Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sardar00 (talk | contribs) at 08:56, 13 October 2019 (→Saini: new section). 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
    Tuner (radio) Closed Andrevan (t) 28 days, Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 1 hours
    Wolf In Progress Nagging Prawn (t) 23 days, 11 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 18 hours
    Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic New Randomstaplers (t) 19 days, 15 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 hours
    Genocide New Bogazicili (t) 7 days, 16 hours Robert McClenon (t) 6 days, 20 hours Buidhe (t) 16 hours
    Khwarazmian Empire Closed 176.88.165.232 (t) 3 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 17 hours
    Egusi Closed OmoIyaLeke (t) 3 days, 11 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 3 days, 8 hours Kovcszaln6 (t) 3 days, 8 hours
    Double-slit experiment New Johnjbarton (t) 2 days, 17 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 hours
    List of musicals filmed live on stage New Wolfdog (t) 1 days, 4 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 hours Wolfdog (t) 32 minutes

    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 20:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]



    Current disputes

    Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina

    – This request has been placed on hold.

    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 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages protects the Italian language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina as a minority language; however, few people actually speak it in these countries. So the question is: should they be included in the infobox as countries where Italian is recognized as a minority language or not? According to some, Romania and Bosnia-Herzegovina must not be entered in the infobox as only this card says that, but the Template:Infobox language says the parameter minority is for "countries in which it is a recognised/protected minority language" and that is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition".

    Have you tried to resolve this previously?

    Talk about it with other users, but no solution has been found.

    How do you think we can help?

    Checking whether Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina can be included in the infobox of the Italian language as done on other pages.

