I very much appreciate that you read the rules before you posted. And I understand your frustration. However, given that the other user has made no indication they are interested in participating in a discussion, this forum cannot force them to do so. Nor can we mediate with no discussion having previously occurred. I did look at the history of the article, and while they gave a reason in their first edit- they did not engage in discussion nor did they address what you said in your edit summary. My suggestion at this point would be to as for a WP:3o which I do not feel qualified to give (we do sometimes provide those here but its better to go to the correct place) or do a WP:RFC. Either option will get more people involved in the discussion. You can also invite people who participate in a relevant Wiki Project- I would suggest one of the ones listed at the top of the article talk page. People there are usually happy to participate and improve articles under their subject. I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor and welcome to WP! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Another user is reverting my changes and refusing to participate in a conversation about it. I added a talk page and requested they discuss instead of reverting my changes but they are not responding.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Extensive discussion has not taken place because they refuse to participate.
I don't actually know, I'm new to this and have been having trouble figure out how/where to get help with this kind of problem. The articles I'm reading seem to assume that someone who repeatedly "undo"s a change will be willing to discuss it on the talk page.
Summary of dispute by Duponiuex
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Second Temple discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion started on 10 May in response to this edit where I rewrote the article: [1]. Almost all of the content from that edit has since been reverted by wiki-psyc, and the content dispute is almost entirely about the contents of that diff. The discussion on wiki-psyc's talk page and the manipulation talk page are both quite long, so I will try to summarise my changes and my understanding of their perspective.
What I changed:
I updated the sections on predispositions to use modern data from review articles about the influence of gender and other factors
I tried to remove stigmatising language in the spirit of WP:MEDLANG by rewriting "manipulators" to "people who manipulate"
I rewrote the "mental illness" section to describe in more detail which mental illnesses are associated with manipulation and removed those I could not find evidence for (in the DSM-5 or elsewhere)
I added information about assessment tools for manipulation
I removed self-help material based on the understanding that it is not a reliable source for psychology as it is not subject to peer review and is not empirically founded
I mention the relationship between manipulation and machiavellianism
I removed and disagreed with the use of ethics citations for the article about psychology
Removed "see also" entries covered in disambiguation page
What I understand wiki-psyc's perspective on the content to be:
Because there is no specific page for philosophy/anthropology of manipulation, that content belongs on this page
Manipulation is not pathological and should not be written as such
The contents of my edit constitutes original research and cherry picking not consistent with existing academic consensus
The page should not discuss topics irrelevant to manipulation, including machiavellianism, and details about assessment
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The controversy is whether "manipulation" is a human behavior or a clinical pathology. The article as it stands characterizes it as a human behavior and has a section on mental health that directs readers to mental health conditions where extreme manipulation is one of a cluster of symptoms comprising different clinical pathologies (there are several). Darcyisverycute, respectfully, is proposing a major rewrite of the article ( see revision 1086775412 ) which I contend cherry picks info from a few small esoteric research papers to create a complex narrative (WP:ORIGINAL) inconsistent with the philosophy, ethics, behavioral, and clinical literature. Notwithstanding, I commend Darcyisverycute for handling this diagreement in a constructive manner. Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Manipulation (psychology) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (manipulation)
This is another preliminary statement to determine whether there is an article content dispute. If there is an article content dispute, I will act as the moderator. Please read the ground rules. If you have questions about the rules, ask rather than guessing. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what changes you want to make to the article. Remember that the purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. If you want to rewrite the article, please state concisely how you want to rewrite it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by editors (manipulation)
I want to expand the article with information from newer review articles about correlates (gender, mental illness, and personality traits) with manipulative behavior, remove content based on self-help sources, describe the cross-cultural diversity of definitions for the concept, indicate in-article which information originates from ethics/philosophy research, and remove stigmatising language about people with tendencies for manipulative behavior. Darcyisverycute (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The term manipulation is broad and, as such, has 21 line items on the disambiguation page ( see Manipulation disambiguation ). This article in question was labeled "Manipulation (psychology)" to differentiate it from physical behavior, etc. Manipulation is a universal human behavior (like callousness, deceitfulness, hostility, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, etc.) and an age-old topic with an extensive body of information written by philosophers, ethicists, behaviorists, and to a lessor extent, psychiatry. The article framework currently represents this balance, and
1) I would suggest that it is best to build on that framework/perspective.
2) I would also support a re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior) if that would be helpful and
3) I would recommend against re-writing the article to characterize manipulation as a psychiatric pathology because
a) the is not the primary use of the term and
b) the psychiatric mainstream literature does not support this idea. For the most part, "manipulation" appears in the clinical literature in symptom lists and in some esoteric work measuring its presence or use. A simple search using Google Scholar for terms such as "pathological manipulation", "clinical manipulation", "manipulation pathology", "sub-clinical manipulation" will yield little or nothing. A Google General search will mostly pull up these terms from unreliable sources like hobbyist psychology youtube videos, message-boards, blogs, and self published e-books. Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (manipulation)
Read the ground rules again. No one is breaking the rules, but it doesn't hurt to look at them again. One editor would like to rename the article to Manipulation (human behavior). Is there agreement, or do we need to discuss?
Are both editors in agreement that the article can be expanded? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement either detailing the expansion that they want or listing the points that they want expanded, or explaining why expansion is not necessary?
One editor has put a {{disputed}} tag on the article. Please specify what parts of the article you are disputing, so that we can address those disputes in this discussion.
There are other editors who have been discussing on the article talk page. Either they should be invited to take part in this discussion, or we can close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page. Do the editors want to continue this discussion and invite the other editors, or to close this discussion to move it back to the article talk page?
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors (manipulation)
I disagree with renaming the article to Manipulation (human behavior), since Object manipulation is also human behavior and there is ambiguity in that. I would note there is significant overlap between psychological manipulation and affect induction + mood induction, although the two concepts are distinct (see [1])
I agree the article can be expanded, and I wish to expand all sections of the current article. ie: lead section, characteristics, mental illness and assessment. I am not qualified to write a section on history/background, but I would also like to see that added.
These are the factually disputed elements for which I added the {{disputed}} tag:
"For males, higher levels of emotional intelligence, social information processing, indirect aggression, and self-serving cognitive distortions significantly predicted emotional manipulation [...] For females, being younger, higher levels of emotional intelligence, indirect aggression, primary psychopathic traits, and lower levels of social awareness significantly predicted emotional manipulation. However, for females, emotional intelligence acted as a suppressor" - I believe this information is superseded by this newer review article which includes this quoted article as a citation: "[...] gender was found to have a moderating effect in the relationship between ability-based EI and non-prosocial emotional manipulation. The relationship was stronger for males than females, thereby supporting our hypothesis. This suggests that, if males and females have equally high EI, males can be expected to be more manipulative for non-prosocial purposes than females; conversely, if the level of EI is low across genders, they may not differ in their levels of emotional manipulation."[2]
"In the extreme, it is a stratagem of tricksters, swindlers, and impostors who disrespect moral principles and take advantage of others’ frailty and gullibility. At the very least, manipulation is influence used to gain control, benefits, or privileges at the expense of the others." I believe the first sentence is factually incorrect as originating from an unreliable source for WP:MEDRS, and I believe the underlined text should be removed as this is the primary definition.
Influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative for being an imprecise claim and not originating from a WP:MEDRS (it's a Forbes business article)
The Vulnerability-Description table: I believe it is factually incorrect as relying on an an unreliable source for trait-based rather than behavior-based descriptions, and is superseded by newer behavior sets such as this one: [3].
Manipulation is not part of factitious disorder or conduct disorder as listed in the mental illness section. It is also controversial to claim that manipulative behavior is part of borderline personality disorder as the article does.
EMS employs a ten-item scale to characterize the approaches used by individuals to manipulate. I believe this is factually incorrect as described in the cited publication the main role of the EMS was to measure correlates with emotional intelligence and personality traits.
I would prefer the discussion to continue here rather on the talk page. I apologise it was my mistake not to offer other editors there to come to DRN and thank wiki-psyc for doing so.
From Wiki-psyc: This exercise is hard to respond to because Darcyisverycute is asking for WP:TNT and considers references like Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, American Psychiatric Association, Forbes to be problematic. The Manipulation (psychology) topic is a very basic subject, the article is pretty good as it is and should continue on its current trajectory with incremental edits as it has for 11 years, 545 editors, and 1,300 edits. In an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia [3] it says manipulation manifests itself in all the fields of activity of the individual, basically in all human relationships, even in love, religion, philosophy, science, art, etc. It focuses on all these aspects, proving that manipulations in itself represents an inherent social phenomenon for the contemporary human being.
Narrowing and redefining manipulation as a pathology/mental illness is WP:ORIGINAL. There is no reputable source to substantiate this. Pathological people can manipulate, but manipulation, itself, is not inherently pathological.
The article currently provides links to mental conditions where manipulation is part of the symptomology. I think it makes sense to discuss, for example, a study of manipulation related to the Dark Triad in the Dark Triad article rather than in a general article about manipulation. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (manipulation)
It appears that Darcyisverycute wants to make numerous changes to the article, and that Wiki-psyc has not proposed any specific changes to the article, and disagrees with the need for the changes. If my understanding is incorrect, then the editors should restate and explain. If my understanding is correct, then the next step is for Darcyisverycute to put their requested changes into the form of a "laundry list", a numbered list of items (numbered 1 to N), each being one paragraph, either stating specifically what they want to change, or that they want to rewrite a section. I will then, in the third stage of this mediation, ask Wiki-psyc to respond to each item either by accepting it, disagreeing with it entirely (rejecting it), or stating that they want to work on it or compromise on it. It is Darcyisverycute's turn to provide the list, at this point. Both editors may ask any questions and may disagree with my plan. Then it will be Wiki-psyc's turn to reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to restate, this doesn't mean that any of the changes will be made, and this doesn't mean that any of the changes won't be made. At this point, we are just breaking up or breaking down the scope.
