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 |
| Rafida | Failed | Albertatiran (t) | 39 days, 18 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 4 hours |
| Ibn Battuta | Closed | Jihanysta (t) | 3 days, 7 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 days, 20 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 2 days, 20 hours |
| Palm Springs Air Museum | Closed | BellamyBell (t) | 3 days, 6 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours |
| Tesla Inc. | Closed | Emiya1980 (t) | 3 days, 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 5 hours |
| Robert (doll) | Closed | Gabriellemcnell (t) | 13 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours |
| Undetectable.ai | Closed | Sesame119 (t) | 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours |
| Ibn Battuta | Closed | Jihanysta (t) | 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours |
| Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel | Closed | PicturePerfect666 (t) | 8 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 05:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 | If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes. |
Current disputes
Albert Camus
– 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
Editor @Syzygyst repeatedly edited the page for Albert Camus to change his nationality from French to Algerian as he was born in Algeria. This is incorrect as he never held Algerian citizenship and was a French citizen living in France when he became notable. The fact he was born in Algeria is mentioned in the lead of the article. This was followed by a lengthy talk page discussion involving @Riad Salih, where he invoked WP:IAR to ignore the Manual of Style and that it was not a matter of nationality despite it being the title of the discussion. The talk page discussion led to @Riad Salih "addressing" the fact that my edit history was centered around Moroccan subjects and advised me not to hold this discussion on Wikipedia in the event that I was part of an "Algeria/Morocco social media war". This led me to conclude that we could not reach an agreement on this subject, and considering that more than two editors were involved in this, I sought to raise this with the DRN.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
The page has been reverted prior to the edit made by @Syzygyst consistent with the consensus reached thirteen years ago (Talk:Albert Camus/Archive 1#Algerian writer) in order to avoid edit wars and to reach a reasonable agreement between all parties thanks to the DRN.
Summary of dispute by Syzygyst
Summary of dispute by Riad Salih
The introduction made by NAADAAN is a bit misleading. The arbiter between us should be familiar with the context of that era. I'm not so foolish as to ignore the Manual of Style, as he suggests, but flexibility is needed depending on the context. He used unrelated names in his arguments, which have no connection to the war, colonization, or the background story of the writer. Furthermore, an old consensus from thirteen years ago holds little relevance on Wikipedia, especially considering that at that time, internet accessibility in North Africa was limited.
Albert Camus was born and raised in Algeria, which was a French colony during his time. He belonged to the piednoirs community, which was composed of French citizens, European living in Algeria. The debate about Camus' identity often revolves around whether he should be considered Algerian or French, Camus himself expressed neutrality during the Algerian war and found it difficult to choose a side.
During that era, the concept of citizenship in Algeria was complex due to colonization. Larbi Ben M'hidi, a historical figure, was born in Algeria during French colonization but is referred to as Algerian, even though in official documents he was considered French since there was no recognized citizenship of Algeria at that time, same goes for Abane Ramdane, born during French rule, had French identity papers, but he is referred to as Algerian. The notion of belonging and nationality was flexible depending on which side of the war you took, and many figures can be cited Frantz Fanon born in Martinique is he mentioned as only French? No, but Francophone Afro-Caribbean and the examples are endless.
Each individual's case is unique, and understanding the historical context of the colonization era is crucial to fully grasp the complexities.
Albert Camus is a North African writer who expressed himself in French. While some may emphasize his French identity, others recognize his Algerian roots. The fact remains that Camus was born in Algeria, making him Algerian-French and here are a few quick sources to support the notion that this is not an uncommon information (NLI, Google Books, Harvard University Press (author section), IIUM Journals, Project Muse). A quick online search reveals that many refer to him as an Algerian-French writer.
This debate extends beyond Wikipedia, and honestly, I don't wish to invest time and energy into this endless loop of discussion. I leave it to the committee to decide which version to keep. I don't attach much importance to it and cannot continue going back and forth with NAADAAN in this futile talk. It is not our job to rewrite history.
It seems there is a clear conflict between Naadan's contributions, which focus solely on Morocco, and the ongoing tensions between Algeria and Morocco. Always assuming good faith, but it appears that there is frustration from his part, as he is the only one blocking the mention of the word 'Algerian' in the article. I forgot completely about this discussion we had months ago, but he keeps blocking the article whenever someone tries to edit it.
Which made me question the reasons behind his forcing the removal of mentioning his Algerian identity, especially considering that Albert Camus himself couldn't choose.
The article was mentioning him as French, which is normal. Contributors from the North Africa region are quite scarce on Wikipedia, so their perspectives are rarely represented. Wikipedia:Systemic bias.
