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 |
| Tuner (radio) | Closed | Andrevan (t) | 28 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 23 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 23 hours |
| Wolf | In Progress | Nagging Prawn (t) | 24 days, 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 16 hours | Nagging Prawn (t) | 13 hours |
| Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic | New | Randomstaplers (t) | 20 days, 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 23 hours | Randomstaplers (t) | 12 hours |
| Genocide | New | Bogazicili (t) | 8 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 7 days, 17 hours | Buidhe (t) | 1 days, 14 hours |
| Khwarazmian Empire | Closed | 176.88.165.232 (t) | 4 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 15 hours |
| Egusi | Closed | OmoIyaLeke (t) | 4 days, 9 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 4 days, 6 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 4 days, 6 hours |
| Double-slit experiment | New | Johnjbarton (t) | 3 days, 15 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 1 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 1 hours |
| List of musicals filmed live on stage | New | Wolfdog (t) | 2 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 1 days, 1 hours | Wolfdog (t) | 22 hours |
| Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor | New | PromQueenCarrie (t) | 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 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 15:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Stale. One participant has failed to respond in more than 4 days. Op may make the changes per WP:BOLD or may file an RfC. If the editor becomes active and disagrees, op is encouraged to open an RfC as there is nothing more DRN can possibly do here. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 14:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed 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 concerns what term to use - "Han people" or "Han Chinese" when describing "Han Taiwanese". For example, "Han Taiwanese" are Taiwanese people of "Han Chinese" descent. I want the article to at least mention the word "Han Chinese" since multiple reliable sources use it and in English, "Han Chinese" is the WP:COMMONNAME used. Lysimachi, wants no mention of "Han Chinese" in the article saying than "Han Chinese" are different from "Han People". They have consistently scrubbed out any mention of Han Chinese, even going to lengths such as using Han people which actually redirects to Han Chinese. I have cited multiple sources but I'm unable to convince Lysimachi. I can cite the sources and explain my position, once ths discussion proceeds. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk page discussions. How do you think we can help? I think it would be good for a third party to actually hear both of us. I personally feel Lysimachi is acting based on the Chinese version of the terms, but this is English Wikipedia and we use the common English terms. Summary of dispute by LysimachiPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Lemongirl942 thinks the term "Han" (people/ethnicity) is the same as "Han Chinese" and has been very keen on adding "Chinese" to the article, which is why Lemongirl942 filed this dispute.
1. "Han" = "Han Chinese"
The compound "Han Chinese" is a common term, but it is often used in contexts where Han Chinese are distinguished from non-Han Chinese groups (for example), that is when the topic is Chinese people. Taiwanese may be, in some people's view, Chinese, and Han Taiwanese may be Han Chinese. There are certainly hundreds of thousands of sources saying that Taiwan is Chinese, but citing a source and saying that in the beginning of the WP article on Taiwan is not how WP should work per WP:NPOV. And this is exactly what Lemongirl942 has been trying to do to the article Han Taiwanese. (Note that neutrality is especially important in the lead, where Lemongirl942 has been attempting to add "Chinese". WP:LEAD: "The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view.") Any scholars aware of the issue of Taiwanese identity, such as the author of Is Taiwan Chinese?, would clearly distinguish between "Han" and "Chinese" instead of using "Han Chinese" as a synonym of "Han". And it should be stressed that saying Han Taiwanese are "Han", as in the current version of the lead, maintains a neutral point of view on whether Han Taiwanese are Chinese or not, and helps the article to focus on its topic, the Han people of Taiwan.
Talk:Han Taiwanese#Lead_sentence_WikiLink discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Moderator's initial commentFor the ease of discussion and sorting out the troubles, we'll discuss the issues one by one. Let's dive into the first issue from my perspective. To Lemongirl942, can you provide 3 reliable sources which explicitly claims the terms, Han and Han Chinese the same and (or) interchangeably uses both the terms? Please be as concise as possible. Reply (on the content) in sections provided for you. Regards—UY Scuti Talk 13:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the sources Lemongirl942 and the concise answer. The sources given by Lemongirl942, indeed claims that 1, the term Han is the same as Han Chinese and 2, they can be used interchangeably. And interestingly I find the sources providing explanations of the other issues we might have here. But first things first, Lysimachi, can you please provide three sources that claims the terms Han and Han Chinese are not to be interchangeably used? Regards—UY Scuti Talk 18:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Statements by Lemongirl942Thank you. The term is interchangeably used. Han Chinese and Han people are the same. You can also look at our article Han Chinese, the first sentence.