Clarification
For now, if the item to be rewritten is a paragraph, you may provide the proposed text. If the item to be rewritten is a section of more than one paragraph, just indicate that you want to rewrite it. You may provide the laundry list now. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (manipulation)
Robert McClenon, I believe your understanding of the situation is correct. I will go ahead with your suggested plan unless there are objections from wiki-psyc. I would like to ask, when you say each being one paragraph, [...] that they want to rewrite a section. for sections that I wish to rewrite, should I be adding the suggested rewrite as a paragraph, or just saying that I wish to rewrite it? Thanks Darcyisverycute (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Laundry list:
(1) Lead section: Proposed rewrite
Manipulation or emotional manipulation is behavior designed to exploit, control, or otherwise influence others to one’s advantage.[1] Definitions vary in which behavior is specifically included, influenced by both culture and whether used in clinical or non-clinical contexts.[2] Skills necessary for manipulation can be used for both prosocial and antisocial purposes.[3] Antisocial or non-prosocial manipulation has been described as using "skills to advance their own agendas or self-serving motives at the expense of others",[3] whereas prosocial behavior is "a voluntary act intended to help or benefit another individual or group of individuals".[4] Manipulation is correlated with higher levels of emotional intelligence,[3] and is a behavioral component of the Machiavellianism personality trait. Manipulation is also related to affect induction, where emotions are manipulated under experimental conditions.[5]
(2) Lead section, second paragraph: Move to a new "Ethics" section -- this could be expanded much further but my proposal for now is to just move it to a separate one since I am not an expert on the ethics aspect.
(3) Characteristics of manipulators: Rename section title to "etiology" or "causes" or "risk factors"
(4) Characteristics of manipulators: Rewrite section
(5) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Move to subsection "Mental health" under the title of the section for (3)
(6) Manipulation and mental illnesses: Rewrite section
(7) Clinical assessment tools: Promote from subsection heading to section heading
(8) Clinical assessment tools: Rewrite section
(9) See also: unbold entries and remove those already covered by the disambiguation page
(10) Further reading: "Modulated Feelings: The Pleasurable-Ends-Model of Manipulation" and "Then again, what is manipulation? A broader view of a much-maligned concept" should be converted to inline citations. The rest of the articles in the further reading section should be removed. This is for not meeting MEDMOS and for being too old, and as far as I can tell they are not used in the article. (I would not rule out using them in a future "History" section however.)
(11) Assuming the ethics stuff gets moved to a separate section, I think it might be worthwhile to add the article to Wikiproject philosophy as well.
Both editors should be aware that this may be a long content dispute resolution. Be prepared for this to take one to three months.
Darcyisverycute has listed eleven changes that they want to make to the article. Wiki-psyc may now reply to each of the 11 points by saying either that they agree, in which case that change will be made, or that they disagree, or that they would like to compromise or negotiate. Either editor may make any other concise statements or ask questions. This is primarily the turn for Wiki-psyc to respond to the eleven points. If you disagree with a change and want to leave the article as is, disagree briefly. It is only necessary to reply at length if you want to compromise.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Third statements by editors (manipulation)
I'm willing to commit 1-3 months for this. I appreciate Robert McClenon and wiki-psyc for participating in this mediation. Darcyisverycute (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Robert, I'd like to suggest that before we invest 30-90 days doing a WPTNT and a rewrite of 11 years worth of of editors work, we should ask to see a few substantial references that show that Darcyisverycute's fundamental proposition is valid, specifically that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term. All of her recommendations she has made are based on this premise. It will be very hard to find compromise on what to put in an "etiology" or cause section if there is not agreement that this is a disease or disorder that has an etiology. I've been in medicine for 40 years and I am unaware of this disorder. It seems the American Psychological Association, World Health Organization (WHO), American Medical Association, Oxford and Britannica are also unaware. But certainly, we all should be open minded to hear her out and we could exhaust this exploration in a day or two. We already have 3,000 words of polite and cooperative discussion on the talk page and another 3,000 here to indicate good faith. Indeed, if there is substantial evidence that manipulation is disorder/pathology, and the disorder is the primary use of the term, I believe the editors would find compromise rather easily. Whereas without it, the only reasonable response I can give to the suggested rewrite of the article introduction summary is that it is not supported by the article, nor the clinical literature, and that terms like prosocial, non-prosocial, affect induction, antisocial, and Machiavellianism are overly complex terms for a summary statement on a very basic concept (manipulation) and most readers will be going back to Google to find another source about manipulation that they can read and comprehend.
tag from the article as it has not be established that there are factual inaccuracies.
What substantial reference can we examine to verify that (1) Manipulation is a mental disorder/pathology and (2) the "mental disorder" is the primary definition/use of term? Wiki-psyc (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (manipulation)
Wiki-psyc has expressed a concern that the whole rewrite effort may be misguided. So rather than try to address eleven points, we will focus first on the first point, the lede section, which leads into the other changes. For now I am not planning to try to analyze the differences between the existing lede and the proposed lede, but to ask the editors to address the arguments for and against the rewriting of the lede. Each editor should provide a statement consisting of anywhere between one and several paragraphs supporting or criticizing either the current lede or the proposed lede. I will then decide what pieces of this content issue will be addressed next. So, please assess either the current lede or the proposed lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator.
Fourth statements by editors (manipulation)
If I understand correctly, I am meant to choose to either do one option or the other, so I will say what I think could be improved with the article's current lead.
The sourcing of the lead section is somewhat poor in that it does not cite or appear to base its claims from any review articles for a topic which they are available, which makes it difficult to determine to what extent this description is accepted by other academics and disciplines.
The first paragraph in the lead fails to define the concept in the broad scope with which the term is used. I will compare the definition to what is used at wikitionary: (transitive) To influence or control someone in order to achieve a specific purpose, especially one that is unknown to the one being manipulated and beneficial to the manipulator; to use - both this definition and the one in the first paragraph of the lead section are quite broad, and I would note the wikitionary one does not claim it must occur at the expense of others. While wikitionary is useful in its brief form, I think the current lead does not sufficiently indicate the breadth of the term, and how the definition differs among demographics and contexts. The second and third sentences say "in the extreme" and "at the very least", which suggests a continuum of some sort to define the term, although what lies on middle-points on this continuum is unclear, and the cited sources do not clearly discuss any such continuum.
The second paragraph contextualises manipulation in the ethics framework of other forms of social influence, although it claims to make an ambiguous claim/judgement that "influence and persuasion are neither positive nor negative". I think the 2022 publication in the general references is not sufficiently addressed in the lead, for example to quote the source Conceptualizing manipulation is no easy task, not just because there are many intuitions involved.[4] The second paragraph also fails to contextualise the term as it is used and compared in psychology literature. The lead section fails to explain which interdisciplinary fields are involved in studying manipulation, which could include for example ethics, criminology, marketing and advertising, behavioral psychology, clinical psychology. I will note the article is a member of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising. Lastly, the lead section fails to identify the origins of the concept (who developed it, who are the major contributors to surrounding theory and when did this all happen), and clearly establish why it is an important concept in the relevant fields with evidence such as statistics or statements from subject matter experts. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I am out of town and unable to respond until Wednesday. Thanks for your patience. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (manipulation)
One editor, Darcyisverycute, has responded to my request to support or criticize either the current lede or the proposed lede. As the rules say, I expect editors to reply to my questions within 48 hours. I am willing to allow for breaks for editors who are temporarily unable to participate in a timely manner. I am now asking Wiki-psyc to reply within 24 hours, either as I had previously requested, or at least to give some idea of what their schedule will be. The alternative, if the editors will not be able to engage in discussion, will be a series of RFCs. So can User:Wiki-psyc please provide some response within 24 hours? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You may also submit one to three questions for the other editor. Do not answer the questions. I will decide whether to ask them.
You may also ask any questions to be answered by the moderator.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (manipulation)
Working on reply now Wiki-psyc (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I do see validity in breaking manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterizing the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral. This would be best in the body of the article.
Darcyisverycute has not provided a substantial reference saying Manipulation is a pathology. I've read through the Article talk page, this review, google scholar, and texts in my library and I can find no reliable source characterizing manipulation as a disorder/pathology. There is no "clinical" and "sub-clinical" manipulation.
Additionally, I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the term. This is "techno-babble" and our professional organizations are encouraging their clinicians to abandon this style when communicating with the general public. The purpose of the article is to reach readers, not impress them. Darcyisverycute wants to introduced this unnecessary complexity in the second and third sentence of the article.
Lastly, sure there are cultural difference in manipulation - there are cultural differences in just about everything - but are there "significant" cultural differences; enough to put in the intro? We would really need to see a significant reference on this. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I have a question for the moderator: there have been a few edits to the article, the most recent one being [5]. I notified the user who initially removed the {{disputed}} and disambiguation templates here along with reverting the template removal, and wiki-psyc has restored the version without either template. On reflection, I should have also added {{DRN}} to its talk page when I filed this DRN, I only just realised that template existed now. To avoid an edit war over templates, what would you recommend here, Robert McClenon? Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Please reread the guidelines for Dispute Resolution and if you feel the guidelines provide for you to revert other editors and add banners, I won't contest it. I would prefer to stay focused on what I think is the main point of contention here, is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?Wiki-psyc (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (manipulation)
It is correct that I said that the participants should not edit the article while discussion is in progress.
I have no interest in any controversy about a tag on the article. Tagging controversies are essentially stupid. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article and to resolve any issues that are the subject of tags. Tags indicate that there is a content controversy, and moderated discussion should resolve the controversy, and it is not important whether there are tags on the article while content discussion is in progress. I will collapse any further discussion of tags, because tagging controversies are stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc asks: "is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?" I would like Darcyisverycute to answer that question (in addition to the back-and-forth discussion mentioned below).
I will change the rules at this point and invite the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion on the lede section. This will continue for between three and five days if it is productive. If it is not productive or is repetitive, I will stop it in one to two days. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (manipulation)
Thank you for the replies. I apologise for making drama out of the content tag. I will note the disambiguation template was also removed and I think that should be restored but I will not edit the article until the DRN is resolved.
I will address wiki-psyc's question: At this point I'm not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word for the meaning I am going for, rather that I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical), and it can also occur in the presence of no mental disorders (subclinical or non-clinical). In other words, my understanding is that behavior is clinically relevant if it falls under the scope of a mental disorder. It's not up to us what constitutes a mental disorder or not, the best we can hope to do is explain the labels the APA and WHO use. The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder in itself, instead just one part of some mental disorders.
Here is a paper, of which there are a fair few, which distinguishes between a different set of behaviors in psychopathy as clinical and subclinical:[6]. Here is a paper which talks about the clinical and subclinical role that empathy plays in narcissistic personality disorder:[7], from which I think this quote accurately summarises my opinion: Although a pattern of deceitful, manipulative, and impulsive behavior is inherent in the syndrome of psychopathy, these features are not necessarily a component of NPD. In other words, these two sources point to manipulation being an essential component of psychopathy, and not an essential component of NPD. Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD according to [8]. So in this context the clinical relevance of manipulation depends on the specific disorder.
