Misplaced Pages

:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:30, 5 January 2016 editErik (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers100,340 edits →Follow on statements: cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:06, 24 December 2024 edit undoRatnahastin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,905 edits →Summary of dispute by Ratnahastin: cmt 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Informal venue for resolving content disputes}}
<noinclude>{{Pp-move-indef}}</noinclude>
{{redirect-distinguish|WP:DRN|WP:DNR}}
<!--{{Backlog}}-->
{{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}} |archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 130 |counter = 252
|minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(48h) |algo = old(72h)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{clear|left}}
]
]
]
{{Noindex}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}<!-- When removing this, please put a note at Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Archiving to explain why. -->


{{purge box}}

__TOC__
{{clear}}


=Current disputes= =Current disputes=


== Dragon Age: The Veilguard ==
== Talk:Campus sexual_assault/Archive_3#Reverts ==


{{DR case status|failed}} {{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 20:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735848408}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Mattnad|15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Sariel Xilo|20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|The editors were instructed when the case was accepted not to edit the article while discussion was in progress. Edit-warring has resumed. At this point, the most likely way to resolve the content dispute will be a ]. If edit-warring persists, page protection may be requested at ]; however, since discussion isn't working, page protection might be for 30 days to allow an RFC to run. Avoid getting the edit-warring to ]. Avoid edit-warring in general, but if the edit-warring gets to 3RR, it may be reported at ]. Dispute resolution has failed because the editors failed to follow the instruction to avoid editing the article. ] (]) 02:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 31: Line 30:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Dragon Age: The Veilguard}}
*]
*
* (inconclusive)
*
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Mattnad}} * {{User|Sariel Xilo}}
* {{User|Nblund}} * {{User|BMWF}}
* {{User|Aquillion}} * {{User|Wikibenboy94}}
* {{User|Carwil}}
* {{User|VQuakr}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


1) Disagreement on if ] is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows ]/] & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows ] advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included.
In the ] article a new study on campus sexual assault by the AAU was added. In that study, and picked up by multiple sources, was that the majority of respondents that the study said had been sexually assaulted did not report the event because "they didn't think it was serious enough to report". Nblund takes issue with including this detail and has several times removed it from the article despite it being covered by mainstream news sources such as the Washington Post, The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, and CNN. Even something that (while leaving in other reasons in the preceding sentence). Nblund has argued that its misleading and cites opinions written years before the AAU study that explain why women might say that, without meaning it the way a plain reading of the question might suggest. He or she wants to separate it from the AAU study section, keep it out of the lede, and will only permit it if there's a rebuttal.
2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus.
3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


*Current discussion: ]
We have discussed this at length, including an (inconclusive), and
*Previous discussion: ]


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>


An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a ] until the dispute is resolved.
Given that the RFC is inconclusive with few editors being interested in the topic, I'd like others to weigh in, either here or at the RFC to help decide a simple question. Can we include the AAU findings that the majority of respondents who were classified as victims of sexual assault didn't report it because they "didn't think it was serious enough to report."? I think it's fair to include that in the lede and attached to the section on the survey. ] (]) 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by Nblund ==== ==== Summary of dispute by BMWF ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
As I stated in the RfC: I do not think that the finding needs to be left out of the article. I do think that that finding should only be mentioned in the context of the existing academic research on women's reasons for not reporting sexual victimization. There are two things that I think should be made clear to readers:


==== Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94 ====
* This finding is not new or unique. The AAU finding is consistent with several decades of previous research on this topic, and it's misleading and unhelpful to fail to point this out.
The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion:


1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to ], and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did.
* There has been peer reviewed research in to why women choose not to report their victimization to the police. Experts generally view this response as indicative of the difficulties women face in reporting sexual assault, and do not think it should be taken "at face value", as Mattnad suggests. I suggested that we could cite some of research to present the expert views of that finding.


2. Including the ] player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much ''Dragon Age: Veilguard'' has sold.
Mattnad doesn't seem to dispute the veracity of either of these points, but instead has argued that including Fisher's work in relation to the AAU study would constitute because Fisher's study did not specifically examine the AAU survey or that it was . However, as in the RfC, Fisher's paper is actually cited in the AAU article in relation to the exact finding we're discussing (), and Fisher is actually a lead author of the AAU study. ] (]) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms".
==== Summary of dispute by Aquillion ====
I've explained my feelings on this on the talk page, so I'll be brief about them here: I don't feel that most sources place the degree of significance on this particular statistic that Mattnad does. While it gets mentioned, it's usually one sentence amid an assortment of different factoids from the study; by comparison, most articles ''lead'' with the overarching figure on prevalence of sexual assault (which is, after all, the main conclusion of the study.) Putting it in the lead the way Mattnad is suggesting is artificially forcing an equal weight on two things that are clearly not weighted equally in the sources, and clearly giving ] weight to something that most sources have not treated as so significant. Mattnad says that "it has been covered" by many sources; but the weighting and tone within those sources is also important to pay attention to. As far as I can tell, none of them (aside from one editorial) have given it any significant weight. --] (]) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


