Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 217
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
| Archive 210 | ← | Archive 215 | Archive 216 | Archive 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 |
Union Theological College
– 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
- Ardenssedvirens (talk · contribs)
- Notabigot (talk · contribs)
- Curious critters (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The college article has a section on controversies. Two items are listed which do not seem to be justified.
One is about the use of college premises by the Orange Order. It is not normal practice to list organisation which make use of university of college premises. No other external groups are mentioned in the article. And no links to evidence of their use being controversial have been provided. This has been discussed in Talk but users insist on including this information.
A current employee who faced an employment tribunal in his previous job and was cleared of all charges is listed. No other employees are mentioned. The incident predates his employment at the college. There is no evidence of his employment being controversial. No other employees are listed. There is no mention of him or the case in the article for his former employer (Belfast Bible College). This has been discussed on Talk but users insist on inserting the material.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Union_Theological_College#The_Orange_Order
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Provide a neutral opinion on whether the disputed matters are sufficiently notable and relevant to be included in the article.
Summary of dispute by Notabigot
Regarding the relevance of the use of college premises by the Orange Order, I believe that I had already addressed the query by Ardenssedvirens satisfactorily in the talk page for the article at 09:45 UTC on 19 March 2022. Ardenssedvirens seemed instead to be looking for evidence of various groups concurrently making an extraordinary outcry over specific events of which they were seemingly unaware at the time. I am not persuaded that this is a necessary criterion for something being a controversy. According to Benford's law of controversy, the less factual information that is available on a topic, the more controversy can arise around that topic. Conversely, the more facts that are available, the less controversy that may accordingly arise. It is notable in this regard that the Orange Order has been characterised by an academic authority as "a society with secrets", as cited in the article. Therefore the apparent absence to date of overt evidence that staff, students, faculty, the church, or the media were made aware of Orange Order activities in the college at the time when they originally took place could now be a pertinent factor in contributing towards the current controversy. Meanwhile, the very fact that Ardenssedvirens now feels that arbitration is necessary seems to only further confirm that there is a real controversy at hand.
Regarding the known facts and the evidence that is recognisably available, is there evidence that the Orange Order is controversial? Plenty, as amply illustrated by far fuller content in the separate Wikipedia article on that subject. Is there evidence that the college was repeatedly used by the Orange Order? Yes, multiple independent and reliable sources (as cited in the article on the college), whilst the credibility of these sources as relevant to the text does not seem to have been disputed so far. Is there evidence that either the Presbyterian Church in Ireland or Union Theological College sought to publicise use of the college by the Orange Order in the same way that a separate but comparable "On These Steps" commemorative event was publicised? Not that I am aware of, and I am sure most reasonably minded people would agree that reluctance to court controversy does not make the associated issues any less controversial. This may be especially pertinent to the question of controversy if the apparent absence of immediate outcry might have reflected any desire on the part of those responsible for the college to contemporaneously cover over any potentially questionable activities on the premises, and insofar as the Orange Order has been characterised as "a society with secrets". The seemingly hastily expressed desire to entirely delete the section referring to repeated use of the college by the Orange Order (Ardenssedvirens, talk: 23:09 UTC, 18 March 2022 and 07:52 UTC, 19 March 2022) may arguably reflect similar motivations.
In light of Ardenssedvirens also professing a dislike of the Orange Order (talk: 09:30 UTC, 19 March 2022) but nevertheless seeming to see nothing controversial in repeated use of the college by this group, I sought some clarity by then enquiring whether he or she thought confirmed use of the college by the Orange Order was entirely appropriate. This seemed to me to be a reasonable question, especially if an organisation independently described as supremacist was invited into a building where students resided, and all the more pertinent insofar as the college claims to welcome students of all backgrounds. If the college directly profited from such use of the building by a controversial organisation, as Ardenssedvirens appears to presume by default (e.g. talk: 09:12 UTC, 16 March 2022) but without any direct supporting evidence so far, then I think this makes such use of the premises even more controversial rather than less. My question regarding the propriety of repeated use of the college by a group described as supremacist whilst students of all backgrounds may have still been in residence notably remains unanswered as far as I am aware.
