Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:DRN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 Button rediriger.png 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.
  • 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 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
Cochin Jews Closed YaLindaHadad (t) 4 days, 9 hours Robert McClenon (t) 18 hours Robert McClenon (t) 18 hours
FBI files on Michael Jackson In Progress ThunderPeel2001 (t) 2 days, 23 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 hours
Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS In Progress Slugger O'Toole (t) 10 hours Nightenbelle (t) 2 hours Slugger O'Toole (t) 20 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 DRN clerk bot (talk) at 00:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Current disputes[edit]

Cochin Jews[edit]

Symbol comment vote.svg – General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by YaLindaHadad on 14:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC).

FBI files on Michael Jackson[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by ThunderPeel2001 on 00:44, 11 July 2020 (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

This is a complicated issue, with more facets than can be covered in this summary. This is about the FBI files on Michael Jackson that were released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2009.

It's important to understand the context of these files: The FBI did not conduct its own investigation, they only assisted law enforcement agencies with theirs (in 1993-4 and again in 2004-5). As the FBI themselves put it: "Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation ... The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases." (

There are no conclusions in these FBI files, they are a 300+ page collection primarily consisting of newspaper clippings or technical analysis of evidence, all aimed to assist law enforcement agencies (as anyone can see at the above link). However the FBI files on Michael Jackson article selectively addresses and responds to the newspaper clippings within the file, or otherwise goes out of its way to refuse claims made accusers.

The FBI merely catalogues these claims, and so there is no need to refute them or add another voice.

The issue is whether or not the allegations within the newspaper clippings should be addressed and refuted within this article. It has been voiced that there is a danger of readers seeing the mention of allegations and believing them, and so information "critical" of Jackson's accusers needs to be added. (Note: Such allegations are already covered in detail elsewhere, eg. Michael Jackson, Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, etc.)

I would also draw an analogy to a similar article: FBI files on Elvis Presley. This article also features allegations ("a drug addict and a sexual pervert") and his fans ("Presley Fan Clubs that degenerate into sex orgies") but there hasn't been an attempt to refute these.

I believe this article should be impartial to the contents of the files, in the same way the Elvis article is, rather than try to push one particular point of view, and limit commentary to the public reaction of the File's release.

Because of the complexity of this issue, I have laid out the problems in detail on the Talk page, specifically to aid with this dispute resolution:

Thank you.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help add more clarity and opinion on what the focus of this article should be.

Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of fans who believe that Jackson is wholly innocent, and so are spending lots of time and energy pushing a "he's innocent" narrative wherever they can. I'm not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but it's important this article does not become a home for such a non-neutral narrative.

Summary of dispute by BD2412[edit]

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

I doubt that this controversy can be considered ripe for dispute resolution, but I will basically repeat here what I have already said in the discussion.

It is an independently reported fact that the FBI has a set of files relating to Michael Jackson, which were themselves a topic of public interest at some point. There is, therefore, a basis for these to be considered to be independently notable, and (as noted) at least one precedent with the comparable FBI files on Elvis Presley. These files, while to some extent overlapping with content covered in other articles, also reflect investigation of a threat against Jackson apparently unrelated to any other allegations.

The FBI, of course, does not conduct investigations for their own entertainment, but to determine whether a crime has been committed that can be charged. The resolution of an FBI investigation is a binary determination of whether to file charges or not. It is also important to remember that the FBI does not investigate any matter unless either they are asked to help by a local law enforcement agency, or the matter involves a violation of federal law (which includes a fairly wide variety of crimes involving crossing state lines). The FBI has the power to bring federal charges, independently of any state action, where evidence of a federal crime is found. In this case, however, we have a reliable source, CBC News, which examines FBI investigation of the subject and specifically states that the FBI "made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges". Having seen no source suggesting otherwise, this is what should be reflected in the article. Editor theories that the work of the FBI in some way did, in fact, lead to charges, would require a source to that effect contravening the CBC News report. BD2412 T 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Israell[edit]

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

First, Factlibrary1, castorbailey and Phil Bridger, all also involved in the discussion, were still not notified.