    Summary of dispute by Springpfühler

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

    Talk:Italian language#Official minority language in Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    Hi, I'm a mediator here at DRN. I'd recommend notifying the other editor of this discussion. I've read over the discussion page and have some input. I'm happy for an open discussion to take place here. The Italian language article currently lists Croatia and Slovenia as countries Italian is a recognised minority language, and this is backed up by their articles - Croatia#Languages writes Minority languages are in official use in local government units where more than a third of population consists of national minorities or where local legislation defines so. Those languages are Czech, Hungarian, Italian..., and then for Slovenia#Languages, it says Hungarian and Italian, spoken by the respective minorities, enjoy the status of official languages in the ethnically mixed regions along the Hungarian and Italian borders, to the extent that even the passports issued in those areas are bilingual. So we have clearly defined recognition by the government of the country. Do we have sources from the Romanian or Bosnian/Herzegovinan governments about the recognition of Italian as a recognised minority language? That seems to be the bar that has to be met here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages has been signed and ratified by the government of Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. And according to thei articles: Bosnia and Herzegovina#Languages: "the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Bosnia and Herzegovina recognizes the following minority languages: Albanian, Montenegrin, Czech, Italian [...]"; and in the page Romania it is listed in the Infobox country as Recognised minority language. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Template:Infobox language says that Minority language is "intended for legal protection and de jure recognition"; that Treaty has been signed and ratified by Romania and Bosnia. Also, previously Romania and Bosnia were added in the Infobox with the word "(de jure)" to indicate precisely that they are recognized by the treaty. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Springpfühler, User:DavideVeloria88 - Is there still a content dispute about Italian as a minority language, or has this matter been resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert McClenon- No, it hasn't been solved yet. No one else has responded at the moment. I'm still waiting. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm back around, sorry, have been away a bit. Let me look into this one and respond within 24hr. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quickly butting in, but when it comes to Romania both the Council of Europe and the Romanian government explicitly recognize Italian as a minority language in Dobruja (easiest to ctrl-f for "italian"). That one, at least, seems fairly straightforward. ‑ Iridescent 09:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have anything agains listing Italian in another country, provided that it is officially recognized. The issue is that it is not such in Bosnia, absolutely not, and apparently in Romania neither. If someone can provide proof of Italian being officially recognized by the Romanian Government, then we will put it. About Bosnia, it is impossible - such proof simply doesn't exist because in the country there is no recognition of Italian and no usage of this language too. This list of minorities languages so many times mentioned IMHO is not enough, because it is not a proof of a real recognition, protection or support for a given language. This list was made once, and I have no idea whether it is being updated or not. In this list, a lot of countries included many languages, 10, 14, or even more...of course they are not officially recognized by the respective governments. On the contrary, it is well-known that countries like France or Italy have not ratified this charter yet. Nevertheless, they do have minority language on their soil, that is evident. Italy does not only have German, but also Slovenian, French, Sardinian, Friulan...they are all, at different levels, co-official in the respective regions (in the case of German in South Tyrol, it is as official as Italian is or maybe more); French has Breton, Basque, Corsican... So, this charter does not determine which languages are really official or minority in a certain country. It is, IMO, a plain list of languages who are or have been sometime spoken by a certain minority in the country. "Minority" language means just that: language spoken by a minority. It DOES NOT mean that it is officially recognized. A minority can be even 100 persons - that is clearly not enough to say that this language is official or protected in a country. I see that we, not only in the English Wiki but in others too, are trying to put flags only for languages who are either official in the whole country or co-official (officially recognized) in some parts of the country. Of course there are cases where we could remove some flag, but we are slowly doing like this. Putting a flag of a country where a language has neither importance nor diffusion or officiality brings just confusion and it is basically a false information. For these things, for mentions of languages like this one of Italian in Bosnia and Romania, a mention in the article is a good solution: we do not want to hide the fact that a language is included in a list of "protected" languages in a country, but it does not mean that is officially recognized by the national or any local government of that country, so it is not worth putting a flag for it just for the sake of putting it (knowing that this language is not recognized). In the case of Spanish, for example, we have really put just the country where it is official, and not others where it was or it is mentioned somewhere. That's why the Philippines are not on this list. The only three countries where Spanish is not first language are Belize, but Spanish is official there, Andorra, but Spanish is first spoken language there, and the USA, but Spanish has like, well, 50 million speakers there, plus it is officially accepted by the Government of New Mexico, plus is first official and primary national language of Puerto Rico, which is a US dependence. So, nothing to do with Italian in Bosnia or Romania, which is more or less a phantom...Apparently there was in Bosnia just a single village