Meanwhile, the greatest relevance of the Orange Order to the college is probably the apparent confluence between criteria for membership of the former and subscription to particular viewpoints required of professors at the latter. Although Ardenssedvirens further opined that I had not shown that the Orange Order had been promoted in any way by the college (talk: 10:04 UTC, 19 March 2022), Sola Reformanda (talk: 16:50 UTC, 19 March 2022) then pointed out how the college was effectively helping to promote the Orange Order, and may also have been simultaneously profiting from the Orange Order. I find it hard to see how this is irrelevant.
Summary of dispute by Curious Critters
Ardenssedvirens has opined how thinking that something isn’t relevant and shouldn’t be included is not evidence that it is worth including, describing this as illogical (talk, 09:30 on 19 March 2022). As far as I can see, only Ardenssedvirens has opined on the talk page concerned that the Orange Order isn’t relevant specifically. If it is illogical to see an apparently solitary opinion that such content shouldn’t be included as evidence that such content is worth including, then conversely it would seem unreasonable to see this seemingly solitary opinion as both evidence that such content is not worth including and to maintain that there is no controversy. Strikingly, it was only after I mentioned the alternative (but purely theoretical) possibility of evidence that the Ku Klux Klan might have been using the college that Ardenssedvirens seemed to express with greater urgency a desire to entirely delete the section pertaining to the Orange Order (talk, 23:09 on 18 March 2022).
As for whether it is controversial that a current employee faced an employment tribunal in his previous job and accordingly received media coverage, I would highlight the observations by Alias the Jester (talk, 17:05 on 19 March 2022) regarding who put the description of the appointment and employment history of the operations manager into the Controversy section anyway at 17:18 on 16 March 2022. The question of a double standard has accordingly been raised in this regard. Meanwhile, it is also factually incorrect to state that no other employees have been mentioned in the Controversy section as there has been far more discussion in this section of the dismissal of a former professor, whom Ardenssedvirens has identified as also having been involved in an employment tribunal (talk, 20:35 on 18 March 2022). Is there another double standard in this regard?
Union Theological College discussion
- Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Also, the username of one of the other editors was incorrect, but has been corrected. The other editors should be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I did notify the other editors. Why have you said I didn’t? Ardenssedvirens (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Volunteer Note - Notification of any noticeboard posting must be done with an entry on the user talk page of the editor being notified. Notice on some other page is not sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry, I overlooked that detail. I’ll leave a note on their talk page. Thank you for the explanation Ardenssedvirens (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Where is the note on my talk page? Curious critters (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Now you mention it, I do not seem to have a note to this effect specifically on my own talk page either. Notabigot (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn’t on Wikipedia for a while and by the time I was on I saw that both of you had already commented here. I’m sorry for my initial error, but it seemed rather redundant to notify you once you were already aware and posting here. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Where is the note on my talk page? Curious critters (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, sorry, I overlooked that detail. I’ll leave a note on their talk page. Thank you for the explanation Ardenssedvirens (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Union Theological College)
User: Ardenssedvirens, User:Notabigot, User:Curious critters - Do you want moderated discussion of a content dispute? If so, please read the rules and reply below to indicate that you are ready for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Robert McClenon, yes, I’d be happy to have moderated discussion. I’ve stepped back from discussing the article on its talk page or editing it while this process is ongoing. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me too. Although I had made a few further edits to other parts of the article in the meantime, I have not altered the relevant sections that appear to be under dispute pursuant to the request for arbitration.
- Notabigot (talk) 22:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am content to participate as proposed as long as other participants are likewise inclined.
- Curious critters (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
First statement by Moderator (Union Theological College)
Okay. Please read the ground rules again. If you have questions about the rules, ask them now. Be civil and concise. Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. Overly long statements may make the poster feel better without conveying information to the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided. I do not have any knowledge about the topic, and I expect the editors to provide me with the knowledge that I need to moderate the dispute.