Albert Camus discussion
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Camus)
I am ready to moderate this discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. It appears that Camus's nationality is one of the issues. Are there any other content issues besides how to refer to the nationality of Camus?
It is my opinion, on reading the article and the statements by the editors, that there are arguments in favor of describing him as French, or as French-Algerian (pied-noir). Since there are arguments in favor of at least two alternatives, we should refer to him in the way that most of the reliable sources that have written about him have characterized him. So I am asking each editor to state briefly what they think should be listed as his nationality, and what reliable sources support their position. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Are there any other issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Camus)
- I personally view the status quo -- showing him as "French" in the first paragraph of the lead and adding that "Camus was born in Algeria during the French colonization, to pied-noir parents" in the second paragraph in the lead -- to be the best option.
- I have made a bona-fide attempt to find sources referring to Camus' nationality:
- Although a bit anachronistic, I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to saying "Algerian-born French" or "French-Algerian" if the appropriate sources are there. My point of contention is the fact that @Syzygyst did not replace "French writer" with "French-Algerian writer", but rather omitted "French" and replaced it with "Algerian writer" and exclusively such, making such edits ad nauseam for the past few years. So no, I wouldn't say I'm frustrated against Algeria -- why would I be? I agree that this is probably a silly debate, but this would not have escalated had Syzygyst not repeatedly made such edits
- I think it must be taken into consideration that pied-noirs and native Muslims in Algeria had different statuses akin to different European colonies, even in the case of Camus. Native Muslims in Algeria were French subjects but not citizens, whilst pied-noirs were French citizens. Considering that Algeria was considered a part of Metropolitan France until 1962 -- two years after Camus' death -- associating him with the current Algerian state would be anachronistic. Especially considering that he gained notoriety as a Frenchman in France, I think it's best to call him "French" in the first paragraph of the lead.
- Per Albert Camus the Algerian (CUP), Camus was "born to parents who were legally French, [and] enjoyed from birth the full rights and protections of French citizenship, unlike the over-whelming majority of Berber and Arab Algerians, who were denied citizenship and designated as indigenous French subjects or nationals.", this explains the case of people like Larbi ben M'hidi who were Algerian natives in Algeria. He was the son of French settlers and attempted to join the French army during his formative years. Frenchman he was born, Frenchman he was raised, as a Frenchman he died. NAADAAN (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
First statement by possible moderator (Camus)
One editor has replied to my request, and has provided sources that characterize Camus as French or as French-Algerian. The editors who had edited the article to characterize Camus as Algerian have not replied. I will offer my opinion, which is that characterizing Camus simply as Algerian or as North African is inconsistent with the usage of the times, which is that the designation of Algerian was used to designate persons of Arab or Berber origin, usually Muslim, and Camus was of French origin. It appears that most of the reliable sources characterize Camus as French, and that some characterize him as French-Algerian (pied-noir).
Do any editors have anything to add about Camus's ethnicity? Do any editors have any other questions? If there are no other comments, I will close this thread and will advise that either normal editing or an RFC can resolve whether Camus is characterized as French or as French-Algerian. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Camus)
Talk:Mukokuseki#Undo
– 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
- Super ninja2 (talk · contribs)
- Orchastrattor (talk · contribs)
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
Me and User:Orchastrattor had a dispute about using the wording "stereotypical European features" in the lead section in article Mukokuseki especially in its definition. I thought that the article did not have enough sources to support this claim so this claim should be removed. While discussing this issue, the use brought up a book by Yano to support his claim, then he referred to a study that was off-topic, it was not about mukokuseki, so I explained that referring to it would be a WP:SYNTH. We reached a dead end so I asked for a third opinion. User:IOHANNVSVERVS kindly gave their opinion:
"I agree with SuperNinja2's position and modified the lead, removing the bit about 'stereotypical European features', which doesn't seem to be supported by the sources
", "Yano's perspective is that mukokuseki design ('without nationality') is often/actually 'very much imbued with Euro-American culture or race'. This can be included in the article but is an analysis/criticism of the concept, and doesn't change the definition of the concept which is approximately 'the depiction of characters with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality'.
"
But User Orchastrattor reverted IOHANNVSVERVS' edit and returned the wording in question to the lead and as a definition of mukokuseki and added the the study that is off-topic. I reverted his edit but he reverted mine.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I would like to see uninvolved editors with the experience at Dispute Resolution help to arrive on a WP:CONS in regards to all of these details and telling us what we can do to end the dispute and how each of us can compromise.