originally populated by Italian immigrants, for a total of a couple of hundreds of persons, but nowadays not even they are still there, and Italian has no official recognition. Concerning Romania, on the contrary, the link you provided from the Council of Europe says that Italian is taught in Bucarest and there are 257 pupils in an Italian school, plus some hundred more in other schools - but that, apart from being a very low amount, does not mean at all that Italian is an officially recognized language there! You can find schools of a specific language everywhere - here in Vienna you can find a French school, a Polish school, a Russian one, probably also an Italian or Spanish one, and many more, without counting English schools, which are everywhere. You'll find such schools in all European cities. Does it mean these languages are officially recognized minority languages? Of course not. Further the report of the COE says that " However, Italian is not yet taught in Greci (Tulcea county) in Dobruja, a traditional stronghold of the Italian speakers"...Well, THIS sentence, according to me, proves that Italian is not official and thus not an officially recognized minority language. That's why a mention in the article where we put a link to these pages would be fine - without putting a flag like we would do if Italian was official in Romania, unless we find some proof that it is indeed. A mention in the article would inform about the fact that in Romania there is a small Italian community, or immigrants, what of course does not mean their language must be officially recognized. About Bosnia, as I probably already said, I havent'found nothing at all. --Springpfühler (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Springpfühler, User:DavideVeloria88 - Is there still a content dispute about Italian as a minority language, or has this matter been resolved? If there is still a content dispute, I am willing to act as the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert McClenon It hasn't been solved yet. No one answered: can Romania and Bosnia and Herzegovina be included in the infobox using ECRML as a source? DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already explained my point of view, but if nobody even read it, I'll try to do it again. Here we have a user who wants to put "a flag" for Italian in Bosnia and Romania, even though it is well-known that Italian is not official there, at any level. He bases his claim solely on the mention in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - there is not any other source to support this claim. I have nothing against flags, but we are normally using them just for countries where a language is official/national or an officially recognized minority language in some part of the respective country. Italian is none of these, neither in Romania, nor in Bosnia. Surely there may be cases, where we put some flag for countries where it was not necessary or appropriate, but we are trying to correct those cases. It can not be an excuse to put an incorrect information on purpose - just because there probably are other incorrect data regarding other countries too. "Minority language" can be a lot of things. It is not necessarily an "officially recognized minority language", it can literally just mean "a language spoken by any minority". It could also be a minority made by some thousands or hundreds of persons, or even less. That is the case of Italian in Bosnia and Romania. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages collects all languages spoken by minorities on the soil of some European countries. It is definitely a very good purpose and we should support these charters because they contribute to avoid that a given language is definitely forgotten. Nevertheless, many of the languages mentioned are not official in any part of the respective country and don't enjoy any kind of protection or support. For example, in the case of Austria, the Charter mentions Czech and Slovak language too, but they are neither official nor co-official in any single Austrian village. On the contrary, Italy and France haven't ratified this Charter yet - nevertheless they have co-official languages on their soil, languages acknowledged by the Italian and the French Governments, like German, Sardinian, Corsican or Basque. So, this Charter is not a reliable source in order to determine which language is official or officially recognized in a given country. In order to do that, we have to rely on official documents of single administrative units of the country we are taking into consideration. There are not any kind of documents who attest the presence of Italian language on Bosnian soil, simply because there is not any presence. It seems there was just a village populated by immigrants from Trentino, Štivor, in Republika Srpska, where nowadays remain no more than about two hundred persons of Italian origin. Italian language is not official, not even there. And Italians are not even mentioned in the Bosnian, Croatian or Serbian Wikis. That is obviously no reason at all to claim Italian being a "minority language" in Bosnia. Concerning Romania, Italian presence there is necessarily bigger than that almost non-existent in Bosnia. There are villages who had a more consistent Italian immigration. Nevertheless, as it is also mentioned in the link provided above, https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016807766d3, which is from the European Council and about the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Italian is not even official in the village where there is an Italian minority, where it is not taught at school. And the schools where Italian is taught in Bucarest are Dante Alighieri schools, that means Italian schools like you can find them in several cities across the world, mostly supported by the Italian Embassy - it does not have anything to do with Italian being official or officially recognized minority language. So, unless someone provides more sources about Italian presence in Romania, I don't see any reason to include Italian as a minority language there - and in Bosnia definitely not at all. It should be a decision supported by sources and with a consensus of people - if there is such a premise, I have nothing against it. I am aware that something like that cannot be determined just because a person, me or another user, wants it. Without consensus and appropriate sources it makes no sense. --Springpfühler (talk) 00:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    First statement by moderator