Now: Each editor is requested to make a statement of one or two paragraphs, not more than that, summarizing the dispute by stating either what you want to change in the article, or what you want to keep the same that another editor wants to change. Be Specific at DRN. State briefly what the content issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
First statements by Editors (Union Theological College)
It seems to me that it might be helpful, at least in the first instance, to compare various authoritative definitions of the word controversy. The dispute as initially presented by Ardenssedvirens (talk · contribs) seems to hinge upon this. What do others think of this proposal? Notabigot (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I am happy to go along with that but I am not sure whether it might necessarily be the underlying issue. Ardenssedvirens has requested a neutral opinion on whether the disputed matters are sufficiently notable and relevant to be included in the article. It would therefore seem important to firstly demonstrate that the Orange Order is not notable, despite publicly parading in brightly coloured sashes and carrying massive banners whilst accompanied by a booming band. Then it would be equally important to demonstrate the contemporary irrelevance of the Orange Order in light of such activity. Lastly, it would be of interest to better understand why Ardenssedvirens initially introduced the appointment and employment history of the operations manager into the Controversy section before then proposing deletion of all such content, and why that has now been linked here to dispute about the Orange Order. Consequently, is the operations manager either irrelevant to the college or relevant to use of the college by the Orange Order?
- Curious critters (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
The Union Theological College article mentions the use of the premises by an external body, the Orange Order, but nothing is cited to show that this is notable enough to warrant inclusion on the page, especially when the use of premises by other external organisations isn't listed. Some of the editing history suggests that some users included it because they see personally the Orange Order as controversial, but no evidence has been supplied to show that the use of the premises by the Orange Order was considered controversial by society, therefore it isn't notable and should be removed.
Similarly a non-academic member of staff is mentioned in the context of an employment tribunal convened during his previous employment, where he was cleared of wrongdoing. That doesn't seem relevant to the college article. It seemed to have been included as a controversy, so I moved it to the controversy section a while ago, but I don't think it is notable enough to be mentioned, especially when no other non-academic staff are mentioned. Both items have been included as matters of controversy, but neither have actually attracted controversy nor are they notable. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Union Theological College)
The purpose of this dispute resolution is to improve the article. So I am asking what exactly each editor wants to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that someone else wants to change. We will identify what content in the article is the subject of the content dispute before we discuss how to address the content dispute. Discussing the various meanings of "controversy", for instance, may be useful after we identify what paragraphs and sentences in the article are the subject of the content dispute.
Please state, in one paragraph, what you think the content issue is. You may state, in one other paragraph, what any other issues or questions are. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Statement 2A by moderator (UTC)
If no specific issue with the article content is stated within 24 hours, or anyone makes any other specific request, I will close the case as having fizzled out. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry @Robert McClenon, I didn’t realise further statements from you would appear above the ‘Back-and-forth discussion’ section so I was looking below there for updates. Apologies for my error. I’ll look in the right place in future! I’ve now made my second statement. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Ardenssedvirens. It would be appreciated if you could also please respond to a few ensuing queries in the Back-and-forth discussion below. Notabigot (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation to participate in back and forth discussion,@Notabigot, but that is what we were doing on the article talk page without a positive outcome. I am following the directions of the moderator who has recently said ‘We will identify what content in the article is the subject of the content dispute before we discuss how to address the content dispute’ and given clear instructions about what to post. If instructions from the moderator change then I’ll participate in discussion accordingly. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- OK Ardenssedvirens, I look forward to hearing further accordingly. Notabigot (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the invitation to participate in back and forth discussion,@Notabigot, but that is what we were doing on the article talk page without a positive outcome. I am following the directions of the moderator who has recently said ‘We will identify what content in the article is the subject of the content dispute before we discuss how to address the content dispute’ and given clear instructions about what to post. If instructions from the moderator change then I’ll participate in discussion accordingly. Ardenssedvirens (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Ardenssedvirens. It would be appreciated if you could also please respond to a few ensuing queries in the Back-and-forth discussion below. Notabigot (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Union Theological College)
Thanks, Robert McClenon. I am broadly content with the article as it currently stands and I do not yet see a consistent reason for wholesale deletion of any sections. There seem to be varying opinions being expressed by one individual regarding whether something is controversial but not controversial enough, or having public coverage but not enough media coverage, or being both part of normal practice and also without precedent. I would have been content to conclude that edits latterly made independently by SovalValtos should have sidestepped any dispute over what is necessarily a controversy but it seems that one particular editor wants to keep this open as a dispute whilst simultaneously asserting lack of notable controversy. Notabigot (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am reasonably content with the article as edited by other editors in the meantime, unless there happen to be any other new developments worthy of adding. I gather from the comment left latterly by Ardenssedvirens on my talk page that life has got rather busy in the past two weeks.