Summary of dispute by User:Super ninja2
I think the wording; "stereotypical European features" or the "stereotypically Western characteristics" (the wording that Orchastrattor used after I reverted his edit) should not be used in the article, not to mention in the lead because there are not enough sources to support this claim.
The location where Orchastrattor insists on placing this wording may confuse the reader into thinking that it is part of the definition of the concept.
Orchastrattor keeps mentioning Yano's book, I'm not against using this source in the article but I think it should be included as an analysis/criticism of the concept, and should not change the definition of the concept which is "the depiction of characters with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality". ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:Orchastrattor
The sentence in question is not a definition and is providing context for the lead sentence by stating how different authors describe the subject in relation to real life.
I put the article's sources together based on the top results on google and WPL, then when it was challenged I looked the subject up on a different database and found that the authors already cited for one paper in the article supported the interpretation in question in another paper. SuperNinja did not provide any concrete reason not to cite the source in the original dispute apart from falsely accusing me of cherrypicking.
IOHANNVSVERVS agreed in their third opinion that we can [...] say that some people, such as Christine Yano, consider mukokuseki characters to have European features
and failed to respond when I attempted to explain how this was still met by my preferred wording, I do not see what dispute there is to resolve here.
I updated the wording to reflect points made in both the original discussion and the 3O, but a lot of these were reverted by SuperNinja alongside a wide range of unrelated edits I made to coverage, quality and another claim added by Piotrus (talk · contribs) as an uninvolved fourth party. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:IOHANNVSVERVS
No comment. SuperNinja2's summary seems accurate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#Undo discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Done ☆SuperNinja2☆ 10:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Mukokuseki)
(hidden ping of parties) I am willing to moderate this. Please read Wikipedia:DRN Rule A. Despite what the page says, you can edit anything unrelated to the clause in question.
Some initial thoughts:
- SuperNinja2, you cannot know whether Orchastrattor was cherrypicking sources, so assume good faith in that regard.
- Orchastrattor, try to keep the conversation focused on the dispute.
Opening question: How do you want the lead to describe the features mukokuseki characters often have, and why?
Remember to address your answer to me and the Wikipedia community (not to each other). Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fix ping Super ninja2 Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
First statements by parties (Mukokuseki)
Lead (Orchastrattor)
The lead sentence already defines the subject in relation to real life, it only makes sense to have Yano and Gruyter there to give specific perspectives on that relation. It makes the lead read better by bringing attention to the role of the setting in a narrative work, with two constituent claims both sourced to reputable authors and corroborated by other sources cited later. Nothing about their analysis is any deeper or more controversial than the claims used for the rest of the lead, and there is no other claim that would fit better there. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It isn't part of the definition, it is giving a potential example of how the subject can be perceived. The is no "X is Y" statement of any sort in the phrase in question. Orchastrattor (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Lead (SuperNinja2)
I think that the lead section should not include "stereotypical European features" or "stereotypical western characteristics in a setting where they might otherwise be assumed to be ethnically Japanese" because there are not enough sources to support. There is at least one source that says "Although it is true that such anime characters do not necessarily adhere to the usual Japanese phenotype, it would be false to infer that, because of this, such characters look “Western” or “Caucasian.” Rather, the characters look nationless
.
Orchastrattor insists on placing it after the first fullstop in the lead. I would argue that this makes it part of the definition and would confuse the reader into thinking so.
I think this claim should be added as an analysis/criticism of the concept and we can only say that some people, such as Christine Yano, consider mukokuseki characters to have European features.
- How do you want the lead to describe the features mukokuseki characters often have, and why?
- I think that the lead section should say "Mukokuseki is the depiction of characters with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality" because this is the concrete definition that all sources support and agree on. Other additions are disputed between sources and the lead cannot afford to display them all. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 09:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Mukokuseki)
I am now going to ask that both editors write their own version of the lead. Do not simply paste in an earlier revision you prefer, because they have already been established to not have consensus. Rather, consider what the other editor has said as you write it and try to create something you think would be a good compromise. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 01:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Second statements by parties (Mukokuseki)
I already did that with the current version, I was entertaining a lot of different ideas for the prose during the original discussion and applied those after the 3O stopped responding.