Second, the FBI has indeed investigated Michael Jackson for 10 years. CBC News, a reliable source accepted under Wikipedia standards, did publish an article entitled FBI investigated Michael Jackson for 10 years.[1] This article alone is sufficient verification.

Third, ThunderPeel2001/WikiMane11 wrote: "Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of fans who believe that Jackson is wholly innocent, and so are spending lots of time and energy pushing a "he's innocent" narrative wherever they can. I'm not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but it's important this article does not become a home for such a non-neutral narrative." After analysis, I have found none of that non-neutral narrative in the article. I do agree with BD2412 who wrote on the article's Talk page ("Removal of Unbalanced tag" section) that the files cover what they cover, and conclude what they conclude. Whether Jackson appears "innocent" or "guilty" is totally irrelevant.

Fourth, likewise, Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of individuals and groups who believe that Jackson was/is wholly guilty of grooming and child sex abuse (molestation and rape). Likewise, I am not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but I have noticed a certain pattern ever since the release of 'Leaving Neverland' last year. A number of editors would come and start making radical changes to articles, removing big parts, removing anything as they saw fit, adding templates (puffery, unbalance, etc.), nominating articles for deletion, etc., oftentimes with no prior discussion on the Talk page or before any consensus was reached. Other editors and I had to revert their edits, politely ask them to discuss changes on the Talk page, but they'd fight us even harder, repeatedly making the same edits and accusing us of being unruly. As a matter of fact, such disruption caused several of them to be blocked or even topic-banned. In my observation, such editors tend to remove as many things as possible that seems to point to Jackson's innocence, his philanthropy and some of his achievements.

They'd also, in some cases, add WP:OR and POV such as this: "Skin bleaching creams have been used by other black celebrities to lighten their skin tone. Skin bleaching products have also been known to be the cause of vitiligo and so onset of the disease could have been caused by obsessive skin bleaching. Vitiligo did not cause him to surgically remove his black features." [1] This was so blatant, I alerted other editors and admins, and they all agreed it was very POV pushing and I was right to revert it. [2] This is the cause of some of the ping-pong edits/edit-warring on Michael Jackson articles, and I agree such disruption must come to an end.

And what about this? [3] In this edit, the editor added an allegation that had nothing to do with the Chandler case.

And what about this? [4] The editor wrote in their edit summary: "He wasn't allegedly dead when he molested these kids, that'd be creepy." One, the text did not say Jackson was allegedly dead. Two, the editor made the bold accusation Jackson "molested these kids" even though Jackson was not ever found guilty of such misconduct in any court of law.

Also, a portion of those who believe Jackson guilty, in my observation, do spend a great deal of time and energy (outside of Wikipedia) pushing that narrative. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do so here, but I could cite a string of sources demonstrating so. Note: My fourth point is a direct response to WikiMane11's argument that Jackson fans are likely to push POV on Wikipedia.

And lastly, I honestly believe the article to be fine as it is, and I do not support the changes made by WikiMane11. In one of their edits, they removed 5 paragraphs with no prior discussion and with no consensus at all! Who does that? As for the "Unbalanced" tag, I only later noticed it had been discussed on the Talk page, but no consensus was reached, yet they added it back two more times. They also kept removing sourced parts of the article (leading to different parts of the FBI website) just because they felt that information is making a case for Jackson's innocence. [5] I am in favour of enriching, improving the article the way admin BD2412 has been doing, but I do not support such drastic and undue removals and rewrite. Israell (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TruthGuardians[edit]

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

I hardly consider this issue a reason to have even made it this far to a dispute resolution. Let us take this 1 talk page discussion at a time: First off there’s a claim that the article is not just about the FBI files. It is. I authored this article from beginning to end. It has been edited and improved here and there by other editors and admins. I can tell you that while it is indeed about the FBI Files, the FBI files are partially about the allegation. The sources used to discuss these files also discussed the various parts of the files in a similar fashion. No one here has agreed that there is a bias because it doesn't exist. If Jackson appears to be innocent after reading this article, that's probably because the FBI did not find any incriminating evidence to suggest that Jackson was guilty of any criminal activity. I just presented the information in the article from approved sources.

Then there was a brief discussion as to wether or not this should be a separate article. Yes, it absolutely should. The “Media Reaction” section of the article makes it abundantly clear. There are far less notable topics on Wikipedia with its own article.