The term manipulation also has slightly different meaning in forensic psychology vs clinical psychology, mainly stemming from the continued use of the term "psychopathy" in forensic psychology but the term isn't really used in clinical psychology. As such, I think it is important if manipulation is acknowledged as related to psychopathy, that we note in the article that it's more often used as a forensic label based on a syndrome rather than a clinical diagnosis. There is evidently a lot more disagreement than just this, for example The psychological treatment of psychopathy is rife with controversy and conceptual disagreement.[9] which also contributes to difficulty of defining the amorphous concept of emotional manipulation.
I look forward to discussion about the lead section. Darcyisverycute (talk) 07:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Response from Wiki-psyc:
Wiki-psyc said:Is there a substantial reference that establishes manipulation as a pathology/mental illness?
Darcy’said:“not sure that the word "pathology" is the most accurate word”… “The APA and WHO don't seem to define emotional manipulation, as it isn't viewed as a disorder…”
Wiki-psyc says: The APA actually has defined it here. I think, given all that has been said, it can be reasonably concluded that manipulation is not a pathology/mental illness and consistant with that, re-writing and re-formatting the article to look like a mental illness article ("etiology”, "causes" , "risk factors" , treatment) might not be a constructive change.
Darcy’said:“I think manipulation can occur in the presence of one or more mental disorders (which I'll refer to as clinical)”
Wiki-psyc says: There is no mention of “clinical manipulation ” or “subclinical manipulation” in the paper you reference (Maddi). The conventional use of “clinical” and “subclinical” applies to the mental illness, not the symptoms. We don’t say that a mentally healthy person has sub-clinical charisma, subclinical persuasiveness, subclinical manipulation, etc.
Darcy’ said:“Manipulation is not a defining characteristic of NPD, but it is a defining characteristic of ASPD”
Wiki-psyc says: I respect you Darcy and I don't want to pile on, but Manipulation is not a defining feature of NPD or ASPD. For ASPD, it's one of 7 symptoms of which only 1 must be present per the DSM-5 (APA).
I contend that you are looking at one-off, specialized papers that were written in the context of specific mental illnesses. These findings can’t be generalized to the population as a whole. It's also important to distinguish between early and one-off research and advanced research that is moving toward expert consensus. In law and in science, it’s important that we all look at the body of case law or research. We don’t become constitutional scholars by reading a couple of case law briefs and we don’t become scientists by reading a few papers. I hope this helps to understand my position..
Wiki-psyc recommendations:
1. Look to see if it is acceptable to other editors to expand "manipulation" in the Wikipedia ASPD, NPD, Dark Triad, and/or Psychopathy articles. Research and papers you have quoted were written in the context of one or more of these specific personality types/disorders. Currently, there are only passing mentions of "manipulation" in each of these Wikipedia articles - no development of the meaning of term in the specific context to the illness (as the original researchers intended).
2. Keep the general format of the current manipulation article "as is" but add a subsection that discusses the universality of manipulation (e.g., Babies learn to manipulate before they can speak. Children manipulate one parent against the other. Family Theory, etc.)
3. Add a subsection entitled "Types" (or similar) Break manipulation down into the subcategories of Enhancing: Diverting, Worsening, Being inauthentic, or Concealing and characterize the first two as being constructive (prosocial is not a common term), the third and fourth being destructive, and the fifth is considered neutral.
4. Consider re-naming the article to Manipulation (human behavior) becuase that implies an even broader scope.
Note: For clarity, text repeated from earlier discussions is green.
With respect, Wiki-psyc (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
--------
As per WP:WAX and WP:SSE (two essays - not policy), I think it is desirable to have consistency across articles about how human behavior is described, and I agree that consistency is currently lacking on human behavior articles. Some examples of this inconsistency I looked for now: Attention seeking and Social loafing have causes sections. Avoidance coping has a section on treatment although it is not a mental disorder. Behavior change (individual) describes the causes in the section-heading as explicitly non-medical. Behavioral confirmation refers to causes as "Motivational foundations". Obedience (human behavior)#Factors affecting obedience refers to "factors", very similar to causes just based off of definitions. We could at a wikiproject level by consensus, choose to adopt any or all of these as standard (RfC may be a better approach for this, just food for thought.) Currently, I am proposing the section "Characteristics of manipulators" be renamed to "causes" or something similar for clarity of the purpose of the section, for being consistent with some other articles, and to reduce stigmatising language. Maybe "predispositions"?
I'd like to come to agreement about my proposed lead section so I will respond to just one other thing about that to keep my reply shorter. I think the intro should be in common language, and not use technical terms that provide no additional insight over common language and force most readers to look up the term I agree to an extent, in that making the lead section accessible is important, and I also think that mentioning related technical concepts is nessecary to provide a comprehensive overview of the concept. I think MOS:INTRO offers useful guidance that it's okay to use technical terms along with a short description, it's important for the lead section to "ease readers in", and significant information in the lead should also be covered in the main article. What do you think of this, and do you have any other specific advice about my draft/proposed lead section? Darcyisverycute (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
--------
I do not think taking this discussion to another forum, which would be the fourth, is a good use of volunteer resources. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Closed. Just a note to the filing party, User:Andrevan. If you open a case here, don't delete it. Let a volunteer close it and let the bot archive it. This case was correctly closed because we don't open a case here to discuss a matter that is pending at another noticeboard. Either discuss the RFC at RSN before publishing it, or just publish it, or don't publish it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I have a draft for an RFC at User:Andrevan/FoxNewsRFCdraft and I am trying in good faith to get it appropriately brief and neutral to post. I am working to incorporate all the feedback but users are reverting the addition.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would like to understand what steps are needed to have the RFC opened or if I am in the wrong here or misunderstanding something, please let me know what that is.
Summary of dispute by Hemiauchenia
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Firefangledfeathers
I don't think this requires moderated discussion, but I'm happy to participate if others disagree. I would prefer to see another 48 hours or so if discussion at WT:RSN to see what Hemiauchenia's objections are and if they can be resolved. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
That seems fair. Andrevan@ 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jeanie Johnston
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Paultroberts on 01:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed as premature. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to DRN (or to other dispute resolution processes). There has been one statement by one editor at the article talk page, which does not qualify as discussion. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, after at least 24 hours and at least two posts by each editor, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
For years, this article about the Irish famine ship Jeanie Johnston has included the story about a baby being born on the maiden voyage and surviving (a rarity for these notorious "coffin ships"). Which not only poignantly illustrates the plight and desperation of the passengers on these "famine ships" (boarding a boat nine months pregnant). But also perfectly proving the preceding point about the importance of having a qualified doctor on board (a rarity on these ships). Setting up the rest of the story as well(as left in by this editor) on how this ship remarkably had no losses throughout it's journeys (unlike all the other so called "coffin ships"). Which is why this ship is so celebrated. And was recreated to sit outside the FAMINE MUSEUM in Dublin to this day.
This story of a baby being born on this ship's maiden voyage and somehow surviving is central to this story. Proving the previous point about the importance (and rarity) of having a doctor on board. And perfectly setting up the rest of the story about how this ship never lost another passenger throughout it's service.
I did not place this story in the original entry. But I can substantiate it as the great grandson of this baby who was born on that ship. And I have all the original documents found thru Ancestry.com to prove this "birth at sea" (as listed on my great-grandfather's birth records).
I was alerted to this entry by the author who wrote "All Standing: The Remarkable Story of the Jeanie Johnston, the Legendary Irish Famine Ship." when she found me thru Ancestry.com and contacted me for a comment in her book (I being one of the last surviving relatives of this baby, Nicholas Johnston Reilly). And for the life of me, I can't understand why this new editor is so insistent of removing it after all these years.
He says this is without relevance and is improperly sourced. I respectfully disagree. Please inform me how to keep this key part of this original article alive alive and included.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I don't know how to find the exact links, but you can see the extended conversations back and forth under COMPARE SELECTED REVISIONS.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please restore the article to its longstanding, original version. Or inform me how to properly document this to please this editor (who seems dead set on suddenly removing this as "irrelevant to the story of this boat" while I see it as central to the whole story (just as the original author did). Illustrating why the owner's insistence on having a doctor on board (a rarity on similar "famine ships") was so important. And setting up the rest of the story about how no one was lost on this ship.
Summary of dispute by The Banner
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Jeanie Johnston discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Flor de la Mar
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mamabear1331 on 16:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC).
Primary sources are not prefered on WP. We have a reliable source noticeboard WP:RSN if you would care to ask them, but self published sources- IE Youtube, are not reliable. You have been told this multiple times. You quoted the policy which says this. Inserting the same paragraph into multiple articles with links to a google doc is also poor form. So you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK and go review WP:RS before you continue editing. Also- I understand the edit was on the article for 2 years. I appologize no editor caught that two years ago and told you then that it was not appropriate to source to a youtube article- but that does not change the fact that it is not a WP:RS. You are not being attacked- you are just WP:IDHT not hearing when people told you nicely that your sources were not acceptable. So I'm trying firmly, from an outsider perspective to tell you the other editors are right and you need to stop. If not, Ask at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, I'm confident they will tell you the same thing. If you continue to force this paragraph into articles, I recommend that the other editors take you to the ANI. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I made a link 2 years ago regarding a coin found in a 2020 search for the Flor de la Mar on the Flor de la Mar page. I linked to a google site page housing a youtube video link of a short documentary made by a third party company showing the discovery of the. This google site also shows an article published in a treasure magazine outlining the find.
User ScottishFinnishRadish keeps deleting my link now after it has appeared on the Wikipedia page for 2 and a half years, threatening to have me blocked saying a treasure hunting magazine isn't reputable in his opinion. I explained that the publication in question would have to vet it's stories before publishing but he keeps deleted that section. He has also accused me of linking to a book on amazon which I have never done and this seems to be some sort of vendetta move.
So I am seeking arbitration on the matter.
Thank you,
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have agreed with some of his comments on my linking and posts and asked how we can move forward on the matter but it seemed to have escalated into an ego situation more than a rational conversation. I have reposted in the conversation sections of Wikipedia's guidelines to explain my point but that hasn't proven to be helpful.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
A third party to look at the situation with a clear mind and advise how the information can be addressed and posted would be very helpful.
Summary of dispute by ScottishFinnishRadish
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Coordinator note - @Mamabear1331: the other mentioned party has not been made aware on their talk page. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I have now made them aware. Thank you. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No discussion before a volunteer engages. This is not the place for arguments. Either wait until we have time to review- or take it to the ANI.