- If any editor who originally requested content dispute resolution does not then have sufficient time to commit to this process insofar as this apparently requires checking on the case regularly in order to answer questions within 48 hours, then what is the fate of the requested content dispute?
- Curious critters (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I will address the article as it currently is. My concern is about two subsections of the History section: ‘ Hire of Alan McCormick’ and ‘ Orange Order use of premises’. No other administrative staff other than Alan McCormick are mentioned and nothing about him seems to be worth mentioning in a history of the college so I think that whole subsection should be deleted. The Orange Order is unaffiliated with the college and has merely used their premises on occasion — a common practice among universities. I don’t see a justification for singling them out for mention and the current material that is there reads like a blog written by someone who dislikes the Orange Order rather than an impartial description of the history of the college. I think that subsection should also be removed as irrelevant.
- Ardenssedvirens (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Back-and-forth discussion (Union Theological College)
In the meantime, I see that SovalValtos has now incorporated the previous 'Controversy' section into the History section. There do not appear to have been any objections to this so far. If the initial dispute related primarily to definition of what might be reasonably considered as controversial, does this therefore resolve the dispute? If not, what are the outstanding issues, @Ardenssedvirens and @Curious critters?
Notabigot (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Robert_McClenon, I don't see precedence for the use of premises by outside bodies or the hiring of non-academic staff being mentioned in the history of the college so I don't see why the Orange Order would be included. If there was evidence that this was a notable and provoked public discussion or that the college itself considers it a notable part of its history, then I think it would belong. I don't see that at the moment. I don't intend to alter the article while we're having the discussion here. Even in the case of Alan McCormick the press articles don't relate to his employment at the college and him being cleared at the tribunal doesn't seem to have been mentioned when he was hired, so it doesn't seem relevant. It's not even mentioned on the article for his employer at the time of the tribunal, Belfast Bible College, so I'm not sure why it would be mentioned in a later employer. So I disagree with Notabigot. (Apologies for multiple edits to this — I haven’t really used the non-visual editor before, so I made a few mistakes.) Ardenssedvirens (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to pick up on some points that Ardenssedvirens has made regarding the mention of the operations manager in the article. It is true that no other non-academic staff are mentioned in the article apart from the operations manager, though this would seem to be simply because no other non-academic staff have received comparable media coverage (whereas a former professor who was dismissed has received far more media coverage and was accordingly included in the previous Controversy section). Meanwhile, I would not necessarily rely on the Wikipedia entry for Belfast Bible College as a precedent for which staff should be mentioned, since the only staff currently listed therein are principals of the college. If the article on Union Theological College similarly listed only the principals of the college, then much of its history in relation to other faculty members would correspondingly need to be expunged. However, wherever notable faculty are mentioned in most other articles, this is not necessarily limited to principals of colleges, university presidents or chancellors. And who would wish to assert that faculty members are the only members of staff at a college who are capable of achieving notability? If a member of staff is sufficiently notable to be mentioned by name in a report for the college upon their appointment, and also sufficiently notable to have been mentioned by name in previous media reports, then surely this is relevant to an article on the college.
- Ardenssedvirens has also stated that the employment tribunal relating to the operations manager seemed to have been included as a controversy, though I am not aware of any editor explicitly regarding it as such other than Ardenssedvirens. If evidence can be presented that any other editors felt this should be included in the previous Controversy section, then I would be happy to stand corrected. Until then, I am baffled as to why reference to media reporting of an individual being engaged in an employment tribunal should have been considered both worthy of being moved to a Controversy section and yet also not notable enough to be mentioned at all. That makes no sense at all to me. I am also still curious as to why the employment history of the operations manager should ever have been raised in the same context as reference to use of the college by the Orange Order. Ardenssedvirens clearly must have felt that there was a connection between the two, so what is the relevant connection if only Ardenssedvirens had included both items as similar matters of controversy?