Finally, there is a talk page discussion about a balance tag that kinda morphed into a discussion about having to explain that the FBI did in fact investigate Mr. Jackson. They investigated death threats into him, they investigated hard drives, they investigated extortion attempts, and they investigated allegations among other things. Hence their name the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Either way, that has nothing to do with this article being unbalanced. Only one editor sees it as such and decided to start a Dispute resolution because no one else agreed.

In conclusion, the suggested edits are a single person’s POV. Over 3,000 were removed because of the POV of one editor. The editor has yet to provide any sources countering the sourced content of the article. The burden of proof is not with the content of the article, but the counter argument from a single editor. The content has since been restored and even improved upon by an admin and I think it should be left as is, or added to. Nothing should be taken away. Thanks for your time and my apologies that a dispute has made it this far. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Factlibrary1[edit]

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

I just don’t believe that the POV of one editor is a proper reason for a dispute resolution. This article does a fantastic job at remaining balance and avoiding potential POV issues. It sticks to the sources, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As other editors have stated, there are zero sources contradicting the content of this article. If you observe the edit history, you’ll see that there have been many editors to come along and make contributions to this article. Admins too. Not one has had similar complaints about any of its content. The article has been viewed thousands of times since its creation, and still no complaints. The article should remain as is, and added to if needed over time. I would very much recommend removing no content. There is quite frankly no need. Factlibrary1 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by castorbailey[edit]

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

The article does not state that there was an ungoing FBI investigation for 10 years. But they did investigate various matters related to Jackson over about 10 years.

There are clear conclusions in the files, regarding nothing illegal being found on the hard drives (that's what nothing on each page means), and not finding any investigation into Jackson allegedly molesting two Mexican boys. Furthermore, the purpose of all those FBI investigations was to determine whether they can find evidence of crimes. If charges did not arise from anything mentioned in those files or the prosecutors who were assisted by the FBI used nothing in those files that itself proves the FBIs conclusion was none of those investigation yielded evidence that Jackson was a molester. This is self evident and the FBI doesn't have to explicitly state that in thos files for it to be true. As the CBC article cites as a source states "Over the next 10 years, they made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges."

The article does not explore the allegations in general. Only the parts of the allegations which are the subject of the FBI files. The lack of details regarding the opinion of a person stating "I would judge that he [Elvis] may possibly be a drug addict and a sexual pervert" in the Elvis article is not comparable to lack of details about the Terry George articles investigated by the FBI. Those were specific allegations made by a specific person which were investigated by the FBI and it make sense to cite sources regarding what came out, or rather did not, of it. A reliable source is given which proves George indeed cheefully recalled his 1979 interview with Jackson. and the conversation in the cited documentary is about the very same tabloid clippings which were investigated by the FBI. They are not unconnected. Information about Terry George's behavior and statememts is relevant as to why the FBI investigation into this particular matter did not yield information which the prosecutors could use to corroborate their charges against Jackson.

Regarding the tape investigated for child pornography the investigation was closed in 1997 without any charge which itself proves it was not child porn. To believe otherwise you have to believe that the FBI decided to investigate a tape and its origin, concluded that it's child porn but decided to close the case without any charge. The date of that investigation also shows that the FBI did investigate matters related to Jackson but not directly connected to the 1993-1994 and 2003-2005 cases.

Summary of dispute by Phil Bridger[edit]

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

FBI files on Michael Jackson discussion[edit]