This seems to be a pretty clearcut case of the petitioner attempting to add inappropriate external links in violation of WP:ELNO; specifically, Amazon listings for a book, and links to self-published pages on Google sites, likely with a WP:COI. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I did not link to an amazon listing, I don't know what that is about. And I linked to the google site because it has a film shared via a YouTube link as well as shots of pages from the magazine in question. Anything else that could seem promotional I have removed, though the find of the coin is significant and given the two other members sweeping deletion of ALL of my posts I feel they are making this personal at this point. I have asked them how best to use an appropriate link, such as linking to the magazine's site which published the article but they continue to delete the post. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Final warning for spamming your personal web page
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I know nothing about this Law of the Sea book. Feel free to delete that post. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC
@ScottishFinnishRadish and Ohnoitsjamie: Generally inclined to agree; @Mamabear1331: if you are determined to continue with this, your best shot might be arguing the case at WP:RSN, but I will warn you that you're very unlikely to prevail given it pretty directly contravenes some Wikipedia policies, and does seem promotional, on its face. -- IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 17:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I see that the Amazon link was removed as part of a general cleanup, but the warning still stands for adding self-published Google sites. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
is that ok? I'm not trying to do anything that violates the guidelines, that is what I have been asking this entire time. Mamabear1331 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If I wrote it as,
In the 2020 August edition of Western and Eastern Treasures magazine, an article appears regarding a silver tanka coin being found off the coast of Sumatra in a search for the Flor de la Mar by explorer Rick Langrehr. along with the link https://www.wetreasures.com/
Is everyone ok with that link and phrasing? Mamabear1331 (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
If no one else has any objections to the new phrasing then I will repost with the magazine listing rather than a Google site or YouTube link to appease Ollie and the Radish. Given there are no guidelines that measure a professional publication's "wiki endorsed credibility" on this site. As such, the new link and phrasing should not be disagreeable to anyone as it does not break any guidelines, nor does it reference a YouTube site or personal Google site, which was the initial objection but instead references a professional publication that has existed since 1966. I will assume this matter is closed and give this 24 hours for any other member to comment who has not yet had the opportunity. Again If something is referencing an established professional publication that is covering an article that pertains to the given WikiPage in question, one member's subjective opinion of what constitutes a "Major publication" should not be used to repeatedly delete other member's contributions to the page. If that subjective interpretation of a professional publisher's worth is allowed to dictate mass deletions, then a good portion of cited references on Wikipedia are up for removal. I would ask that any further deleting now that I have complied to the Wiki Guidelines will be seen and handled as the personal grudge it has become. I have listened to the other member's grievances and complied where warranted. I have only sought a resolution to address the issues from the start and do not appreciate the tag team game this has become for other members.
Well, they seem to want to get in contact with administrators, so WP:ANI would be appropriate. But maybe the DRN volunteers will surprise me and give them a talking to. MrOllie (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Here's to hoping. This is a nice change of pace from yet another Jinnifer sock, though.
I have been attacked while simply asking for clarification as a new member. Again I apologize for any unauthorized links I have used and am looking to learn and comply, but as a Mother of two I have better things to do than be harrasses 5 times about an amazon link that I repeatedly explained was not my listing.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
2022 Chinese_military_exercises_around_Taiwan
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Jaredscribe on 02:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed as out of scope of DRN. This appears to be a dispute over whether certain material that was removed as RD1, removal of copyvio, was in fact copyrighted. DRN is not the forum for discussing copyright questions, which should be discussed either with the deleting administrator, User:Nthep, or maybe at Copyright Problems. There does not appear to have been any discussion with User talk:Nthep, so please discuss it with them first. Also, their edit summary redacting the copyrighted material cites two news media that are subject to copyright. If Blinken's remarks were reported by news media, the report is copyrighted. If a public domain report of his words can be found, such as a public domain US Government web site, then his words can be reported as quoted by the public domain web site. However, discuss the redaction with the administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
An editor who exercised revdel to remove a (highly relevant and therefore encyclopedic) statement by the US Secretary of State, acting in an official capacity. Antony Blinken's official statements are in the public domain, and then can (and should be) quoted on articles that concern questions of US foreign policy.
I assert that this editor is misinformed about our content policy. This is not to cast WP:ASPERSIONS, but rather to resolve the content dispute.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please clarify the copyright policy to us both. If possible, restore the direct quote that was revdel'd. If not, please make a statement protecting me from retaliation by this or other editors, so that I can restore it. This is time sensitive, as the article has been nominated for main page.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I stated. that this user meets to WP:LISTEN When I compare, in the source (CNN) which was copy paste into wikipedia added by the user Jaredscribe (talk·contribs) there are copyright violations I add copyright reveal which was removed by the admin. Nthep (talk·contribs) (1) HurricaneEdgar 02:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taylor Swift
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Tree Critter on 16:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed. Both the guidelines of this noticeboard and the guideline against forum shopping say that an editor should not try to open discussions about the same dispute in two or more places at the same time. The filing party has already also opened a case at the edit-warring noticeboard. The filing party should wait until the edit-warring case is resolved, and then resume discussion at Talk:Taylor Swift. If discussion resumes after the edit-warring case is closed, and if discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Discussion here is voluntary, and the other editors may or may not want to discuss here, but that can be decided when it is time to decide. In the meantime, this dispute is at the edit-warring noticeboard. I do not have an opinion as to whether there has been edit-warring, but there has been a report of edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
In a 2019 interview Taylor Swift stated "Starting November 2020 I can re-record albums one through five all over again" in reference to her masters controversy. User:Ippantekina feels this is not an adequate source to add to the relevant articles that she recorded them no earlier than November 2020. This user and I are both guilty of edit warring, but I'm done doing that. I am confident that I am right and I'm sure User:Ippantekina is too. User:Binksternet has also reverted my edits and agrees with User:Ippantekina, which I still don't.
The two have accused me WP:SYNTHESIS, which I also disagree with, as I am using one source and only one sentence from that source. One sentence, that in my opinion, states very clearly that she re-recorded these songs no earlier than November 2020.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would like as many people as you can provide to watch the interview in question, or at least the sentence in question, and come to your own conclusions on whether, based on the interview, there should be an inclusion of the recording date of "November 2020–..." on the pages of the songs on Taylor Swift's re-recorded albums.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Binksternet
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This is a simple violation of WP:SYNTH by Tree Critter, who has been insisting on inserting recording dates in many song articles, based on a source that does not discuss recording dates. Instead, the source says that Swift was unable to begin recording until her label contract expired. There is no dispute to resolve. One person is in the wrong. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Taylor Swift discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as abandoned. The filing editor has not commented two days after being asked what steps to take next. The other editor has not commented in four days. If there isn't still a content dispute, that is good. If there still is a content dispute, it can be discussed at Talk:Debt-trap diplomacy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Content on the article's Counterarguments subsection under China section has been the subject of a dispute on its inclusion or exclusion from the article from 20 July to 22 July. The content describes news broadcaster BBC's misrepresentation of Deborah Bräutigam's views on debt-trap diplomacy in a news broadcast, Bräutigam contacting BBC, and BBC's apology. Kautilya3 believes the content should not be included in the article because the news broadcast itself is not used as a source in the article and is UNDUE. Qiushufang believes it should be included due to its relevance to BBC and Bräutigam's views on the subject of the article, debt-trap diplomacy, and how they are presented in media.
Provide assistance in reaching consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of the relevant content.
Summary of dispute by Kautilya3
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The filing parrty's description above is fairly accurate. The dispute is not about any content regarding "debt-trap diplomacy" or Deborah Brautigam's views on the topic. But it is about BBC's coverage of her views (in a small segment in a larger programme), which was allegedly a misrepresentation. Since we are not even mentioning or citing that BBC programme, my position is that the content is entirely tangential to the topic of the page.
(I will be away for the most of the weekend. So if the case is started now, I will be able to respond on late Sunday or Monday.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Debt-trap diplomacy discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - While there has been extended discussion on the article talk page, it only covered a period of about six hours, which is not long enough to give the parties an opportunity to think about the merits of the other editor's views. I am neither closing this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but will wait until both editors have resumed discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully this can be resolved on its own. To me, the article has undue weight for a pro-China stance.BooleanQuackery (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (debt-trap diplomacy)
Please read the usual ground rules. I am willing to act as the mediator. If so, we will not be discussing any content issues that are stated as broad generalities, such as a lack of neutrality. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to talk about what needs to be improved in the article. So each editor should state what portions of the article should be changed, or what portions of the article should be left the same if another editor wants to change them. Be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (debt-trap diplomacy)
The disputed content, which the filing party insists on keeping, is peripheral to the topic. It does not concern debt-trap diplomacy, but rather BBC's apparent disinterest in covering a particular commentator's views. This is WP:UNDUE and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
The disputed content is not peripheral to the topic "debt-trap diplomacy." It details an incident between a scholar (Deborah Bräutigam) and the BBC covering their views on debt-trap diplomacy and presenting a particular version of it, rather than a disinterest in covering their views entirely. This is relevant to how both media outlets and scholars have presented their views on debt-trap diplomacy, the topic of the article. Qiushufang (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Debt-trap)
Are there any content issues besides whether to include the paragraph about BBC's coverage of Brautigam's views on debt-trap diplomacy? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I see three ways to resolve the question about the addition or deletion of the paragraph:
1. The editors can request a Third Opinion, at the Third Opinion noticeboard, about whether the inclusion of the paragraph is due weight or WP:UNDUE.
2. We can try to compromise.
3. We can use an RFC to obtain community input on the Yes-No question of whether to include the paragraph in question.
The order in which I have listed the steps is the order in which they should be done if they are done. If the editors request a third opinion, I will put this dispute on hold while we wait for the third opinion. Steps 1 and 2 are voluntary. If steps 1 and 2 either are not used or are not successful, we will post an RFC. Do the editors want to request a Third Opinion?
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Debt-trap)
There may be another dispute which arose from the current one: how to structure the Debt-trap_diplomacy#Assessments section based on sections Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Verifiability_of_China-Africa_statistics and Talk:Debt-trap_diplomacy#Why_are_the_studies_chronologically_ordered?. The currently disputed content on Bräutigam used to belong to the subsection of Counter-arguments under China, but it has since been combined with certain parts of Arguments and renamed to Reception, then Assessments. The material was then listed chronologically. This was suggested by me in talk as an in between solution to NPOV disagreements with the further goal of removing the section entirely and portioning its content to other sections because of their overlapping nature and other issues. The other two users in the dispute resolution seem to disagree with the current in between state, listing by chronology, and combining sections, which has been described as sweeping things under the rug.