    Okay, let's try one more time. Read the rules that are in use. Other rules will be in use by other moderators. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Be concise. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what the issue is? Do not provide lengthy explanations. They will be ignored. Be concise. If the issue can be summarized concisely, it is likely that this can be answered based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If the issue can only be summarized in 300 words, then it may never be answered. Be concise. Please state in one paragraph what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    You are right at one point - other rules will be in use by other moderators, in fact we always use long texts, they also use very LONG texts, much longer and much more complicated that this one of mine, because you can't "summarize" anything, as you seem to believe. So, it is a thing of yourself. For the rest, I have always been civil, so it is not a point. Comments are on content, if you read it you'll see. Nevertheless, my answer is there, even if you collapsed it, so I am sure other people will read it. It is difficult to summarize this topic, but I'll try to do it when I have time --Springpfühler (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    First set of concise replies by editors

    Lengthy statements and back-and-forth discussion

    Second statement by moderator

    I am no longer acting as the moderator for this dispute, because at least one of the editors is not willing to be concise. I will request another moderator. I am not optimistic that another moderator will be found, unless the previous moderator returns. I will keep this case open on hold for at least one week. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry but it's not correct. Writing that "I am not willing to be concise" is false, it is your personal yet arbitrary conclusion. I said before, very clearly indeed, that sometimes, depending on the topic, is not easy to be "concise" as you would expect. That means, I do will to be concise, but I haven't managed that for two times in a row. That's exactly why I wrote that content, not because it was my pleasure, but because the topic did not allow me to be more concise. Nevertheless, I also said clearly, in my last sentence, that I will try to summarize what I wrote. I don't live on Wikipedia, so I haven't found time yet, but I will. Nevertheless, what I wrote remains, with the motivation why Italian is not official nor minority language in Romania and even less in Bosnia, and thus the flags of those countries do not belong among the country where Italian enjoy some status. As I said, I'll try to summarize it again--Springpfühler (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2020 London mayoral election

    – Closed, as not yet appropriate for DRN. 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

    Hello,

    There has been an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of Siobhan Benita in the infobox of this article for some time now. No consensus has been reached, and statements that are directly contradicted by sources given in the page in question have been made. It is my belief that certain editors are being disingenuous for political gain, and I would like to suggest that a senior administrator make appropriate changes and lock the page.

    A few bullet points: 1) The claims of 'consensus' are clearly untrue from the talk page. 2) The 5% guideline claims are incorrect, the latest poll shows Benita at 10%. 3) No reason has been provided not to use the standard formatting used by YouGov. 4) I would suggest that the message sent to me by SerialNumber54129 counts as posing as an administrator. This is perhaps subjective, but as a new editor, I couldn't immediately tell.

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

    Talk:2020 London mayoral election#Benita bewilderment

    Given the serious political nature of this (the attempt to remove a leading candidate from an election page), I believe that the barrier to dispute resolution should be low.

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Given the serious political nature of this page, and the apparent disingenuous political motivation behind some of the editing, I would suggest a senior administrator should intervene.

    Summary of dispute by SerialNumber54129

    (Procedural close: CAWyatt has made all of three edits to the talk (only two before filing here), so can hardly be said to have exhausted dispute resolution procedures. in fact, they should more aware that they are now on 4RR, and I am currently waiting for them to self-revert before filing at WP:ANEW. Sorry you're having your time wasted like this, DRNers) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2020 London mayoral election discussion

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

    Template:Effective altruism

    – 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

    There is a difference in opinion regarding who should be included in the list of People in the effective altruism template, particularly Jacy Reese. Reese was very involved in the early days of the EA movement and the development of its ideas and continues to be one of the most prominent figures associated with EA, including writing many essays and one of a handful of books that exist on the topic, founding an EA organization, having leadership roles at other EA organizations in the past, and being one of the most popular (if not the most popular) EA social media personalities. He is also the only person listed in the template that is primarily focused on animal welfare, which is one of the main topics EA addresses. The list Sir Paul has forcibly switched the template to is heavily focused on artificial intelligence and existential risk, which is just one of several topics addressed by EA. Therefore my opinion is that Jacy Reese should be included in the list, or the list should be cut down substantially to only include the most prominent figures closely associated with EA: Holden Karnofsky, William MacAskill, Dustin Moskovitz, and Peter Singer. Also at the risk of ad hominem I respectfully add that the people who disagree with me here seem to all in a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence, which I believe might be contributing to the bias in the new list.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Effective_altruism#Jacy_Reese

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    You may want to revert and lock future edits for now. I'm not sure. It might also be useful to get an RFC. Currently the discussion is very close to an edit war if not already there. Please redirect me to the appropriate forum if this is not the right place to resolve this dispute.

    Summary of dispute by David Gerard

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

    The area is plagued with editors who openly describe themselves as advocates of Effective Altruism. That's fine - but I think a lot of the perceptions applied to the editing lead to wishing to make EA look good and presentable.

    The dispute comes from an EA advocacy editor (characterised as such by his edits this year), User:Sir Paul, removing the name as a "compromise" solution, when it was clearly not a compromise, and was literally the point of dispute.

    Jacy Reese's name being removed from the template was supported by various blog posts concerning him to claim he'd left the movement - but all of these posts were strong evidence that, as much as EA and Reese may not want to be associated, he clearly was deep in the heart of the movement, and is absolutely relevant to the movement: diff, diff Further evidence is discussed on the page.