I switched "features" for "characteristics" in case it would match the new source better to talk about the abstract "placing" of characters rather than actual visuals, and I switched "European" for "Western" to reorder the phrase in a manner Superninja had suggested.Orchastrattor (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
| Again, if you have conduct concerns, go to ANI. Super ninja2 can stop participating in this discussion at any time if she feels it is a waste. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 05:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I don't think it's fair that Super ninja2 should have to continuously repeat themselves here. A third opinion was requested and provided affirming this version of the lead. Orchastrattor did not abide by the third opinion and restored their preferred version; isn't that edit warring? Especially when Super ninja2 reverted them "per talk page, we already discussed that" and Orchastrattor reverted them again, misrepresenting the conclusion of my third opinion. This version of the lead should be restored per the third opinion and if Orchastrattor wants it to say otherwise it should be on them to explain why. This is how I see it anyway, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
|
Also, I'm not familiar with DRN but isn't this statement of "Do not simply paste in an earlier revision you prefer, because they have already been established to not have consensus.", an instance of the middle ground fallacy / false compromise? Isn't it possible one editor is right and the other is wrong? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but if that is the case, moderated discussion would not be able to determine it. If you or one of them are confident you are absolutely right, an RfC is the appropriate venue. If you have more questions or concerns about how I am moderating this discussion, please bring them to my user talk page instead. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 05:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
SuperNinja2
Mukokuseki (Japanese: 無国籍, translated as "statelessness" or "nationlessness") is a Japanese term describing fictional characters in visual media depicted with racially ambiguous features, without a concrete ethnicity or nationality. It is commonly invoked in visual media, including anime and manga, such as when a character is described as having neutral features. It is thought to be particularly significant in the context of marketing of entertainment properties towards non-Japanese audiences.
I removed the part that talks about foreign influence because the source did not say that Mukokuseki implies foreign elements in the characters but rather says the characters appear neutral. And it did not say that Mukokuseki is a result of foreign influence on Japanese culture either. I tried to find an alternative for "stereotypical western characteristics" but couldn't find one in any source. ☆SuperNinja2☆ 16:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Death of Nex Benedict
– 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
- Sawerchessread (talk · contribs)
- Peter L Griffin (talk · contribs)
- Beccaynr (talk · contribs)
- WiinterU (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
issues surround phrasing in the lead.
Some editors wish to emphasize an autopsy report, while others do not. This previously lead to accusations of edit warring here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1215954859
After page protection ended, discussion continues to be heated.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Pour_water Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#"caused_by_a_drug_overdose" Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Requested_move_28_March_2024
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
We need more third party uninterested volunteers to help police discussion on both sides. More groundrules would be useful for everyone.
Summary of dispute by Sawerchessread
We need help establishing better groundrules and to help guide us to close discussion. This page was moved to "Suicide of Nex Benedict" unilaterally before being moved back. And the topic remains contentious among most editors.
Peter L Griffin keeps arguing to maintain certain phrasings including emphasizing that Nex "poured water" in the lead, which lead to the first reports of an edit war. Since page protection was lifted, there remains significant disagreement around phrases such as "drug overdose", "pouring water", and with which phrasing to include the autopsy report cause of death. Peter L Griffin has gone on to argue and war with any dissenting voices in the talkspace of the article, including replying to more than half of those who refuse to move the article, and has discounted sources that suggest the family of Nex questions the autopsy report. Peter specifically has suggested that news sources such as Washington Post and others published after a singular AP source disagree because the Washington Post made a mistake, and has argued to base the article solely on the phrasing of the AP News article, which supports his POV.
Upon page protection being lifted, I changed what I considered the most ridiculous change to emphasize that there was an altercation, but that exact sequence of events remains unknown. Peter L Griffin reverted my edit, so I reverted the revert. We currently are arguing on which editor has broken the most rules. Peter L Griffin and others have kept citing different wikipedia policies in order to argue for or against their own changes, and ignore accusations that they don't follow WP policies.
We need help with phrasing of the article, especially around the lead.
Summary of dispute by Peter L Griffin
Summary of dispute by Beccaynr
Statement by WiinterU
- If I may state something very briefly. Medical examiners are known to lie and make mistakes. The only source that is claiming it was a suicide is the medical examiner. They have claimed to have suicide notes, of which, they will not reveal. This ruling could be anti-LGBT motivated. The fact that Benedict died the day after an altercation is also suspicious. We need to wait until we have better proof to change the title of the page. <blue>[[User:WiinterU|Wiinter]]<blue><purple>[[User talk: WiinterU|U]]<purple> (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Death of Nex Benedict discussion
- Volunteer Note - The death of Nex Benedict occurred less than two months ago and has been ruled to be a suicide. According to the policy on biographies of living persons, they are a person who has recently died and is entitled to the provisions of the policy on biographies of living persons. The biographies of living persons noticeboard is probably the best place to discuss concerns about the article. If a thread is started at BLPN, I will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Another Volunteer Note - There is a Move Request on the article talk page to change the title from Death of Nex Benedict to Suicide of Nex Benedict. The Move Request is the proper place to comment on the preferred title, which means that comments anywhere else are permitted but may not be taken into account. So please make any statements about the title at Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Requested_move_28_March_2024. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments about the article title here will be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Kathleen Kennedy (producer)
– 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 seems to be significant disagreement about including a section discussing controversy surrounding Kathleen Kennedy. A few users seem to be quite insistent on not even allowing the slightest mention of any potential controversial opinion/decisions made by her. I personally believe being unable to even mention a serious controversy surrounding a public figure is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.