Note that the article "Han Taiwanese" claims that "Han Taiwanese" are 95 to 97% of the population of Taiwan. This same claim is also repeated at multiple places except that the word "Han Chinese" is used [3], [4], [5](pg 1,4) among others. Statements by Lysimachi"Han" are not necessarily "Han Chinese":
"Han" and "Chinese" are different terms. This published book, for example, clearly states the former is used to refer to "ethnic identity" and the latter "national identification with China". Comments on Lemongirl942's statements:
Second statement by the moderatorDespite not being able to go through two of the paywalled sources from Lysimachi, going by the quotes and the one article, I find the explanations not very convincing. I acknowledge the fact that there might be a minority disagreement on the use of terms. But overall, I find a lot of sources, using the term interchangeably. I've done my research, and below are my findings;
And I'd say the use of the terms Han or Han Chinese or Han people are valid. However, per WP:DUE, if enough sources could be found (given that there is no original research done on interpreting the sources), the disagreement among the sources should be mentioned in the article, thus maintaining WP:NPOV. That is how deep we can go about for now on researching about the terms.
Statements by Lemongirl942My original position which is rooted in NPOV is that we mention the most commonly used term in English which is "Han Chinese" and add an explanation (maybe with a footnote) that henceforth, the word "Han" or "Han people" is used in an interchangeable manner. The convention I have seen being used in academic articles is similar. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Statements by LysimachiThe sources listed hitherto agree on one thing: Han Taiwanese are Han, which is also what the article Han Taiwanese suggests. Whether the terms "Han" and "Han Chinese" are equivalent is an issue for pages Han and Han Chinese. Whether Taiwanese are Chinese is something for status of Taiwan, Taiwanese identity, Chinese nationalism or Chinese people. Lysimachi (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision
– This request has been open for some time and must be reviewed.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Gordon410 (talk · contribs)
- Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs)
- Urselius (talk · contribs)
- The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
- Collect (talk · contribs)
- Johnbod (talk · contribs)
- Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Freeman's extermination view is a fringe theory because it is not supported by sources and should be edited according to WP:Fringe_theories. Freeman's theory of extermination is a historical theory and should be documented as such. Currently, the theory takes undo precedence to the modern theory of Allen and others.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I submitted a dispute notice twice, I have submitted a fringe theory notice, and I have attempted to get a third opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ#What_if_my_dispute_has_two_viewpoints_but_multiple_editors.3F.
How do you think we can help?
Edit Freeman's theory of extermination to one sentence. Reword the lead to suggest the debate is over. Or we can put Freeman's theory into a historical section because, as TFD states, "the theory remains important because of its historical significance."
Summary of dispute by Florian Blaschke
I completely agree that Freeman's view is now considered fringe and far too extreme, as the evidence from historical, linguistic, genetic and archaeological sources all indicates more survival of the pre-Germanic culture and people than he was ready to admit, despite uncertainty about details. The History of the Norman Conquest of England#Themes points out how ideologically biased he was, personally invested in a belief in the "purely Teutonic nature of the English nation", which made him overlook that his view wasn't even internally consistent! Maybe this political context should be pointed out. Undue weight should certainly be avoided, which means the "extermination hypothesis" should be presented as obsolete, not as a still-current alternative hypothesis. Currently, the article does indeed present Freeman too positively. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that Urselius fails to appreciate that the relevance of the linguistic argument that points to a dearth of Celtic loanwords in English has been repeatedly been challenged in recent years. First, it is argued (e. g., in The Celtic Roots of English) that the number of loanwords is not as low as was thought in the 19th century (where it was thought there were almost none); second, it is pointed out (by Schrijver especially) that the Britons might have already been Latinised at the time (at least in the southeast), helping explain why there are not more loanwords; and third, loanwords may not even be expected in a language-shift scenario – there are analogous cases where we know that there was a shift, but there are few if any loanwords (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Instead, we more frequently find structural influence, especially in the grammar; a particularly striking parallel is the substantive verb. See Brittonicisms in English for more detail. 19th-century scholars tended to know very little about Celtic, especially considering that Celtology was in its infancy at the time in general. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Urselius
As is explained in the article, the Extermination/displacement hypothesis is still referred to in modern (ie now, contemporary, happening at this point in time) reviews of the subject. It remains relevant because modern scholars are still referring to it, it is the starting point of their arguments. These arguments are in agreement or opposition to it to varying degrees, but it remains the fons et origo of all theories about English ethnogenesis.
