelyDisinterested said that the previous discussion had not challenged reliability of sources but due weight; JPxG and GretLomborg discussed the appropriate use off opinion pieces. None of them actually comment on whether any of the sources Rei cited, other than the Mary Sue, are reliable for the statements Rei wants to use them for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Altman discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    • Volunteer Note - Does the issue have to do with serious allegations against the subject of uncertain veracity? If so, the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard is the right forum. There was a filing at BLPN about ten days ago that has not had an answer. Please post a new inquiry at BLPN. This case will be left alone, neither closed nor opened, for a few days, in case there is again no response at BLPN. Also, the discussion at the article talk page, while extensive, was at least ten days ago, and is no longer current. If there are any issues other than the inclusion of serious allegations, please resume discussion at the article talk page. This filing at this noticeboard will be revisited in a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tunisians

    – General close. See comments for reasoning.
    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

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    Tunisians and Tunisian Arabic These articles are constantly being raided by the same editor "Skitash" with a panarabist political opinion who tries to paint everything about the country as arab or islamic as possible (removing anything saying the population is of berber ancestry, deleting elements that mention the multicultural aspect of the country, trying to portray tunisian arabic as much as possible just as a dialect and nothing more to it etc...)

    I don't exactly know how to deal with these kind of edit wars, the editor seems to have started his work since this year and targets tunisian pages with the same pattern of article modification.

    Could you help ?

    Thank you

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

    He send menaces to me after I reverted one of his edits

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

    I also mentioned the issue already on the talk page back in september https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tunisians

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    I don't spend much time on wikipedia anymore, I just want someone to help stop these kinds of wild edits from the same user that are apparent when you go back to the versions before he starts

    Tunisians discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    Baselessly labelling me as a Pan-Arabist or Islamist is nothing more than a personal attack. I am unsure what "raiding" you're referring to, but I'm guessing that, in your perspective, raiding means reverting your unsourced edits[13] and your unexplained content removals[14]. I find it bizarre that you blatantly delete sourced content[15] while accusing other editors of POV-pushing. Clearly, you have not discussed any issue with me. All you have done was open a discussion[16] personally attacking any editors that have made constructive edits to the article in the past few years. According to your argument, it appears that you object to a sentence involving "purely Arab settlement," being in the body of the article, even though it is supported by credible sources. This clearly sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please set your baseless accusations aside and provide me with any revisions that, in your view, point to any "raiding" carried out by either myself or other editors. Skitash (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Yola language

    – New discussion.

    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

    The users Moling Luacha and Galloglach21 changed the extinction date of Yola in the infobox from 1998 (the death of Jack Devereux) to the late 1800s, their reason being Jack Devereux was not the last native speaker. They have not provided any source to support this claim, and the sources they are using to support the claim that Yola died out in the late 1800s do not actually state this directly (making it original research).

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

    Talk:Yola language#Jack Devereux 'last native speaker'

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    You can explain to these users why their sources don't support their extinction date claim and that they cannot refute a claim without providing a reliable source.

    Summary of dispute by Moling Luachra

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

    Summary of dispute by Galloglach21

    Firstly, I think the original summary of events is highly inaccurate to what the actual issue is. That being; since at least 2016 a small cadre of users has been adamant on editing the page for the Yola language to change the date of extinction to 1998 with the death of a local mummer caroler called Jack Devereux as well as to include revival information.

    My opposition to this is based on factuality and notoriety. The source used to justify this edit to the date of extinction is an article written in 2020 by the Irish independent (found here: https://m.independent.ie/regionals/wexford/news/fascinating-book-on-yola-dialect-of-forth-and-bargy/39143296.html) which mentions the claim in a single line, "Jack Devereux of Kilmore Quay, who died in 1998, is said to have been the last speaker of Yola.". This piece of information is completely unsourced in the article and in my opinion is not a well sourced edit as we don't know who said it, why they said it, or what source they might have had themselves to claim such. It is a fully spurious claim.

    In response to this I replaced this edit with an extinction date of the late 19th century, for which I provided 2 sources (source 1: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25513442?typeAccessWorkflow=login , source 2: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25502621). The first source was published the 31st of December 1927 and states on its first page the following; "Mr Hore, one of the last speakers of the dialect, died in 1879". Granted this is quite short, but firstly it's written by a prominent researcher of Yola, Kathleen Browne, who is mentioned by name in the wikipedia page and whose work forms the basis for other information included in the page.

    However, I also have my second source, which is seemingly written by the same Mr Hore mentioned in the 1st source as a speaker of Yola during what appear to have been it's last generations. This 2nd source is dated to 1862 and states in Hore's words; "...for if the use of this old tongue dies out as fast for the next five-and-twenty years as it has for the same bygone period, it will be utterly extinct and forgotten before the present century shall have closed".

    As you can see this is not original research. I have merely used sources available to me that have provided information in other parts of the article (the letter to the early of Mulgrave comes from Hore's article). However it would seem Treetoes023 does not like this and would like a direct source refuting his specific claim. This is obviously quite absurd due to the issue of this being a sporadic source, no academic has debunked this claim simply because it's not notable enough to, making it a logical fallacy, specifically proving a negative. He places the burden on others to disprove his sourcing specifically rather than defending it with additional information himself.

    I think an ideal solution going forward would be to lock or restrict who can edit the Yola language page so as to end the brigade of poor quality edits against it.

    Any further information can be found in the talk page for Yola as well as in the justification for my own personal edits to the page. If you would like any additional sourcing for my claims I can provide it. Thank you and apologies for the length.

    Yola language discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=1187759328"