I read through the article on kathleen kennedy and noticed it was missing a few relevant links, especially a link to the generic star wars wikipedia page. I added a "see also" section to include this link. After reviewing the issues within the talk page, I noticed previous attempts to resolve this controversy issue resulted in any mention of issues surrounding this public figure kennedy resulted in immediate removal by another editor. I thought that perhaps the issue was defamatory characterizations; so i thought a simple link to the South park Episode without any editorialization would work for everyone, those who wish to mention a serious controversy concerning a public figure to light and those who do not want to risk defamation. I was surprised that this neutral approach resulted in a complete reversion of all of my edits by user Nemov, especially because there is no consensus in the talk page about removing a link to "see also" section about "star wars".
I would like to resolve this issue in a rational way. I personally believe that to maintain NPOV, the controversy surrounding Kennedy must, at the very least, be mentioned. I thought a "see also" section would be the perfect way to avoid any issues. But I submit it to you and will abide by your decision.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kathleen_Kennedy_(producer)
There has been an extensive discussion that predates me
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please make a decision about the best ways (if any) to discuss any reasonable (not conspiracy theories) controversy surrounding Kathleen Kennedy, a controversial public figure. I would also like to suggest that user Nemov be instructed that "surgical"/specific edits or integration of the work of others is far superior than broad reversions someone else's entire edit, but I leave that to you. Thanks.
Summary of dispute by Nemov
Editor added some "see also" links which I do not feel are important enough to the biography to justify inclusion. Editor is changing content back to how they think it should be, after I reverted and pointed them to a discussion in TALK. The details of the that discussion are pretty self evident. No idea why it was brought here. Nemov (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Kathleen Kennedy (producer) discussion
- Volunteer Note - While disputes about biographies of living persons can be discussed at DRN, the biographies of living persons noticeboard is usually a better forum for such discussions. If a case is opened at BLPN, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Jinn
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for now. There are two problems with this filing. First, the main other editor has not been notified on their user talk page. Second, the editor who provided the third opinion has neither been listed nor notified. Resume discussion on the article talk page. A new request can be filed here at any time if all editors are listed and notified. (Do not misgender any editors, and use the singular "they" or the editor's name if gender is unknown or gendered pronouns are not applicable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Jinn
– New discussion.- The requested information is already part of the article and well-cited: "Belief in jinn is not included among the six articles of Islamic faith, as belief in angels is. Nontheless, many Muslim scholars, including the Hanbalī scholar ibn Taymiyya and the Ẓāhirī scholar ibn Hazm, believe they are essential to the Islamic faith, since they are mentioned in the Quran." (Nünlist, Tobias (2015). Dämonenglaube im Islam [Demonic Belief in Islam] (in German). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.) I do not see why a more precise statement should be replaced by a more vague (some scholars) statement. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
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
I've made two attempts to include mention of belief in jinn being considered a necessary part of belief in Islam according to some scholars. Both were completely reverted by VenusFeuerFalle, one of several deletions he has made of edit I've made to Islamic articles in the past month or so.
Specifically the dispute is over
1) whether this statement should be allowed in the lede
- Many Muslim scholars, believe that belief in Jinn is essential to the Islamic faith, since jinn are mentioned in the Quran.[1](p33)
2) whether revivalist preacher Abul A'la Maududi should be included among two other scholars listed who support this position (i.e. belief in Jinn is a necessary part of Islam). (The point here being that Maududi has/had a huge following and readership);
3) and whether as evidence of the significance of this belief, a brief description of the troubles of Nasr Abu Zayd "who was threated with death for apostasy" in the 1990s "(in part) because he didn't believe in jinn", should be included in the article. (The significance here is that belief in the apostasy of Nasr Abu Zayd in his country (Egypt) was so widespread that even one of the police officers guarding his house referred to him as a "kafir" when asked about him).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
- Jinn talk page
- here, answered by User:StereoFolic on Jinn talk page
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Dispute_over_content_on_belief_in_Jinn_in_Islam Dispute over content on belief in Jinn in Islam
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Make some sort of determination or recommendation as to whether my deleted edits are good for the article, or if not why not, i.e.what wikipedia rules they do not follow.