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
  • Volunteer Note - There are three issues that need to be addressed before moderated discussion can be conducted here. First, the filing party has not notified the other editors. The filing party needs to notify them, and they need to agree to moderated discussion. Second, there is a discussion pending at WP:ANI. This noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also pending in any other forum, including a conduct dispute at WP:ANI. If the parties agree to resolve this as a content dispute and agree to close the WP:ANI case, we can resolve the content dispute here. Third, some of the editors have been partially blocked from editing the subject article. That does not prevent mediation, because the editors will normally be told by the moderator not to edit the article anyway. The editors who were edit-warring need to agree that they will be civil and leave the article alone while discussion is in progress. So, the filing party needs to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Hi, thanks for making these points. I have added notice to everyone Talk page. Personally I had considered the WP:ANI dispute to be concluded. And all temporary bans are about to, or possibly will have, expired. I am obviously hopeful that the other editors agree to this mediation. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Just noting Israell's comment that Factlibrary1, castorbailey and Phil Bridger have not been notified. This is because I didn't really consider them to be deeply involved (two of them left one comment, and one of them left two comments). I suspect that since they have spent barely any time on this issue that they wouldn't appreciate getting involved in it to this level, however they have now been notified. Additional note: There is a comment on the Talk page alerting all readers to this dispute. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - Notifying User:CaptainEek, who imposed the partial blocks. Any comments are welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Volunteer Note - I understand that there are other editors, not listed, who have taken part briefly in the discussion. At this point I will open moderated discussion if three conditions are met. First, the WP:ANI dispute has to be closed by an administrator. Second, at least three editors have to agree that that is what they want. If three or more editors take part, a proposed consensus can be arrived at, and an RFC can be used to establish that as consensus. Third, the editors agree that the only question is what the article will say, reflecting what reliable third parties have said about the files, and not Jackson's guilt or innocence, or the guilt or innocence of any editors, or anything else. This is a content forum. Do the editors want moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Hi Robert, I wholeheartedly agree that the article should be limited to reflecting reliable sources (ie. not letters from Jackson's lawyers, or op-ed pieces) about the files. However, the issue is further complicated when even legitimate reporting sometimes makes commentary that is factually incorrect. A good example is the linked CBC report that states, "Over the next 10 years, [the FBI] made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges". When actually the FBI state very clearly that they only provided "assistance" to California law enforcement agencies in their two separate investigations (1993 and 2005) of child molestation. And that assistance was only "during the cases". And those cases did lead to charges filed against Jackson. It's possible that an expert is required here to explain these details.
Here's former FBI agent, Brad Garrett, trying to clarify this very thing to ABC News on December 23, 2009:

When you look at the files that have become available, they are files where the FBI has been asked by the police to help them with certain aspects of the case. They're really not operational FBI cases. For example, coming to the FBI because they have a forensic capability with computers to mirror-image hard-drives so they can look at evidence inside a computer. Or asking for investigative strategies, or interview strategies, that they may ask to profile at Quantico. So these are really support functions where the FBI was involved in the case.

— ABC News - Good Morning America, December 23, 2009 7:35am EST,
So I feel an added level of scrutiny needs to be added to ensure that things are presented fairly and accurately. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Caution to User:TruthGuardians - You write that: "In conclusion, the suggested edits I believe are border line vandalism." This is a content forum. Report vandalism at the vandalism noticeboard. If you are using the term 'vandalism' to emphasize how strongly you disagree with the edits, read What Is Not Vandalism. Editing is only vandalism if its intent is to degrade the encyclopedia. POV edits are not vandalism. It is very difficult to discuss a content dispute or to discuss POV editing if the claim of vandalism is used loosely. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. I will change language. Changed language. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator[edit]

I am willing to try to mediate this dispute. Please read the standard ground rules. I will repeat what I said above. We are only discussing article content about the article on the FBI files on Michael Jackson. We are not discussing Michael Jackson, or the allegations against Michael Jackson, or the truth or untruth of the allegations. The article should only reflect what reliable sources have said about the FBI files. If three or more editors make statements below saying that they wish to engage in moderated discussion, we will have moderated discussion, and can clarify its scope. Be civil and concise. We are not talking about each other, and we are not talking about Michael Jackson, except to the extent that the FBI investigated him or assisted in his investigation. If we do not have agreement for moderated discussion, I will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors[edit]


Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS[edit]

Pictogram voting wait blue.svg – Discussion in progress.
Filed by Slugger O'Toole on 13:09, 13 July 2020 (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

For seven years, a section about medical care was above a section about condoms. In May, AlmostFrancis switched their order. I objected and reverted. AlmostFrancis then reverted back so I opened an RfC but it generated little discussion. I believe there is WP:NOCONSENSUS and the order should revert back to the last stable version, but AlmostFrancis believes there is a consensus for his version. Discussion on talk does not seem to be making any progress.