How did this viewpoint arise? The major starting point was the English language; it contains, and has only ever contained, perhaps a dozen words from the language of the native Britons - the most prominent word being "basket". What was the most obvious, and remains the most obvious, reason for this undisputed fact? The most obvious reason would be that the Anglo-Saxons rarely spoke to the natives, and that the modern English owe almost none of their ancestry to the Britons. Again the most straightforward explanation for this is if the Anglo-Saxons crossed the North Sea in huge numbers, and, once in Britain, drove out any Britons they did not kill. Fortuitously, there is a definite recorded immigration of Britons into the parts of NW Gaul that became Brittany, which occurred at the right time for them to have been displaced from Britain by the incoming Anglo-Saxons.
The article as it stands is far, far more supportive of the acculturation theory than the mass-migration and extermination theories, whilst maintaining a degree of impartiality. In direct contradiction to what has been said previously in this resolution debate the extermination theory has a very low-profile in the article. Also, again in contradiction to a comment below, the results of DNA studies are far from reaching any consensus in resolving English ethnogenesis (to be brief, the English have been ascribed anywhere between <20% to 100% continental "Anglo-Saxon" ancestry). I am a geneticist, and know some of the people doing this work, and can prove my point quite easily by referring to half a dozen papers with widely divergent results (indeed some are referred to in the article already).
Do I believe the extermination scenario to be accurate, do I support it? No I do not! I consider the acculturation theory to be much more plausible. So why am I defending the inclusion, integrated within the text, of this theory? I refer to my arguments above. It is still referred to regularly in modern scholarship.
The people wanting to stick the theory in a "bin" labelled "fringe and historical" need to prove that it is no longer found in current scholarship. They cannot do this as there are countless books and articles written since 1990, since 2000, since 2010 that refer to it. Their arguments are pointless in the face of this fact. Urselius (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Note that Florian Blaschke has completely missed the point of my argument. Of course I know about recent linguistic supports for a Brittonic substratum for Old and Middle English, I have added references to them to the article myself (easily checked). He, like a number of others, mistakes my argument for the retention of the extermination/displacement theory within the text of the article for support for the theory. This is despite numerous instances of my stating my personal preference for the acculturation theory. How does one dispute with people who cannot grasp what the motivations of scholarship are? Personally, I am convinced that the extermination/displacement theory is incorrect, but it needs to be retained because of its importance in the history of scholarly debate, its continued position in the collective psyche, its continued use in scholarly writings and because it represents one extreme of a wide spectrum of scenarios. Urselius (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces
At one time there was a belief in ethnically homogeneous peoples sharing the same ancestry, culture and language. According to that theory, the British Isles were Celtic but the population of what is today England was replaced by Teutons. Current scholarship, partly aided by DNA research, rejects that view, but the theory remains important because of its historical significance. Another issue is the use of the term "genocide." Genocide is a modern concept and it is anachronistic to apply it to pre-modern mass killings. The modern concept of race had not been developed. TFD (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Collect
The sad truth is that modern DNA studies offer actual evidence and not surmise on the topic, and theories which are in conflict with the latest such studies do, alas, are now "fringe." This article ought not present theories which conflict with DNA results as still being mainstream any more. Collect (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Johnbod
Entirely agree with Urselius. Freeman is mentioned precisely twice, in the same para: "One theory, first set out by Edward Augustus Freeman, suggests that the Anglo Saxons and the Britons were competing cultures ..." and "However, Freeman's ideas did not go unchallenged, even as they were being propounded." This is entirely appropriate. Anyone who thinks all notion of "competing cultures" is now "fringe" has simply not been reading the literature; unfortunately I believe this applies to some of the editors here. There have been a number of studies (mostly on pretty tiny numbers of samples by normal medical or scientific standards) of DNA & isotope analysis, which have as always produced results that appear a good deal less than completely consistent. Anyone who thinks these have now settled the matter (as Collect does) is completely wrong. One day they will no doubt contribute to a more settled understanding, but a lot more data is needed; it is very early days for this branch of research. The whole subject is complex and controversial, with academic debate very much continuing, and we are lucky to have User:J Beake and Urselius, who respectively largely wrote the current form of the article and have maintained it against a string of inexpert assaults, of which that by User:Gordon410 is the latest and much the most persistent. He began back in April, starting the talk page section "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain - What Really Happened" with "I believe that the debate about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is over. The following account is difficult to disagree with: [terrible draft para follows, everybody disagreed]. Since then he has peppered the talk page with alternating demands and questions, rubbishing all sources produced that do not support him, and showing no capacity for following complex academic debates. The current form of the article is balanced, and certainly does not support an "extermination" hypothesis, which is given one para in a very long article. Reading the fairly short Chapter 6 of The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology of 2011 on "the molecular evidence" should dispel any impression that the matter is settled - and by the way the author cheerfully says that "many feasible scenarios can be constructed, with analogues of genocide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement, social demoralization..." (p. 88 - thanks to User:Doug Weller for the link). If the article has a fault it is relying too much on primary research sources, and crappy short journalistic pieces on them, rather than "review"-type academic sources. Something of a WP:MEDRS approach would be useful here. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Odysseus1479