    The template has also had a pile of stuff added to it that comes across as an ambit claim - various charitable aims that are attributed as somehow connected to EA-the-movement rather than just charitable causes in general. Editors were then adding this template to all sorts of articles that didn't mention "Effective Altruism" at all, let alone evidencing a link to the movement.

    Basically - EA advocates seem to more want a template that advocates what the movement advocates - rather than a navigational aid for uninvolved readers of Wikipedia.

    The EA movement per se has strong links to various WP:FRINGE movements - particularly LessWrong and the "rationalist" subculture, and transhumanism more broadly. (Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong is frequently attributed as having coined the name of the movement, "effective altruism". SirPaul's discussion of Yudkowsky should be viewed as an inside-EA argument.) Fringe movements are notoriously bad at separating out advocacy from description of themselves. (As such, I've notified WP:FTN of this discussion.)

    So basically, the entire area, including this template, need more eyes, and uninvolved and mainstream editors closely assessing the editing that's going on here.

    Summary of dispute by Xodarap00

    1. Jacy Reese has publicly described himself as a "cofounder" of Effective Altruism. Based on this self-description, a previous editor added him to the Effective Altruism navbox.
    2. An article was published showing that it simply isn't possible for Jacy to have been a cofounder (among other things, he was not an adult at the time the movement was founded, and the organizations he says he worked with make no mention of his work). On this basis, I removed him from the list. [A blow-by-blow of these facts can be found in the talk page.]
    3. This triggered an edit war.

    To be honest, I struggle to understand the argument for including him. As best I understand it, Jacy represents a faction that Bodole wants to see represented in the navbox (they believe the current list is too focused on "artificial intelligence and existential risk"). I am sympathetic to the desire to represent this faction (animal welfare), but Jacy just is not a notable figure in Effective Altruism. I, as well as Sir Paul, have suggested other people who we feel are notable and would represent this faction, and would be excited if Bodole or others created articles about them.

    But the basic fact still remains that Jacy just exaggerated his involvement, and simply is not notable enough to include.

    (It may be worth noting that about half of Bodole's edits are about Jacy, Jacy's organization, Jacy's book etc.)

    Summary of dispute by Sir Paul

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

    The dispute concerns whether Jacy Reese is a Key Figure in the effective altruism movement, understood as belonging to the list of half a dozen or so individuals most important in the movement's history. While (I believe) all parties agree that Reese is a notable person, his intellectual contributions to effective altruism aren't significant enough to merit inclusion in that select group, and are comparable to those of many other effective altruists who have entries on Wikipedia but aren't included in the Infobox (including Oxford professor and Global Priorities Institute director Hilary Greaves and poker player and television presenter Liv Boeree).

    The representation of animal welfare in that list is, I believe, entirely congruent with the importance the effective altruism community currently accords to that cause area: the most recent version of the most authoritative survey of EA in existence found that animal welfare is rated as the fifth most important cause among respondents, and two of the nine people included in the current compromise version of the Infobox are noted for their seminal contributions to animal welfare: Peter Singer, widely regarded as the founder of the modern animal welfare movement, and Yew-Kwang Ng, widely regarded as the founder of welfare biology. By comparison, there are also two individuals on that list noted primarily for their contributions to AI safety (Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky), and according to the survey cited, AI safety is the second most important cause area within EA. (For what it's worth, I note that I have been an ethical vegetarian for 20 years, that my only talk at an effective altruism conference has been about animal welfare, and that the charity I have donated the most money to is Animal Charity Evaluators (one of the charities, incidentally, that Reese worked for). I'm also on record as being very critical of Eliezer Yudkowsky and the quality and importance of his writings on AI safety and other topics. So I'm puzzled by the allegation that I'm part of "a certain EA clique focused on artificial intelligence", and I would ask Bodole to either substantiate or retract this accusation.) Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT: One more thing. In his initial comment David Gerard writes: "How best to list him, if not in "People"? 'Cos it's obvious he warrants a listing." I agree that Reese warrants a listing somewhere on Wikipedia, so I support RyanCarey1's suggestion of creating a "list of people associated with effective altruism" and listing Reese there, together with all the Key People, Greaves, Boeree and other notable people like Nick Cooney, Dylan Matthews, Ben Dello, Peter Adeney, Cari Tuna, and others. This would exactly parallel the approach with Utilitarianism (a close cousin of EA), which restricts the nav bar to a list of five Key Figures and has a separate list of utilitarians for all the notable individuals associated with that movement. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by RyanCarey1