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

  • Note: The (relisted) RfC has run for seven weeks but only garnered a single outside comment.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would be useful to have outside voices help determine what to do both in the short term (i.e. is there a consensus or not?) and the long term (i.e. help us arrive at a solid consensus if there isn't one already).

Summary of dispute by AlmostFrancis[edit]

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

Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS discussion[edit]

Hi, my name is Nightenbelle and I would be happy to mediate this dispute. I have read the ENTIRE talk page on the article, and I have a few requests before we begin discussion. Please also invite the other three editors who are actively involved in current edits on that page- to be clear- that would be Contraldo, WhatamIdoing, and Roscelese. I'm not sure why Contraldo and WhatamIdoing were not invited in the first place since they were actively involved in that discussion. I am asking you invite Roscelese because they have had strong opinions on other edits and if they would like to be included here I think it would be a courtesy. My second request is to keep comments brief, professional and to the point. Make sure you answer all questions clearly and concisely.

The first thing to do is be sure enough editors are willing to participate- So if you are willing to participate would you please respond here indicating that and give me a brief (less tan 2000 character) summary of what the problem is and what you would like to see happen. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nightenbelle, Done, done, and done. The only reason I didn't involve Contaldo originally is that he only made a single comment, hasn't been actively lately, and wasn't a party to the present dispute about NOCON. Likewise, WhatamIdoing only made a single comment to a RFC and hasn't seemed interested in participating further after a couple of pings. Roscelese didn't participate at all. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that the order of the sections is less important than the other problems on the page. This is a subject that scholars have actually written whole books on, but we mostly seem to pick points that we want to make, and then find a source that will support the point we'd already decided upon. As a result, what the article has said about condoms has not always been much more coherent than "they said condoms were bad because condoms prevent men from getting pregnant". Consider, e.g., the simple sentence, worked on by several editors during the last decade, that currently says The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to contraception includes a prohibition on condoms. There are three sources after that sentence. The first (a dead link to a website created by a Catholic man with no apparent credentials) names condoms as an example of contraception. The second is an official organizational website and does not mention condoms. The third is a PDF that I didn't bother downloading, but I'm guessing that it doesn't actually say that condoms are "prohibited", either. They probably have no problem with condoms being used as water balloons. It's just the contraceptive use that is presumably covered, and that means that there should be no official opposition to MSM using condoms. But we all know that they said condoms were bad, so we're writing the article to make their opposition bigger than it is. It might be better to scrap everything, get a few good books, and start over. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Slugger O'Toole I understand why you didn't include them originally, and its no problem, but after reading the entire talk page, I'd rather have everyone invited to participate and decide not to rather than not invite them and have them upset over that. WhatamIdoing I can tell by reading the talk page there is a severe need for mediation on several issues, and I would encourage all involved to seek outside assistance more often with this article, but it is easier to tackle one issue at a time, and this issue is on the order of paragraphs, so we will stick to that as close as possible, and then if more issues need to be worked on, we can cross those bridges after this one. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Personally, I think it would be more pointful to decide whether the article should contain that section at all, before deciding where to put it. The organization at the moment is sort of "political talking points" in no particular order ("You all kill people by hating on condoms!" "Yeah, well, we built more hospitals than you, so we save lives, too." "You hypocrites have gay priests!" "And we took care of them while they were dying, while you were still kicking innocent kids out of your schools"), with most sub-topics organized chronologically. It might make more sense to organize everything by chronology (in which case, that section gets split), or by theme (e.g., LGBT separated from heterosexual couples), or by geography (North America separated from Africa).
But if you prefer to organize something that needs to be re-written and possibly split, then that's fine. A model discussion might be helpful to the editors involved (i.e., a small group of editors that does not include me). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Oddly enough the prohibition against condoms included gay men and prostitutes well into the the AIDS epedemic diff diff. I think there was a bit of give for a while in 2010 for gay men, but I think that was walked back in short order.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, As I said in my initial statement, I first would like to come to a short term resolution on what order they should be in if for no other reason than to clarify my understanding of WP:NOCONSENSUS. If I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. After that, I would be more than glad to discuss a broader reorganization of the entire article. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)