As for the Bräutigam content, I agree to both a third opinion and compromise. I do not know what a compromise might look like. The original content deleted was two short sentences. Perhaps moving to another section would count as compromise? Qiushufang (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
[My apologies for the delay. I didn't notice that it had moved to the next stage.] This doesn't qualify for WP:3O because there are more than 2 editors on the talk page (though they didn't get involved in this particular issue). We can try a compromise, I suppose. I don't see the need to explore the RFC option here, because that is always an option if this discussion fails. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (debt-trap diplomacy)
Since there have been other editors on the talk page, I can ask one of them if they will provide a Third Opinion. Do the editors want me to ask for another opinion on this question?
Does either of the editors have a compromise proposal?
If there is not a positive response to either of the above questions, we will develop an RFC. If there is a positive response, we will pursue either a request for an opinion or a compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Does either of the editors wish to formulate the question about the Assessments section in a way that we can discuss article content?
Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (debt-trap diplomacy)
Asking other editors on the debt trap diplomacy talk page who have edited the article is probably not worthwhile as a third opinion. Their dispositions are obviously skewed to one side or another based on their comments there. My suggested compromise is as stated above, perhaps inclusion in another section. As for the assessments section, that discussion seems to have died down without any development while others have moved onto other topics on the talk page. Not sure if further pursuit of that discussion is necessary unless brought up again. Qiushufang (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (debt-trap diplomacy)
Only one of the editors has responded after 48 hours. Does that mean that the other editor has agreed to the inclusion of the paragraph about the BBC and Bräutigam? I will give the filing editor three options:
1. Include the challenged section (and continue to be ready to discuss it).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as out of scope of DRN. This dispute appears to have two related questions. The first is whether the page in question should be in article space, and the second is what its name should be if it is in article space. The page has been removed to draft space by Fram, so that the way to discuss and decide whether it should be in article space is the Articles for Creation process. Discussion can be on the draft talk page, or in AFC comments. Although it is permitted for an editor to move the draft back into article space, that is not recommended and would be likely to result in a nomination for deletion. The proposed name of the article, if it is accepted, can and should also be discussed in the AFC discussion. This DRN case is closed, and discussion can be via the AFC process. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
User:Tzim78 created a page for the Draft:Madonna of Constantinople a Marian title used to describe the Virgin Mary. The name is used on paintings, statues, and churches all over the world. Wikipedia pages exist in 5 different languages for the same title Madonna von Konstantinopel. Fram proposed deletion and two editors removed the deletion, then Zeddedm approved the page but Fram went back and moved the page to a draft. I would enjoy a peaceful resolution to the dispute. I am grateful to all the editors for their countless work.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think multiple administrators should review the page created and give a consensus opinion on the article. This is the article: Draft:Madonna of Constantinople
Draft:Madonna of Constantinople discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as subject has been raised at BLP as suggested. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Relevant information about artist/musician Dominick Fernow keeps being deleted from his wikipedia page. A self-published Substack post outlined numerous connections the musician has to far-right, racist, and Nazi musicians. Subsequent reporting in mainstream publication The Quietus confirmed this reporting. Interviews with Fernow were then removed from websites, his booking agency dropped him, and music websites made posts distancing themselves from him. This information should be included on his page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominick_Fernow
I believe users are actively misreading a disclaimer on the article in The Quietus to prevent this material from being shared.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think we need clarity on what kind of sources are reputable and what counts as worthy of biographical inclusion. I think an addendum to an article is being misread to justify not including it on the artist's wikipedia page. I also don't understand why the effects the reporting has had on the artist's career can't be included either.
Summary of dispute by Ponyo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Zinnober9
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Dominick Fernow discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor was advised to initiate a discussion at the BLP noticeboard, not at this noticeboard. The Reliable Source Noticeboard would also be a forum to ask about the reliability of a source. Also, the filing editor has not notified the other editors. If they instead file at BLPN, I will close this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There are at least two problems with this filing. The filing editor has not notified the other editors. That problem can be solved. The other problem is that this is a one-against-many dispute. Moderated discussion is seldom useful in dealing with a one-against-many dispute. The one editor often hopes that if he repeats his arguments enough times, length of argument will prevail. This has probably happened once in Wikipedia, based on the law of extremely large numbers, and is not worth gambling on. The filing editor has two choices. They can recognize that they are in the minority and leave the issue alone, or they can submit a neutrally worded RFC to try to get a new larger consensus. The other editors have two choices. They can ignore the one editor, or they can submit a neutrally worded RFC to formalize the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Pointing out that making an assumption about the reader's familiarity with a topic or language conventions can lead to confusion; and that making an article use more consistent conventions throughout is a good way to avoid that kind of confusion.
And pointing out that this is a separate issue from my original edit (c=speed of causality), which was dropped pretty early on.
Summary of dispute by Headbomb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Yamla
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by PianoDan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
International System_of_Units discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This is not the place to argue against a clear consensus. Please do not accept this case. - Nick Thornetalk 01:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
World Cup race podiums in Infobox of the alpine skiers
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Kasper2006 on 07:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed as not discussed on an article talk page. Mediated discussion here must be preceded by discussion on an article talk page. There has been discussion on a user talk page, but not within the past month. Maybe there has been discussion somewhere else, but not on the article talk page. Discuss on the article talk page of at least one skier or skiing event, for at least 24 hours with at least two posts by each editor. If that is unsuccessful, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The speech is very simple. The medal count of the World Cup races (sum of the podiums of Downhill, Slalom, Super-G and so on) has always been reported in the skiers' infoboxes, although medals are not actually awarded in these competitions. After all, in the "medaltemplate" the possibility is given to specify what it is and "World Cup race podiums" is a perfect description. The user in question, on the other hand, felt he had to remove this statistic from the infoboxes of only a few active athletes. And luckily it hasn't bothered to do it from the hundreds and hundreds of infoboxes of athletes in which this statistic has always been reported. Over time we tried to involve the various projects in a discussion, but with poor results. Very few have intervened, however it is believed that by asking for the simple confirmation of the status quo, if anything, it should be the other user who seeks a broad consensus and does not constantly revert with arrogance.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Explaining to the user that such an important statistic, which has always been present in skiers' infoboxes, cannot be so easily (and arbitrarily) removed, also because it is almost never present in the body of the articles (for example, in Federica Brignone I had to specifically create it after the bullying suffered).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Felipe de la Mata Pizaña
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
The parties have not had extensive discussion of the issue on a talk page. The filing editor may benefit from reading our policies and guidelines on using references and independent sourcing, as the editor's lack of experience on Wikipedia is what is leading to the draft submission being denied. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I posted a new article on a Justice and the sources used were deemed unreliable, but they are the primary, most reliable sources, as they are the sentences and bulletins posted by the legal authority itself.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
None.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
By clarifying which sources can be reliable when posting about judicial criteria and judicial rulings.
Summary of dispute by Idoghor Melody
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Felipe de la Mata Pizaña discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. This is a case about a draft article which the author wants accepted. DRN is not a forum for discussion of whether a draft article should be accepted. You may ask about how to improve a draft article at the Teahouse, or you may simply revised the draft and resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dispute overview
Hi There, I created an article on a Professor I had who was widely recognized in our field. The editors did a good job initially of pointing out aspects of the article that needed work, but once these sections were corrected, they disappeared. It seem like these editors were only interested in easy corrections and were not intent on accepting the article once the concerns were met. The article has not been sitting for months in limbo, and no further issues have been found, and yet these editors again continue to ignore their initial interest.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I communicated with the editors in 'Talk'
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Perhaps find other editors, or reach out to the original ones.
Travis Meyer (neuroscientist) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cuba
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Julian Bull on 12:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed. It seems the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring page might be the best resolution; given that the two requests came at the same time, I assume "Maybe lock the page, the article is almost entirely slander" applies here also, which is not within the purview of DRN, nor aligned with its purpose. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I'm adding some information that comes directly from the Central Intelligence Agency archives. The person who keeps deleting my writing seems to be doing this purely because the information seems to demonstrate the Cuba has some positive characteristics that have resulted from communist leadership. If you read the CIA archives, it's pretty clear what Cuba is and why the Bourgoisie slander their socialism so terribly. I have much more information to add but I started slowly because I expected something like this might happen.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Almost all the points I made come directly from the Intelligence Agency and other Government departments of the worst enemy of Cuba. They have a clear motive for slandering the Island in the mass media. However, within their own secret internal documents, they need very accurate information so that they can understand and destroy their enemy.
Summary of dispute by Mako001
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Hey man im josh
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Cuba discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Socialist Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Julian Bull on 12:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as failed. The latest reply consists of a lengthy comment on contributors when I (the moderator) was trying to ask about content. If either of the editors would prefer to discuss the other editor, they can do that on user talk pages. DRN is not the place to comment on contributors. Also, an RFC should be about one question. If there are multiple questions, a multi-part RFC or multiple RFCs can be used. If the editors want assistance in composing an RFC, they can ask me on my user talk page. Avoid edit-warring. If there still is a content dispute, there is also an article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Another editor and I are currently in a seemingly unresolvable situation over what constitutes a reliable source fit for use in the article viz. the abbreviation used. He and I have previously had an edit war over this same issue. I attempted to resolve it through discussion but this was ignored out of hand and it escalated to an edit war. It seems the same is about to happen again and I am requesting a third party become involved in order to attempt to resolve the issue.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By settling once and for all which sources ought to be given the greatest weight.
Summary of dispute by MatthewS.
TheCurrencyGuy insists on forcing one only way or else. I am for including all the symbols that are actually in use, and I have referenced all of the usages of £, £E, and E£. LE is not in dispute, as far as I understand. Since all of them are valid currency signs for EGP and are actually all in use, there should be no dispute in using any of them, including the standalone £ sign, for the Egyptian pound, as well as the fact that £ stands for any pound the same way that $ stands for any dollar, and there is no real confusion about which pound is meant since this is the article for the Egyptian pound. MatthewS. (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the crux of the issue at hand, £ does not stand for any pound (as I found while researching) any more than ℳ stands for any mark. Infact I think this is probably the best comparison, as both are stylised forms of a basic Latin character which could stand for any currency by that name, but actual usage appears more mixed. The Israeli pound for example was always notated as IL in standard type, one could theoretically use I£ but this is not supported by any primary sources. I am not trying to force one way or another, I'm simply judging by the sources available, and an unqualified £ for the Egyptian pound is so extraordinarily uncommon (the only source I found was an old stamp) that I do not think it should be given as the primary symbol. LE seems to be the primary abbreviation used so I believe it ought to be given the greatest prominence in the article.