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

    The effective altruism template has a list of "people" consisting of several eminent professors and founders, and one wp-notable but less prominent person (Jacy Reese) who has written one book related to effective altruism. The hope is to agree to a list of people who meet some roughly consistent relevance bar (the dispute is not about wikipedia-notability). The chronology:

    • Jacy was removed from the list
    • Bodole reverted this change
    • I implemented a compromise list of "key figures", to match Template:Liberalism and Template:Utilitarianism, excluding Jacy and a few others, based on the logic that you do not want a template on Christianity to include all adherents of Christianity, just those that readers would reasonably wish to click through to.
    • Bodole reverted this change
    • Bodole proposed a new compromise - a very short list, which I agree to using for the time being, given Toby Ord (a movement founder) is added.
    • Sir Paul reverted Bodole's revert

    On the meta-level, I note that half of Bodole's edits are about the same person (Jacy).

    I think the best resolutions, in order, are: 1) the original list without Jacy, 2) my compromise, or 3) the modified version of Bodole's compromise.

    Summary of dispute by Homo.deus

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

    Template:Effective altruism discussion

    Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
    • Question - Would this content issue better be resolved by moderated discussion, or by a Request for Comments? The usual advantage to moderated discussion is that it permits compromise. If this is a yes-no question, a Request for Comments may work better. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be fine with a yes-no on "should Jacy Reese be considered a 'Key Figure' in Effective Altruism?" Xodarap00 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends. There are several issues in the discussion and one of my concerns is that people are applying different standards to Reese's inclusion relative to the inclusion of other people. This has already happened on the talk page, where Reese was judged for not having as many Twitter followers as Liv Boeree and not having as many EAG talks as Will MacAskill. All of these figures have different types of involvements in EA and we need consistent standards applied to each. I worry that a yes-no question for Reese's inclusion would lead to exactly this issue. However it might help the discussion be more concrete. Bodole (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm also happy with a yes-or-no question on whether Reese is a Key Figure (understood as a figure at least as central to EA as the other individuals on the nav bar). Note that Reese's number of Twitter followers was mentioned as a response to Bodole's claim that Reese "is the most followed EA on Twitter", and that Reese's number of talks was mentioned as a response to Bodole's claim that Reese "has more talks listed online about effective altruism than anyone else I know of." These were the standards Bodole themself proposed. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's quite an unfair characterization. You're selectively leaving out key information that is evidence against your viewpoint. I already acknowledged the Twitter claim may be off base, and I qualified the claim when I originally made it because I wasn't sure. I think it is debatable whether Liv Boeree counts as EA given she is much less involved, but I accept that she would probably identify as such. Regarding talks, I was not referring to EAG talks. I was referring to talks "about effective altruism" in general and that claim was also qualified, but I have yet to see reason to think it is incorrect. In both cases, this is not evidence that Reese is not a Key Figure even if you are right. Bodole (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think my proposed Key Figure thing is a step toward compromise, and maybe via RfC an impartial wikipedian could tell us whether Jacy should be such a figure. RyanCarey1 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I note in my response, there's various problematic and advocacy-prone aspects of the topic and present discussion that seriously need more eyes from outside the subculture - a "local consensus" to a given style of advocacy may not be a good outcome. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with getting outside eyes. David, you might want to note that you are also an advocate, for the RationalWiki (as one of its trustees), a non-NPOV resource that seeks to counter some semi-mainstream ideologies like effective altruism. I also agree with David's proposal to remove irrelevant links from the template. However, I note the factual inaccuracy of his characterization of the edit that triggered the dispute. Sir Paul's edit _was_ a solution that I put forward as a compromise, because it placed a common standard across names, cutting some names, including those that Sir Paul placed on the template in the first place. I would also note that the aim of my compromise was not to override WP-wide norms with a local consensus, but to conform to WP-wide standards like Wikipedia:Navigation_template "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?", Template:Utilitarianism "Key proponents", and Template:Liberalism "Key figures" RyanCarey1 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you think you can claim a colourable Conflict of Interest based on that, you know where WP:COIN is. The track record of such claims from WP:FRINGE editors is not so great, but knock yourself out. I think the root of your objection is not that I edit at RationalWiki, but that I am not a true believer. This is an example of an advocate not believing that non-advocacy edits to their favoured topic are legitimate. Being an advocate for a particular cluster of fringe movements - as you are - is not symmetrical with not being an advocate for that cluster of fringe movements - as I am not - even as fringe advocates consistently try to paint it as being such - David Gerard (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to escalate the conflict here, or to take concern with any of your beliefs, apart from trying to get them presented more honestly. Being the original author and an ongoing maintainer ([1], [2] [3], [4]) of the snark-article on this topic in a famously non-NPOV wiki makes you an advocate on this topic, and it seems disingenous to pretend otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanCarey1 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, you're trying to claim a COI without there being a COI. As I said, take it to WP:COIN if you think you have a substantiable claim of COI editing on my part on Wikipedia. You really don't - because you are literally trying to claim that not being an advocate for your fringe thing constitutes a "conflict of interest." The fringe advocate position and the non-fringe non-advocate position really just aren't symmetrical, even as fringe advocates - across all manner of fringe fields - consistently try to claim such, pretty much exactly in the manner you do here - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • Firstly, I'm pointing to Wikipedia:ADVOCACY rather than COI. Secondly, the argument is that effective altruism is fringe because it has some links to people concerned about risk from AI. But concern about AI risk itself is not even pseudoscience, but scientific disagreement: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process" and effective altruism itself has significant following within the philosophical community. So the argument is clearly a dead end, and anyway it is quite far removed from who is or isn't significant figure for our purposes. RyanCarey1 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • To address some of David Gerard's claims:
    "The dispute comes from an EA advocacy editor (characterised as such by his edits this year), User:Sir Paul, removing the name as a "compromise" solution, when it was clearly not a compromise, and was literally the point of dispute."
    I'm disappointed by this characterization. I have been editing Wikipedia for over 17 years and all my substantive contributions are transparently listed on my user profile. I have interests in effective altruism, as I do in many other topics (like animal rights, philosophy, analytical Marxism, etc.), but I do not "advocate" for any of these topics. More relevantly, the solution proposed by RyanCarey1 was a compromise, because it involved the removal of two additional names besides Reese's: Hilary Greaves and Liv Boeree. I strongly favored keeping Greaves, but agreed to her removal so that we could move forward with this.
    "Jacy Reese's name being removed from the template was supported by various blog posts concerning him to claim he'd left the movement - but all of these posts were strong evidence that, as much as EA and Reese may not want to be associated, he clearly was deep in the heart of the movement, and is absolutely relevant to the movement."
    These posts are not "strong evidence" that Reese "clearly was deep in the heart of the movement". If David disagrees, perhaps he can point us to the parts of the posts in question establishing that Reese was sufficiently important to the EA movement as to be one of the half-dozen or so most important figures in the movement's history (which is the subject of the present disagreement). Furthermore, these posts were offered as one among several different and independently sufficient arguments for the conclusion that Reese's name should be removed from the list of Key Figures. Please review the discussion threads on the talk page for an expansion of these arguments.
    "Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong is frequently attributed as having coined the name of the movement, "effective altruism"."
    I think David may be confused here. Years ago someone discovered that there was an isolated occurrence of the expression "effective altruist" (not "effective altruism") on the website Overcoming Bias in a post from 2007. The post was on an unrelated topic (scope insensitivity) and it wasn't connected to the effective altruism movement, which didn't even exist back then. There's widespread agreement that the term "effective altruism" was first used to designate the effective altruism movement only around 2012. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    First Statement by Moderator