I haven‘t been involved long enough to summarize with any cogency or add to what‘s been covered above in that regard—I just commented on a couple of papers that were brought up at WP:FTN. That said, since others are also stating their positions, I‘ll try and briefly offer a few random ‘outside’ opinions. What I gather of Freeman‘s hypothesis from the article is that to call it “extermination” is something of a caricature, as it includes enslavement, expulsion, and so on—but that may be nitpicking. I don‘t think the essential idea, in some nuanced form, is “fringe“ either. Ignoring all the challenges and complications, or bringing along whatever chauvinistic baggage Freeman may have had, would be another matter. But nobody expects a 150-year-old work to be up to current standards, and I don’t think the article presents it so. Outdated ideas often have paedagogical value, and hold some interest with regard to the history of a discipline, even if they‘ve become irrelevant to modern researchers. Regarding the genetic evidence, it seems to me far from conclusive. One problem is distinguishing ‘insular’ genomes from ‘continental’, especially considering the similarity between ‘Celtic‘ and ‘Germanic‘ peoples (certainly in the eyes of classical authors), and demonstrated by the wide variations in various studies‘ results; another is that modern statistical distributions can say little about the population’s history, making it hard to distinguish an ‘invasion‘ from a process that may have been begun with the Iron Age or earlier; and even stipulating a discernible change in the post-Roman period there are several possible mechanisms, aside from extermination, to explain that. Overall I think the article does pretty well WRT neutrality on the question.—Odysseus1479 09:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Richard Keatinge
Support Johnbod's account. I would add that the article could usefully be clearer to non-academic readers, but that any clarification should be done by someone who understands the underlying academic evidence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for comments by other editors, since discussion here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Obrenović dynasty
– 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
Since February 2016, the unregistered user (IP 24.135.188.99) continues editing this article by inserting information about the person who claims he's a legitimate heir of this royal house. He refuses position of leading contemporary historians and insists on an alternate view of the history. However, he does not provide any reliable sources but insists they are destroyed due to a conspiracy against that family.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I suggested a text that would acknowledge the existence of pretenders and their claims. I asked for reliable sources. User Crow also tried to help and asked for unbiased sources. I applied for WP:3 and user Robert McClenon tried to assist. However, the discussion is lengthy and disorganized, so he couldn't help.
How do you think we can help?
Help us to create a paragraph that will be based on reliable sources. Protect the article so it can not be edited by unregistered users.
Summary of dispute by Crow
I am not involved in this dispute per se, in that I have no particular interest in the content of the article, other than having insisted on reliable sourcing for any assertions made by either side. As most of the sources are in Serbian, that further removes me from active content opinions here. I became aware of this after seeing H.R.H. Prince Predrag R. Obrenović cross NPP as an unsourced blp. The disputed page was linked from that so I went there to find the same unsourced claims being added there. I reverted their addition once then went to the talk page to let the IP know that sources were required. That's all I've been asking for. N Jordan's summary is accurate from what I've observed: the IP insists that their version is correct but cannot provide sources other than suggesting someone write to a Serbian court for their ruling. If it can be proven via reliable source then so much the better for everyone. Failing that, I think N Jordan's offer of a compromise describing the claims and claimants is quite collegial given potential undue-weight concerns. CrowCaw 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by unregistered user
Talk:Obrenović dynasty discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been properly notified of this filing by the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I don't know much about the subject other than that the Obrenovic dynasty ruled Serbia before being displaced by another dynasty. It is up to the editors to state the facts; my job is to facilitate discussion. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to improve or complain about the editors. Every editor should check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and reply to questions within 48 hours. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not reply to the comments of other editors; avoid back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator and the community. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
First statements by editors
Statements by N Jordan
- The assassination of king Alexander of Serbia resulted in the end of the Obrenović dynasty.
- King Alexander seemed on the verge of proclaming his wife’s brother as heir to the throne.
- The coup d’état was organized by the military conspirators who invaded the royal palace and murdered king Alexander, queen Draga, and some members of the court.
"Alexander". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-king-of-Serbia>.
- The royal couple was brutally assassinated by officers in the palace in Belgrade in 1903, bringing an end to the Obrenović dynasty.
- The Skupština (Serbian National Assembly) invited Peter Karadjordjević to return as King Peter I.