E£ appears to be a transposing of the characters of £E, I noted it as being a form used by FOREX sites as these seem to be the only places it appears. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Egyptian pound discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)
I am willing to act as the moderator if both editors want moderated discussion to resolve the content issue. Discuss of the conduct of the editors will not be permitted. Please read DRN Rule A, which will serve as the ground rules. If both editors answer in the affirmative within 48 hours, we will begin moderated discussion. Address your comments to me, on behalf of the community, not to each other. If either editor declines moderated discussion, or fails to reply within 48 hours, I will close the case with advice to both editors (even though the one who responded affirmatively is more likely to take the advice). Robert McClenon (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Egyptian pound)
@Robert McClenon: £ does stand for any pound, which explains why it is being used on the EGP, SSP, SDP, LBP, SYP, etc pages. TheCurrencyGuy doesn’t think it should, that’s a different story. £ = pound. Any “pound”. To specify EGP, both £E and E£ are in use nowadays. So the most accurate way is to mention all these ways of abbreviating EGP. He wants to keep one way and not the others, this is half a truth. The whole truth is that LE, £, £E, E£ are all used nowadays to mean EGP, depending on context. Have a good day. MatthewS. (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The point I am trying to establish is that "£" without an abbreviating qualification and "E£" do not seem to have wide use, they only appear on "currency converter" sites, and I suspect these may have got them from Wikipedia. The only examples of use outside of those sites, such as newspaper articles and banks, are "LE" and "£E". I am not trying to force only one abbreviation, I am just weighing up the validity of the sources used, as the sources for "£" and "E£" seem to be questionable at best. I had noted "E£" as being a reversal of the more usual "£E" which only currency conversion sites appear to use. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)
At this point, the only way to resolve this dispute appears to be a Request for Comments. Please read DRN Rule A one more time, although we will not have moderated discussion without the participation of both editors. I am asking each editor to make a brief statement as to what they either want to change or want to leave the same in the article. If only one editor answers, I will put together an RFC that tries to reflect their position and the opposing position. This case will be left open until the RFC is posted, at which time it will decide the issue.
Robert McClenon (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved moderator
There is an open ANI case about this topic. [17]Nightenbelle (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
The ANI case has been archived, and it appears that resolving the content dispute is the way to resolve this question. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
First statement by editors (Egyptian pound)
The issue at hand is verifiability. The sources using "£" on its own and "E£" for the Egyptian pound appear to only be random currency conversion sites and not reliable published sources. The sources I had used to support "LE" and "£E" were the Central Bank of Egypt, the CIA World Factbook, the World Bank, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Daily News Egypt, whereas the only sources for "£" and "E£" are Investopedia and Xe.com, both of which appear to have used Wikipedia for their summaries, they do not cite any sources and their summaries appear to have been copypasted, at least in part, from earlier iterations of the Wikipedia article.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Other sites use E£ as a currency sign for EGP as well, including PayPal. Sites like Google Flights, among others, do use the standalone £ sign for EGP since in context it is understood which pound is meant. All I am saying is that all of those are valid and in use. It’s no longer just “LE”. Maybe years ago but it’s not the case anymore. MatthewS. (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)
Each editor has made a brief statement supporting their position. However, I may not have been clear. I would like each editor to make a brief statement as to exactly what they want to change in the article, or exactly what they want to leave the same. We need to know this so that I can prepare the wording of the RFC. In
particular, it would be helpful if either editor will ask: "Should the article be tweaked as follows" or "Should the article be changed as follows?"
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by editors (Egyptian pound)
I say it stays the way it is, mentioning the different ways EGP is symbolized. Nowadays E£ is totally valid, and so is LE and £E. As well as the standalone £ sign where it is naturally understood that the Egyptian pound is meant by the sign (like on the Egyptian pound Wikipedia article for instance (!!)). I provided proof that E£ is in use nowadays online and by payment services such as PayPal, as well as on some physical payment receipts here in Egypt (I’m in Egypt right now). MatthewS. (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe the sourced abbreviations (LE and £E) that are supported by government sources (banknotes, postage stamps and government websites), notable style guides, the press, sources such as the CIA World Factbook and the World Bank etc. ought to be considered the acceptable abbreviations. Unofficial abbreviations used by certain websites are not helpful as it is not certain where they got them from. I have a strong suspicion it is a feedback loop from the Wikipedia entry itself, in which case they should be removed (the Investopedia and xe.com entries cited certainly appear to have been lifted from the Wikipedia entry, so they cannot be used). If something does not have a verifiable source then it should not be included. I have not been able to find any reliable source uses of an unqualified "£" sign for the Egyptian pound, only unofficial use by "currency converter" websites. I had added a number of reliable sources for "LE" and "£E", (the World Bank, the Central Bank of Egypt, the CIA World Factbook and Encyclopaedia Britannica) which have been taken out of the article for some reason, despite their credibility.
In summary, I believe the primary abbreviation used on the article should be "LE", as this is universally supported (Egyptian banknotes use it, for example), "£E" should be mentioned as prior to the late 2000s it enjoyed widespread use, but "E£" and "£" should not be used as there are no reliable sources for them.
Here are the sources I used which have since been removed, I would like to ask MatthewS. why he thinks they should not be used in the article.
Is there anything that is disputed other than what symbols may be used for the Egyptian pound? If so, please state the issue. If not, then each editor may propose a list of what symbols they think are used for the Egyptian pound, and an RFC will be published. It is not necessary to defend or explain the list of symbols. Just say what symbols you think should shown in the infobox as symbols for the Egyptian pound. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Third statement by editors (Egyptian pound)
I simply believe LE and £E are the most appropriate ones to use. As another user pointed out on the talk page there is no official symbol for the Egyptian pound, the abbreviations LE and £E seem to be the most appropriate as they have been featured on Egyptian stamps and banknotes and have been cited by generally reliable sources.
The piastre, the pound's main subunit, is a point of more mild contention. The generally accepted abbreviation seems to be PT (in all caps), with several sources stating that it is an abbreviation for "tariffed piastre", I added this but it was removed along with my other sources.
A final matter is whether "geneih" truly is derived from "guinea". I have not been able to find a source for this anywhere, certainly not in English, so while it is potentially true I think it should remain out of the article until a source can be found. If MatthewS. can find and translate an Arabic source for that I would be very happy to keep it in, but the lack of citations is troubling.TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
All of the symbols are in use; so all of the symbols are valid to be used on the article, including E£ as I have shown proof of their current use in real life. £E is simply TheCurrencyGuy’s preference which is fine, but I don’t see any reason why that should take the place of E£ which is equally valid and in current use. MatthewS. (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Egyptian pound)
It seems, on observing the discussion between the two editors, that there isn't really a substantive disagreement, that the question is over what symbols are preferred. The infobox can list multiple alternative symbols, which it does. I am not seeing a disagreement that requires an RFC to exclude any symbols. If different editors have different preferences, can we conclude this moderated discussion by saying that it has been resolved? (If not, can both editors please state very precisely what the issues are that require an RFC?) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statement by editors (Egyptian pound)
I am fine with closing this dispute if you choose, since I see no issue with the article the way it is currently. MatthewS. (talk) 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I feel the present form of the article gives undue weight to less credible sources than those I am proposing ought to be given the greatest exposure. The sources I provided were taken out with no real explanation and it seems extremely difficult to tease out an explanation from MatthewS. as to why he feels they should not be cited. I opened a thread on the talk page asking him why and he never responded. My preference is for "LE", as this is the most widely used symbol and I feel to give preference to the quirks of currency converter websites is dishonest, especially as the sources MatthewS. provided were seemingly copypasted from Wikipedia, which is something known as citogenesis. My preference is to use whatever the bulk of sources suggest, and the sources are heavily in favour of "LE" and "£E" suggesting that these are the primary abbreviations, with "LE" being by far the most common and thus should be the main one used. The format I suggested was mentioning in a reference that "currency converter sites may occasionally swap the usual order and use "E£" in the reference for "£E". There do not appear to be any reliable sources suggesting an unqualified "£" as the primary symbol for the Egyptian pound, only a handful of currency converter sites, which all seem to have used Wikipedia as a source.
I would propose the RFC cover the following:
Which sources should be considered reliable sources for the symbols used. I had provided a number of broadly reliable sources which have almost all been taken out with no explanation, and preference has been given to potential citogenesis examples.
And:
Whether the unsourced claim that "geneih is derived from guinea" should be included in the article at all, as there are no sources for this.
While MatthewS. accused me of having a "personal preference", he himself seems to have a personal preference for "E£", resulting in him giving massively undue weight to sources that should not be given so much attention. The primary source surely ought to be the Central Bank of Egypt and not a random currency conversion website.
This was my last major edit to the article, I want to know EXACTLY what MatthewS.'s problem with it is, as he seems to simply see any change he does not personally approve of and immediately reverts it. I opened this notice because we have both previously been blocked for edit warring after I attempted to ask why my sources were no good, resulting in him blunt-force reverting.
I am at my wit's end, it feels as if nothing I can say or do will stop him simply kerbstomping any edits until both he and any other user committed to the article are permanently banned.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by CinnamonYT on 05:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC).
Before dispute resolution- you need to have significant discussion on the article talk page. Basically- you need to try to solve this yourself before you ask someone else to step in. It looks like you've made a couple of talk page posts, one person agreed that you should start a new page(s), and then you came here.... Thats not enough. Please continue discussing for a few days and if you still cannot find a solution, you can re-open this and we will be glad to help. I suggest visiting the teahouse if you need more advice before then. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The English dubs used to be on this page. There are five different dubs and they're vastly different from each other and from the Japanese original. Two of these dubs form the basis of various European dubs (Dutch, German, French), as well as the Brazilian Portuguese and Latin American Spanish dubs.
I've made an account just to restore the revision of Maxbmogs from 19 August 2022, but I got an error saying that my changes have not been published, because of an automated filter has prevented this edit in response to an ongoing pattern of abuse. Presumably because of the fact the there have been three edits with a change of 138.000 symbols in the same day.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
First of all please restore this information. I think it would be a good plan to have four different pages for these dubs in the same way that the Japanese episodes have there own page, this way the main page stays uncluttered. I think i described it good on the talk-page of this subject
Summary of dispute by Maxbmogs
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I agree with Cinnamon that there should be separate pages for each dub, with the corresponding Japanese episodes.