    The heading said in small type to keep discussion to a minimum before a volunteer opened discussion. That didn't happen. But I might as well open discussion now. Read the rules that I will be using. They are not the only rules, but they are my rules. Be civil and concise. The discussion above has been civil, but it has not been concise. It has been too long, difficult to read, which really stands for "Too long, didn't read", and I didn't read it. I can see that some of the editors want to write at length. I will provide a section for answers to my questions, in which you may not engage in back-and-forth discussion because you are responding only to me, and a section for back-and-forth discussion. I may or may not read the back-and-forth discussion. It appears that the back-and-forth discussion makes the editors feel better, and that is all right. Comment on content, not on contributors. I expect the editors to respond to my questions within 48 hours. Now, here are my questions, and please respond in one paragraph. First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese? If there are any other issues, please state them concisely. Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles? If so, please identify the article issues in one paragraph.

    Do not edit the template while this discussion is in progress. Any discussion should be here, because any discussion on the template talk page or any article talk page or any user talk page may be missed. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    First Replies by Editors to Moderator

    Reply by Sir Paul

    First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?

    Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: Hilary Greaves and Liv Boeree would probably need to be included if Jacy Reese is included, since they were excluded as part of RyanCarey1's compromise solution.

    Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?

    The discussion is limited to the template.

    Reply by Xodarap00

    First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?

    No, except that people have proposed compromise solutions which are more complicated. (See Sir Paul's answer above as one example of a compromise solution which might include more changes.)

    Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?

    The discussion is limited to the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xodarap00 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by Bodole

    First, are there any issues about the template other than whether to include Jacy Reese?

    I think so. Whether to include Reese depends on where the cutoff is set for inclusion in this Template, which can be decided based on other Templates and Infoboxes on WP. And that cutoff then affects who else is included, such as Eliezer Yudkowsky, a figure who is very active in artificial intelligence and Rationalism but not very active at all in effective altruism. There is also the question of representativeness such as if we want the people listed to represent effective altruism, such as (as I argue) the current list being very focused on AI and existential risk. In short, the inclusion of one individual in this list is intertwined with the inclusion of others. Part of the issue here is that some editors are using unfair criteria for the inclusion of Reese that they do not apply to the people aligned with their own EA faction.

    Second, is the discussion limited to the template, or are there also issues about any articles?

    Only the template as far as I know. Bodole (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Back-and-Forth Discussion

    Saini

    – Closed, as not yet appropriate for DRN. 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

    Respected sir I have seen dispute on talk page of saini articles in fact someone have added Mali word in brackets with saini as this article is about saini(mali).. ,Rajputs mali group have started using saini surname after 1937 we can not declared whole saini community to be a Mali ,kindly remove Mali word in brackets as in hatnote summary of saini caste ,India is backward country castes have deep roots ,do not spread hate by writing about any caste wrong information ,now people start degrading by reading Wikipedia wrong information Please remove Mali word in brackets you can mention in the article in 1937 rajputs Mali have started using saini surname only in 1937 not before.

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saini

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Please remove Mali word in brackets with saini in the hatnote summary of saini caste as rajputs Mali group from rajasthan have started using saini surname after 1937 we cannot write whole saini to be a Mali ,as saini is upper castes in many states of India ,while mali is declared backwards caste in all states, before 1937 saini caste exist and is declared as Martial class you can check Wikipedia why we spread hate in the world by writing wrong on Wikipedia

    Summary of dispute by punjabier

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

    Summary of dispute by sitush

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

    Saini discussion

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

    please removed the hatnote as there were no incoming redirects containing "Mali", so we don't need to point to other Mali articles in the hatnote summary

    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.

    Saini

    – 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

    There is dispute between many editors of saini caste and sitush please remove Mali word in hatnote summary of saini caste don't disgrace by publishing wrong information on the Wikipedia

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saini

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    Please remove Mali word in the summary of saini caste this there is no need of hatnote summary remove Mali word in brackets with saini caste

    Summary of dispute by Mammogram SINGH saini

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

    Summary of dispute by sitush

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

    Summary of dispute by punjabier

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

    Saini 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=921010928"