"Serbia: The scramble for the Balkans ". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 < https://www.britannica.com/place/Serbia/Government-and-society#ref477293 >.
- The officers’ conspiracy to assassinate the unpopular king Alexander Obrenović was initiated by Dragutin Dimitrijevic Apis (an army officer) in 1901 and carried out in June 1903.
"Dragutin Dimitrijevic". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016
<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dragutin-Dimitrijevic>
N Jordan (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
One editor has made some sourced statements about the overthrow of the Obrenovic dynasty. Those statements appear to be consistent with what is currently in the article. I had asked for a statement of what the issues were. I assume that the editor who made that statement thinks that those statements should remain in the article. Is there a question about whether those statements should be in the article? Is there another issue? I assume that there is an issue, or the editors wouldn't have requested mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Second statements by editors
Statements by N Jordan
In current text, there is a statement that is not true: “…conspiracy organized by Prince Petar Karadjordjević”. Also, Black Hand was a secret military society established in 1910 (7 years after the murder of king Alexander), by officers who participated in May Coup – not an underground movement that murdered the king. The issue is the following sentence that is currently removed from the article: “After the overthrow one of their branch, descended from Jakov Obrenović, Miloš Obrenović's brother, H.R.H.Prince Predrag R. Obrenović became the successor of the Royal House Obrenovic and the Obrenovic claimant to the Serbian throne, after the breakup of Yugoslavia.[citation needed]”. The source was not provided since October 2015. Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obrenović_dynasty&type=revision&diff=737124748&oldid=737119789 for differences. --N Jordan (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator
One editor has responded to my requests for statements of the issues. The other editors have not. If there is no reply within the next day, I will have to close this thread due to inactivity. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Third statements by editors
Yom Kippur
– 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
- Purrhaps (talk · contribs)
- Debresser (talk · contribs)
- Sir Joseph (talk · contribs)
- MShabazz (talk · contribs)
- Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs)
- Doug Weller (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
It's impossible that Yom Kippur = Day of Atonement from etymology.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Talk submissions at Yom Kippur & my Talk.
How do you think we can help?
Arbitration regarding etymology & literal meaning.
Summary of dispute by Debresser
Waiting to see if this thread will be opened.
Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph
Summary of dispute by MShabazz
I had asked Purrhaps several times for reliable sources that support her/his argument. This afternoon she/he finally provided some. I have not yet had a chance to review them in order to reply. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I am a HE, & it was Sept 2 (on my Talk page) & asked you after that to comment. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- As I wrote, I asked you for reliable sources. Strong's numbers by themselves are not a reliable source. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Odysseus
Summary of dispute by Doug Weller
Not sure why I'm here as I haven't been involved in the article or the talk page. Ah, found it. I posted to his talk page. First a 3RR warning, then a mistaken comment suggesting he'd edited someone else's edit - this was due to interpolation problems. I also advised him about some of our policies and guidelines. And I removed some forum style comments of his from another talk page and dropped a notice on his page about use of talk pages. I see a new editor struggling with our policies and guidelines and convinced that they are right. And perhaps a bit confused, but that may be me as I find some of what he writes confusing. But again, I haven't been directly involved in the dispute. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Yom Kippur discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been recent discussion at the article talk page by some of the editors. The filing party has notified the other editors. I will note that the filing party asks DRN to arbitrate concerning the use and literal meaning of words. DRN moderators mediate; they do not arbitrate. Does the filing party want mediation, which will facilitate discussion and compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, please mediate. The following might be helpful to all participants. This dispute is like saying H1471 gowy (goy) literally means heathen or Gentile (no, it literally means a people, nation). -- Purrhaps (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- So what is the next step? -- 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- The next step is to wait for a moderator to accept the case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Hong Kong legislative election, 2016
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. There has not been any discussion on the article talk page, only the use of edit summaries. Extensive discussion on the article talk page must precede discussion here. Discuss the issue on the article talk page. If discussion there is inconclusive, this case may be refiled here later. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Rajdeep Sardesai
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Premature. Although the filing party states that there has been discussion on a talk page, I cannot find that discussion either on the article talk page or a user talk page. See bold, revert, discuss. The filing party made some bold edits, which were reverted. The filing party should now discuss them on the article talk page. If that discussion is inconclusive, a new request can be made for discussion here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Tigrayans
– 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
Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans
the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes
and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite
there is the Sockpuppet suspicion that the user has multiple accounts that would be Otakrem Puhleec Ethiopianhistorian EthiopianHabesha, that goes reported
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried with the page Talk: Tigrayans, with the help of other users, with reporting to Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents, with my personal page User talk: Sennaitgebremariam
How do you think we can help?
I hope you solve the problem