Summary of dispute by Yuu Haru Angelo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of Crayon Shin-chan episodes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Uyghurs
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Hunan201p on 22:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed. There are several problems with this case. First, there have been lengthy posts by the two editors on the article talk page, but not within the two weeks, and neither of the editors appears to be interested in discussing, only in posting at length. Second, this noticeboard does not provide independent factual input, so much as facilitate discussion, and it does not appear that these editors are able to discuss productively. Third, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute, and it does not appear to be possible to separate the content dispute from the conduct dispute, which includes that the filing editor has been alleging that the other editor is a sockpuppet of a banned editor, although Checkuser has said that they are unrelated. This is a case of two editors who have a strong antagonism. They would be well advised to avoid each other and edit different articles. If that is not possible, they should ignore each other anyway. This case is closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This dispute concerns a contested source (Li Jin, 2008) about the mtDNA genetic ancestry of Kazakhstan Uighur people. The source says that 55% of Kazakhstan Uighurs carry a European mtDNA haplogroup.
My position is that this content is factually incorrect. For this figure, they cite Comas, et al (1998), which, as I've shown, actually says the opposite: that about 55% of Kazakhstan Uighurs carry an East Asian mtDNA haplogroup. Another study, Yong-Gang, et al (2004) also says this. And a third source, Macbeth & Collins (2002) also cites Comas, 1998, and says that European mtDNA haplogroups make up only about 1/3rd of the mitochondrial ancestry of Kazakhstan Uighurs.
I see this as a factual conflict between sources. Given that 3 sources diametrically conflict with Li Jin's study, including the very source that Li Jin (2008) cites for the claim, my position was that the content about Kazakhstan Uighurs should simply be removed, as it is not crucially important.
Ghizz Archus seems to think that Li Jin (2008) has "corrected" Comas, but he hasn't pointed out where this was done in the paper. This is the exact quote from Li Jin (2008):
"However, there were also much higher estimations (> 50%) when both classical markers7 and mtDNA8 were used; especially, sequences of 55% European mtDNA were found in Uyghurs sampled in the easternmost section of Kazakhstan, which is only 18 km from the boundary with northern Xinjiang,8
Source 8 = Comas et al (1998).
It should be noted that Li Jin (2008) is primary research; based on 26 samples that the authors themselves collected. I don't see anywhere in the article where they claim to correct Comas. They appear to just blatantly cite Comas (1998) for something they never said, and something that Yong-Gang (2004) and others never said about Comas (1998).
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By offering independent input on the factual content dispute regarding Li Jin (2008), Yong-Gang (2004), Macbeth & Collins (2002) and Comas, et al (1998).
Summary of dispute by Ghizz Archus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Uyghurs discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LGBT rights in Uzbekistan
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Lmharding on 17:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed as premature. A secondary problem is that the filing party has not listed any other editors or notified them. The primary problem is that there has been no real attempt to discuss on the article talk page prior to filing. The filing editor did post a comment to the article talk page immediately after filing here. Allow for 48 hours and two exchanges of comments before deciding that outside help is needed. If discussion continues and is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Dispute about lesbianism being illegal, the law mentions specifically male sexual activity but does not directly mention lesbianism either way. However law 130, which is a morality law banning showing sexual items to children and which can loosely also apply to sex and other "immorality" in public that can be seen by children. This is a morality law which can apply to anyone with no note stating that it only applies to male homosexuals. Also, note that this situation is not uncommon as Egypt and other countries also use pornography, crossdressing, public protesting and other laws to indirectly use against LGT. Should lesbianism be listed as illegal for this or should it be left as male sexuality only? No other source provided so far has been clear.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Uzbekistan#Legal_status
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
settle which source is more valid sand factually valid, or if not can you find a decent compromise edit for us? Keep in mind the context I have mentioned.
LGBT rights in Uzbekistan discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as incomprehensible. The moderator, who has a scientific education, has no idea what the filing party wants, and has not received an answer to a question. Other editors should resume normal editing of the article, which does not require much editing because it has been found to be in excellent condition. If the filing editor wants to discuss something with someone, they may try discussing at WikiProject Physics, but they might try leaving the article alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the article contains unfounded claims that the theory of special relativity (alone) prohibits the superluminal transfer of energy and/or information. The bold cycle edit was to retain the word "matter" but delete "energy" and "information". This became out of control controversial as can be seen on the talk page. It may be the case that the original objecting editor called for a third party comment. However, the issue is that on account of the content being scientific, the opinions of a handful of editors are insufficient to attain a neutral point of view as required.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Ideally consensus may be reached with a larger number of qualified editors. Barring this, there should be at least a compromise reached regarding the content, so as to neutrally provide both perspectives.
Summary of dispute by Xor'easter
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DVdm
I can't help looking at this as an edit war ([20], [21], [22], [23]) flanking an attempt to counter-consensus-remove a bit of neutral lead section content that is properly supported in the article body, and now backed by several independent relevant text book sources. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by NebY
There are two strands: what the article lead should say and how we should determine that.
The lead currently says that under special relatibity, the speed of light "is the upper limit for the speed at which conventional matter or energy, and thus any signal carrying information, can travel through space." OP describes this above as unfounded claims that it "prohibits the superluminal transfer of energy and/or information". (All emphases are mine.) The difference between "travel through space" and "transfer" for the general reader and the inclusion of “signal” may be critical and raise the possibility that the OP has been arguing against something the article doesn’t say.
I see no discussion of phrasing, only much in-depth discussion of quantum mechanics such as OP’s "If one looks carefully at equation (14) on page 780 of the 1935 EPR paper, one finds a false statement".
I’ve only participated to say there’s already been an Arbcom case on the speed of light Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light (WP:ARBSL), blockquote its findings on Neutral point of view, Neutrality and sources, Scientific focus and Decorum, and express a little in my own words eg “fundamental principle that Wikipedia isn't written by authorities on subjects; it's written by editors documenting what authorities have written.” In contrast, OP has responded to another editor “you are explicitly announcing that truth is relative to the consensus of editors. This has no place in science and it is not the spirit of Wikipedia. Factual arguments do matter. They matter in real life and they matter on Wikipedia.”
Summary of dispute by JayBeeEll
This is a pretty straightforward WP:1AM situation; it's too bad the filing party won't accept the local consensus against them. If they want a more definitive thing to happen they should have someone help them frame an RfC. --JBL (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Speed of light discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor says that they are asking for consensus to be reached with a larger number of qualified editors. If so, this may not be the right place for this request, because this noticeboard provides moderated discussion about article content. The filing editor may want to discuss at WikiProject Physics. If there is a specific question about article content, a Request for Comments is the way to obtain consensus with more editors. However, it is very hard for an editor with a scientific education to know what the filing editor wants. I am neither opening nor closing this case, but a concise clarification (and the talk page is not concise) might be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not explained in more detail what they want, and in fact has not edited in 48 hours. The filing editor is requested to clarify, within 24 hours, what they want changed in the article. The objective of any case here is to improve the article. If the filing editor wants the involvement of more editors, they are asked to post to WikiProject Physics. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lilium bosniacum
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Ip2alwayswins on 19:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed, DRN is not the place for a third opinion. I suggest you try Wikipedia:Third opinion if the dispute continues. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, there has been no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion on the article talk page is required prior to a request for a Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have messaged them on their talk page.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Need a third opinion on the edit to resolve the issue.
Summary of dispute by 195.252.64.156
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Lilium bosniacum discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There has been no discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has made edits to the article that have been reverted. That is BR of the Bold Revert Discuss cycle. Discuss on the article talk page. That's what article talk pages are for. Also, the filing editor is strongly advised not to cast aspersions on other editors by saying that they are trying to hide the truth, which is a personal attack. Discuss content, not contributors, on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This user is trying to hide the truth about the genocides which happened to Christians regions in mount of Lebanon by Terrorist Muslim Durzy militia men. He keep on putting flowers on this page like if he is paid to block the truth from reaching wikipedia.
on this link you can see many information are getting hidden, for example the conflict was between Druze and Maronite as Orthodox was fighting with Druze against Maronite in 1860 & there is other miss information
Summary of dispute by Bowler_the_Carmine
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Elias_Ziade
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
1860 civil conflict in Mount Lebanon and Damascus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Flag of Antarctica
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Federalwafer on 19:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC).
Closed as failed. I made a mistake in opening this dispute when there was already an RFC in progress on a closely related topic. I was then ready to wait until the RFC was closed, but a review of the history of this dispute has made me non-neutral so that I am no longer sure that I can mediate. It appears to me that one of the parties, User:Federalwafer, is trying to game the system, by extending the RFC ID, perhaps because they don't like the result of the RFC, and then by trying by forum shopping, trying to use DRN to "pause" the RFC. They were advised that they could ask about source reliability at the reliable source noticeboard, but do not seem to have been there. I am closing this DRN thread as failed. The editors are welcome to come back to DRN and file a new request to ask for a different volunteer mediator. I do not know if another moderator is available. Either editor can report user conduct at WP:ANI, but they should read the boomerang essay first, and it is also possible that WP:ANI may say that this is a content dispute. Do not edit war. I am failing this dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Editor Vanilla Wizard has added claims about the Graham Bartram flag being flown at several bases in 2002, a claim contradicted by the primary source. Their arguments in favor of inclusion, and mine in favor of exclusion, are detailed in the talk page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I would appreciate if you could determine if the sources for the claim of the Bartram flag being flown at "several bases" meet WP:RS. They have many errors and is contradicted by the primary source. If the sources do not meet reliable source standards, they and the related claim should be removed.
Thanks!
Summary of dispute by Vanilla Wizard
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I'm pretty bad at making things concise, but I'll try my best to summarize all the points of disagreement without going into excessive detail and repeating all the arguments from the talk page.
In short, this dispute is over one sentence: [...] At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag. Or rather, this dispute is over whether or not the sources used to verify it are reliable.
A longer explanation is that we've disagreed over whether or not the claims made by these sources are contradicted by the primary source they've linked to, which I do not agree with. I don't believe any of the examples mentioned by Federalwafer directly contradict or otherwise make impossible the claims stated by the secondary sources. I am also of the belief that some of the statements they've made regarding the primary source are inaccurate and contradicted by it (an example being their claim that fewer than 100 flags were sold "at the time of the article's writing"; I explain in more detail at the talk page why this is not what the primary source says). We also disagreed over whether the flag being raised over Port Lockroy with the acceptance of the assistant base commander counts as an example of the flag flying over a base in Antarctica; this is mainly because we disagreed over whether or not the historic base was being staffed by members of the British Antarctic Survey. My understanding is that the base was in fact staffed by the BAS until 2006, which is years after the flag was raised.