- Curious critters (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are a few considerations I would like to highlight here in response to the second statement by Ardenssedvirens.
- Firstly, regarding the hire of Alan McCormick, I see that Curious critters has raised a few questions about the rationale by Ardenssedvirens for apparently linking both this and the Orange Order in the previous Controversy section, for which suitable explanatory answers appear to remain outstanding. In the meantime, I just came across an article[1] referring to someone with the same name who previously received an award from the Orange Order in recognition of his key role in refurbishing an Orange Hall in the village of Drumbo. Might this be the same person? If so, is this part of the connection?
- Secondly, regarding the statement that it is a common practice among universities for the Orange Order to use their premises on occasion, is it therefore possible to provide a list of examples of any universities where the Orange Order has similarly met on campus to hold their own services instead of using a local Orange Hall?
- Thirdly, regarding the use of premises at Union Theological College by other external organisations, where is this information publicly available? Is it therefore possible to refer to a comprehensive list (or even a representative sample) of external organisations that have used the premises at Union Theological College over the past decade? If not, how about the last five years or so?
- Lastly, regarding the implied motivations of someone who dislikes the Orange Order, is it not the case that Ardenssedvirens clearly stated a personal dislike of the Orange Order on the talk page for the article on Union Theological College at 09:30 UTC on 19 March 2022? How then might the expressed desire to remove any reference to the Orange Order be accordingly considered as impartial?
- Notabigot (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Annual Orange awards held in Lisburn's Island Hall". www.northernirelandworld.com. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
Half-Life (series)
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as premature. The filing editor has not attempted to discuss their edits on the article talk page. DRN is not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page, but an option after discussion on the article talk page has been lengthy and inconclusive. (Edit-warring is also not a substitute for discussion on the article talk page.) Discuss at the article talk page. Report disruptive editing at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Slava Ukraini#Newspaper image
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | (Editors were able to solve on their own- good job!) Nightenbelle (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Nikol Pashinyan
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. There are at least two problems with this filing. First, although there was discussion at the article talk page, it was at least six weeks ago. There has been no recent discussion. Second, the filing party says that they are looking for a volunteer to review their revisions. DRN is for moderated discussion between editors after regular discussion has failed, not for changes that are made bypassing normal discussion. The filing editor should resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Marjorie Taylor_Greene
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. Some of the editors have made one post at the article talk page, and some have not made any statement there. There has not been a real attempt to discuss at the article talk page. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If the discussion is extensive and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Mitch Hedberg
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed for two reasons. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor. Second, and the filing editor is correct that there is a problem, this noticeboard is available when discussion has been inconclusive, and relies on editors voluntarily discussing here rather than somewhere else. The problem is that the other editor does not discuss; they only revert. The usual advice in this situation is given in the discussion failure essay. After following the advice in the discussion failure essay, the filing editor may make a request at WP:ANI. It is always better to use a content dispute remedy than to go to a conduct forum, but persistent reverting and failure to discuss is a conduct issue. So follow the advice in this essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Perth
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. This is at least described as a dispute over what version of the article should remain while a change is discussed. Such a dispute is a distraction from the more important task of resolving the content dispute itself. The time that might be used in resolving this short-term dispute might be almost as long as the time required to resolve the basic dispute, and might delay settlement of the basic dispute. Maybe the filing editor thinks that this noticeboard will provide a quick administrative ruling on the interim question, but that is not the way that DRN works. This dispute is being closed so that the editors can focus on resolving the underlying dispute. If discussion of the underlying dispute reaches an impasse, a request for its moderated discussion can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Atlantic Slave Trade
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. Discussion has not been lengthy and inconclusive. If there are remaining issues, they can be discussed at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Makhanda, South Africa
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as resolved. The filing editor took the advice to post an RFC that will resolve the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Ethnicities in Iran
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as pending in another forum. There is an WP:ANI thread filed by one of the editors against the filing editor. The ANI thread takes priority over content dispute resolution. Resolve the conduct dispute at ANI first. If there is still a content dispute among survivors after the ANI is closed, or if ANI refers the dispute to DRN, a new request can be made here after the ANI is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Far-right politics in Ukraine
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as failed. Parties have not engaged here.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Tychonic system