I think those are all the most relevant points of disagreement. Vanilla Wizard 💙 21:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Flag of Antarctica discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor of the filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I did notify @Vanilla Wizard on the talk page of the article but just left a comment on their profile talk page as well. Federalwafer (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I've raised it there also, but with no resolution yet. We'll see if we're able to get a reply. Federalwafer (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Note - You opened the Third Opinion request before filing this request. Maybe I should have checked that. It is unhelpful to ask the same question in two forums at the same time. I am putting this request on hold until the Third Opinion request either is answered or is closed as unanswered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert. The dispute has been closed as unanswered on WP:3. I would appreciate support in resolving this. Federalwafer (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)
The editors are requested to read the rules that will be in effect. Address your answers to the moderator and the community. If there is to be back-and-forth discussion, conduct it in the section for that purpose. It appears that there is a question about the Bartram flag, which displays the outline of the continent centered on the South Pole. Is the question about the reliability of sources that specify when the flag has been flown? If so, please specify what the sources are whose reliability is questioned, or whose reliability is claimed. If the question is something else, please state what the question is.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Antarctic flag)
The statement under dispute is @Vanilla Wizard's addition to the article "At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag." Currently the cited sources for the claim are from worldatlas.com and gotoflags.com.
I am in favor of removing this claim and the sources as they are directly contradicted by more credible sources and do not seem to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The first source claims "In 2002, most bases on the continent started flying this flag alongside that of their own countries." The second source claims "The first time the flag was hoisted over the continent by the editor of the popular magazine “The Ravan” – Ted Kaye in 2002. At the same time, scientific bases, which are present on the continent, also raised the flag in solidarity."
The primary source written by the person who brought the flag to Antarctica as a tourist names the one base the flag flew at in 2002, which was the Brazilian. It also flew at a museum. Both were already mentioned in the article ("On this trip, it flew at the Brazilian base Comandante Ferraz and the British museum at Port Lockroy.")
Further, the flag was raised for the first time in Antarctic on Dec. 30, and the subsequent station the primary source author visited (but did not fly the flag at) were in 2003, casting further doubt on the articles' claims. The primary source also mentions fewer than 100 flags were sold by the one known seller at the time of the article's writing, a claim substantiated by another source that states the flag was never frequently used on or off Antarctica.
The sources for Vanilla Wizard's claim also include other factual errors regarding the Bartram flag, including the claim that it was made official in 2002. According to the primary source, it was the emblem of the Antarctic Treaty, not the Bartram flag that was made official. Federalwafer (talk) 01:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)
It appears that a main issue is whether worldatlas.com and gotoflags.com should be considered reliable sources. Is that correct? It also appears that there are questions about certain statements about the Bartram flag. Please specify what those issues are.
If there are any other issues, please list them.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Antarctic flag)
Yes, that seems like an accurate summary. The reliability of the sources is the principal concern.
The larger disagreement that comes from this is about whether or not the Graham Bartram flag is as notable or official as the True South flag. The two sources under dispute are the only mentions of the Graham Bartram flag receiving any broad use or recognition, so if these sources are concluded as unreliable I would also expect:
True South, the flag with undisputed sourcing, be described as the flag of Antarctica with the most official use and recognition
Its mention in the lede be restored to reflect this fact
Yes, that is correct. This dispute is over whether the sentence in question is accurate and verifiable, or if the sources used to verify it are permissible. I don't second what Federalwafer said after that. I don't believe this particular dispute extends to disagreements over how the Bartram flag compares to the True South flag, or to the ongoing RfC (which is most likely to close with a consensus against using any flag for Antarctica in Wikipedia articles). I especially don't believe this dispute has any implications for whether or not the lede should emphasize the importance of the True South flag design, as that has nothing to do with this disagreement and other editors in the page history have reverted Federalwafer's preferred lede several times before. The scope of this particular dispute is only limited to the sentence in question and the sources used to verify it, nothing more. Vanilla Wizard 💙 16:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Will each editor please state exactly what they want changed in the article. If they want something left the same that another editor wants changed, please state what they want left the same. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
If there is a question about the reliability of a source, please ask about the reliability of the source at the reliable source noticeboard. If the source is not one of the ones already mentioned, please also name it here.
If there is some other issue, please state briefly what the issue is.
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, @Robert McClenon:, are you suggesting we open the conversation at the reliable source noticeboard in addition to this one or instead of this one? To answer your question, yes, those are the only two sources whose credibility I question.
It seems our disagreement is not only about the reliability of those sources but also the implications about the sources' reliability. I disagree with @Vanilla Wizard: when they say this doesn't extend to disagreements over how the Bartram flag compares to the True South flag or to the ongoing RfC. Currently, the two sources in question are the only ones that claim the Bartram flag had any widespread use or acceptance, so if they are demonstrated as unreliable then True South, with nearly a dozen undisputed sources, is clearly the most widely adopted flag of Antarctica.
This extends to the RfC because editors are basing decisions on the (what I believe to be false) information in this and earlier versions of article. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that earlier this year, before sourcing for True South was removed and before Vanilla Wizard's claim was added, a nearly identical talk thread with many of the same participants came to a different consensus.
I think it is inappropriate to make any decisions based on the ongoing RfC until this dispute is resolved. Federalwafer (talk)
In response to Robert McClenon, my stance is that it is appropriate to keep the sentence the same as I believe the information in it is not incorrect and that the sources cited on it are acceptable. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)
The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. At this point I will ask each editor to state exactly what changes they want made to the wording of the article. If you want a particular statement in the article kept the same, and the other editor wants to change it, say what you want to stay the same. When the editors have said exactly what they want to change, then we will proceed to resolve the content issues.
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Antarctic flag)
I would like the following:
"At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag" and related sources be removed from the article.
True South, the flag with undisputed sourcing, be described as the flag of Antarctica with the most official use and recognition.
Its mention in the lede be restored to reflect this fact.
The RfC for the template flag be paused until we've resolved the above.
For the article to remain the same by keeping the sentence "At the same time, several bases on the continent flew the Bartram flag"
For the article to remain the same by continuing to not insist on explaining to readers the importance of any particular flag design over others, either in the lede or elsewhere (it is inappropriate to suggest that in this conversation when the page history and talk comments suggest longstanding and overwhelming opposition to doing such a thing)
I've never heard of "pausing" new !votes on an RfC and I don't believe it's possible, much less appropriate, to try to do such a thing here.
Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)
I think that I was sloppy in opening this dispute when there was already an RFC in progress. An RFC takes precedence over other forms of conflict resolution. An RFC involves the community, via listing on lists of open RFCs, and notices to editors by a bot, while a DRN involves only the participating editors. Rather than pausing the RFC while the question is resolved here at DRN, this DRN should be put on hold until the RFC is decided and closed.
I am not sure why the RFC has not yet been deactivated by the bot, but I will inquire. In the meantime, this DRN is on hold, and the editors may ask questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Antarctic flag)
Sixth statement by moderator (Antarctic flag)
I have been looking at the history of the RFC, and it appears that it tried to expire on 19 August, and that there has been editing of the RFC that required intervention by User:Redrose64, who rebuked some editors for churning the RFC ID. User:Vanilla Wizard, User:Federalwafer – Will you please explain the edits that you made to the RFC template and RFC ID? I know that User:Vanilla Wizard started the RFC on 20 July. Legobot then tried to deactivate it on 19 August, which is what it should have done, but there appears to have been editing of the RFC ID. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Antarctic flag)
In response to @Robert McClenon:, I don't believe that I have edited the RfC template or ID. I did make an edit expanding the prompt on the 20th of August to account for a 3rd option which many !voters selected without it being included in the original prompt, but I have not relisted the RfC or modified its ID. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I looked through the page history and it seems that the timeline of edits to the RFC template/ID is as follows:
I'll put my response to Federalwafer here instead of in my 3rd statement as to not clutter my response to the moderator question, as I believe the secondary question of this disagreement's scope is a bit of a side tangent with little relevance. I'll start by saying that the February discussion wasn't much of a consensus as it was a very short discussion of only four editors and half of the !votes were just editors saying "I agree with that." without providing a rationale, and it was a regular thread as opposed to an RfC which suppressed participation. As for the ongoing one, I don't believe this dispute relates to the RfC considering that most of the !votes were cast prior to the sentence in question being added, and an overwhelming majority of the !votes are in favor of using no flag at all per the rationale that there is no official flag of Antarctica, a rationale unaffected by this sentence's inclusion or lack thereof. Most !voters don't even seem to agree with your belief that the single determining factor ought to be which flag was recently used by the greatest number of presently-active scientific research bases. In short, the outcome could not possibly be affected by this short sentence talking about the Bartram flag being used in the early 2000s. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1998 Commonwealth Games
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Hongqilim on 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC).
Closed. Minima Arbitrating disputes is not within the purview of DRN (consider 3rd Opinion or an RFC for that avenue), little discussion has taken place on article talk, and it seems this has evolved into more of a user-conduct discussion than merely the question of inclusion (continue the discussion on user talk, or perhaps try ANI). IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 16:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Newcomer, User:Sneha04 had the changed the statistics of the Indian delegation's medal count, which they claimed that I had deliberately introduced the wrong numbers and then tag me as vandalised the 1998 Commonwealth Games article. As if these were not enough, they then tag me for the second time in one of their edits at India at the Commonwealth Games which I did not involve. I had tried to talk to them, but they insist that I was wrong and have no room to discuss with them about the issue. And each time I talk to them, they removed my discussion on their talk page, then placed warnings on my talk page. I told him to ask the admin to take action against me if they think I did wrong, but there was no reply from them and from there on, our argument started to heat up. My edit is actually based on this archived medal tally https://web.archive.org/web/19990427222543/http://www.kl98.com.my/results/default.html
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Convince Sneha04 that I did not vandalise the article.
Summary of dispute by Sneha04
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
1998 Commonwealth Games discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as wrong forum. This is a deletion dispute, and DRN does not handle any dispute for which there is a special procedure, or any dispute that is being argued in another forum. There is an Articles for Deletion discussion in progress, which is the proper place to discuss whether to delete the article. If there are personal attacks or other conduct disputes, the conduct may be reported to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Geoff Young is the democratic nominee for ongress for Kentuckys 6th district. There has been a concerted organized POV attempt to delete this page. Editors have personally attacked other editors, deleted warnings, deleted comments on the talk page etc.
Again, this is a Democratic nominee for congress. Not some 3rd party nobody.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk:Geoff Young
Deletion page of Geoff young
Talk page of formaldude
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Non biased mediator to decide whether this person is notable enough to stay on wikipedia. Stop the npa and vast deletions of talk page comments
Summary of dispute by Formaldude
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Geoff Young discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.