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | The responding editor has not been notified as required by these rules, but that’s not the reason for the closure. Though the responding editor has done a poor job of explaining it, the book that the filing editor wants to add is not an acceptable addition. The reason is that it is indisputably a self-published source (SPS), which with only a few exceptions - none of which appear to apply here - cannot be used in Wikipedia. Anyone can self-publish a book but that doesn’t qualify it for inclusion here because if it did, some truly crazy and untrue things would find their way in here. The notion that it just proves that the book exists is insufficient: all the crazy books can make that same claim. (I have no opinion as to whether this book’s editor is crazy, we don’t reach that point.) The responding editor got close to this by quoting the definition of a reliable source: a published independent source which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The self-published sources rule does grow out of that definition: A SPS is not independent of the source, nor does it have an independent reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. A proper source independently vouches for the accuracy of the material inserted into Wikipedia. And since we don’t have a team of paid editors checking the accuracy of what gets included, the reliable source rule and the SPS rule, and other similar rules are what gives Wikipedia its value. We have another policy, WP:NOT, that says that Wikipedia is not just a collection of miscellaneous information. If just any book could be included merely because it exists, that is what Wikipedia would be. PS: The no original research rule is also involved. By attempting to insert this book, the filing editor is, in effect, acting as the source for the proposition that this book is relevant to the topic and has something of value to contribute to it (so as not to violate the no-miscellaneous-information rule, among other things). But an editor cannot, themselves and without more, be a source for something: they must *cite* a reliable source meeting the definition mentioned above. Them just saying or implying that the book is on-topic and important is the prohibited original research. Finally - and I’m just pointing this out to be complete, not to point an accusatory finger - if books could be included just because they exist, every self-published book author on the planet would be be here spamming their books (and violating the conflict of interest rules if they didn’t disclose their identity, which is a real get-yourself-blocked no-no). —- TransporterMan (TALK) 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Scott Morrison
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as declined. One editor declines to participate in discussion, and another makes a similar statement. Both of them say that the filing party should take the advice of other editors. The volunteers at DRN have not looked into the details of the dispute. It might be a good idea for the filing editor to request advice at the Teahouse. If any other editor thinks that there is a conduct issue, they may report the conduct at WP:ANI, but only if necessary, and only after they have read the boomerang essay. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
National Recording Registry
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | there has been very limited discussion on the talk page. The DRN is for disputes that have had extended and prolonged discussion on their own talk page. Please continue to negotiate on the talk page before returning. You also bring up possible WP:OWN issues- which are behavior related and not handled here- we handle content dispute only. Now, there is obviously a content dispute as well, but filing editor must decide which one to handle- if you want to move forward with content- please continue to discuss on the talk page for a while, possibly doing a WP:RFC. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Patrisse Cullors
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | filing editor is now blocked for 3 months. This is moot. Nightenbelle (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
List of largest empires
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as temporarily withdrawn by filer. If the disagreement resumes, the parties should again discuss the issue on the article talk page at length before filing a new request here. A new request can be filed after new discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Khairatabad Ganesh
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed. An RFC is in progress to resolve the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview The manual of style states that outside the United States and United Kingdom: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI. The other editors thinks this does not apply to this article. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Khairatabad_Ganesh#Units_of_height How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Does the Manual of Style apply or does it not apply? Otherwise why have a manual of style? Summary of dispute by DaxServerThe issue brought up was "which units are the primary units in terms of height" for the article. The filer argued that SI units (aka meters) should be used. However, all 100% of the reliable sources WP:RS use feet, conveying that feet to be the primary unit. The notability, and thence the DYK, is that the idol was increased by 1 foot every year. It is meaningless here to say that the height is increased by "0.3m (1 feet)" using the Convert template. It should be the opposite. The filer argues that we should bureaucratically follow whatever the MOS says. The filer was also asked to produce any reliable source for argument that SI is primary, but has only ever failed. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ab207The height of the idol is always mentioned in terms of feet in reliable sources. The unit of height measurement is also intrinsic to the subject's notability which is primarily known for its height. Since the subject is a non-scientific/non-technical article, little value is added by switching to SI units. MOS:UNITS is a general guideline, that "is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" which I believe is warranted in this case. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC) Khairatabad Ganesh discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
![[4]](https://img.haarets.co.il/img/1.8157164/2634920847.png){kind=link}
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran
– 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
I wanted to add to the article that
“During the Islamic Revolution, Massoud Rajavi prevented the MEK from using violence against Khomeini’s new government, which raised his status within the MEK”[1]
Ghazzzalch reverted saying "Rajavi’s position toward terrorist attacks is also covered in the section "Assassinations". So the article is already too long and no need to repeat its contents all over the article". But this is not repeated in the article.
Then Iskandar323 said this quote should be in another article, but the quote is about People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran.
So both their reasons for not wanting this in the article don’t seem very reasonable. I asked an admin, and they suggested I should try a dispute resolution.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
By checking the reasons that Iskandar323 and Ghazzalch have given for not wanting this information in the article
Summary of dispute by User:Ghazzalch
There has been some kind of consensus in the previous discussions that this article is too long, and should be shortened. Under this pretext, Fad Ariff was removing some important anti-MEK details (such as[8]) from the article, and in the same time was adding some pro-MeK details (such as[9][10]) to it. Per Wikipedia:Tendentious editing I reverted them all. Because I saw them as a whole. But Fad Ariff preferred not to narrate the whole story here. He picked up a single edit and brought it here, arguing that why we should not be able to add a well-sourced material to the article. To show that he is not even sticking to this partial logic, I recently added a well sourced anti-MeK material to the article. He reverted it immediately, arguing that Ghazaalch says the article is too long while adding more cult content to the article
. I asked him here that If you agree with me that the article is too long and you revert what I add, then why you insist on restoring what I reverted? And why you took this case to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? What is the dispute here? We both are doing the same thing.
No answer yet. Ghazaalch (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by User:Iskandar323
Summary of dispute by User:Fad Ariff
Replying to Ghazaalch, the content in this dispute is not "pro" anything, it’s just content by a good publisher and author. About Ghazaalch’s response that I reverted one of his edits, the short answer to that is that I reverted it because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article (while the information in this dispute is not in the article). It’s fine if Ghazaalch wants to open a separate dispute about that edit, but they still have not provided a reasonable answer for removing the content in this dispute (neither here nor on the talk page). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran discussion
- @Fad Ariff: Users have not been notified on their talk page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Iazyges: they have now been notified. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- ^ Cohen, Ronen (2009). The Rise and Fall of the Mojahedin Khalq, 1987-1997: Their Survival After the Islamic Revolution and Resistance to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 978-1845192709.
He succeeded in looking after the organization during the Islamic Revolution by preventing it from acting violently against Khomeini's government. Rajavi's successful management raised his prestige within the organization.
Libs of Tiktok
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as fizzled out. The editors should resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here if all parties are properly listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
List of political parties in Italy
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning. | Closed as failed. Although the moderated discussion has resolved one issue, which is eliminating the detailed inclusion rules, the principal editors do not make progress on their own toward resolving content issues. It does not appear that I will be able to facilitate a resolution of this case in any predictable amount of time. I do not know whether the failure to resolve this dispute is my fault, either for being too patient with the principals or for not being sufficiently patient in willing to spend several more months, or whether the fault is that of one of the principals, or of both of the principals. It is not important whose fault this failure is. I have been deeply disheartened in the last week by the statements by the principals that they think that multiple consecutive RFCs may be needed, and by changes in opinions as to how to organize the RFCs. I am not sure that any number of RFCs will result in satisfaction. I am not yet sure what the next step is, and am not sure whether I will know what the next step is. The principals are encouraged to create their own RFCs and let them run. The principals are encouraged to discuss on the article talk page. Be civil and concise. Discuss edits, not editors. Do not edit-war. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|