4. The invoking of ] while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews".
==== Summary of dispute by Carwil ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
My involvement in this dispute began with the RfC posted in October. In my view, a question of policy and guidelines underlies this dispute at all stages, namely how best to identify reliable sources. Mattnad has put forward requests on the basis that multiple reliable sources (newspaper articles covering the 2015 Campus Climate Survey) should frame the article's use of the underlying study, which was produced by academics in a rigorous, fact-checking manner, though perhaps not subject to peer review. In my estimation, "The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the … researchers' published findings." This follows from the guidance at ].


5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). ] (]) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Delving a bit more into the substance of the dispute, there is the question of whether, and how much, to highlight a follow-up question asked to students who did not report their rape or sexual assault to law enforcement. Such students reported a number of reasons, the most frequent of which is the incident was "not serious enough to report." My read on the cause of the dispute is that external writers (including the oft-cited Stuart Taylor, an expert with a different view on the importance of campus sexual assault) have built a point-of-view around the non-serious nature of most assaults reported in survey data, and that this one survey result is intended to back up that POV.


=== Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion ===
This page is deluged by trench warfare on this point, and editors are thereby sidetracked from their role of fully describing the extent and nature of campus sexual assault, as well as the reasons for non-reporting. There's more material in the 2015 CCS that isn't on the page, and an abundant peer-reviewed research literature (including the much-mentioned but hardly used Fisher 2003 article) on the subject of survivor's reporting decisions that could and should be included on the page.

In my view, the next step should be to flesh out the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section with more of the results from that survey, and to create a section summarizing the literature on non-reporting. Fisher 2003's and Stuart Taylor's positions can be summarized in this new section.

The "not serious enough to report" survey response simply isn't so important as to need to be in the lead right now.--] (]) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

==== Summary of dispute by VQuakr ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

=== Talk:Campus sexual_assault discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been considerable recent discussion at the talk page, and proper notice, so that this case can be opened by a volunteer. There was an RFC, which has not been formally closed but has expired, and does not prevent discussion here. The RFC was not concisely worded and attracted little comment. Either discussion here or rewording the RFC neutrally with better publicity might be appropriate. I am neither opening nor declining this case. ] (]) 17:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Volunteer note 2:''' I'm a bit concerned that we do not provide the kind of service expected by the filing party based upon his answer to the "How do you think we can help" question. What we do here is, per the header, "we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy" or, in short, we facilitate discussion between the parties. Volunteers here may, if they choose, close a case by offering an opinion when there is a clear single outcome set by policy but that's just one volunteer's opinion and only applies in the most clear-cut of cases. In short, if all Mattnad is looking for is additional people to weigh in then this isn't the place to obtain that and he should consider withdrawing this request; on the other hand, if he feels that there's still a possibility that he and the responding party might work it out with some additional supervised discussion, then he's in the right place. What do you say, ]? Regards, ] (]) 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
::'''Pinged for comment:''' I'm up for help with consensus. The RFC stalled, but right now I think the is very limited to his/her editorial vision, and far from what I think is common in Misplaced Pages around the use of reliable sources. I have no issue with the rebuttal at this point, but his/her approach completely diminishes the scale of what the AAU study found, which quoting the AP, ""] (]) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Good deal. Let's see if the responding editor chooses to participate. (Participation in moderated content ] is always voluntary and never mandatory.) — ] (]) 22:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As a starting point, I think it would be helpful if Mattnad would remove and the disputed material in to the lead paragraph of the entry until some kind of consensus is reached. It's hard to tell what changes are being discussed when the status quo keeps moving.


To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both {{reply to|Wikibenboy94|p=}} and I agree that there are no ] issues in the topline summary sentences removed by {{reply to|BMWF|p=}} in and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute.
I think Robert McClenon's proposal for a new round of RfC's may be a better basis for generating consensus, and I think a lack of eyeballs on the page is part of the root problem. That said: it seems like we have talked past each other on the nature of the dispute, and I think confusion over the nature of the dispute made the previous round of RfCs less productive than they could have been. Is it outside the scope of this process to ask for a mediated discussion simply to clarify the dispute itself, with the goal of creating a more productive round of RfCs? ] (]) 03:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:We could try another RFC, but I'm fine just adding the reporting on the finding (per AP as a mainstream reliable source) and in the spirit of NPOV the WaPo interpretation (with appropropriate mention of the source). Fisher has made her career around sexual assault, but for the benefit of the other editors here, the DOJs bureau of justice statistic has found 0.61% annual incidence for college students which is lower than the numbers reported in Fisher's research. The gap between the two stems in part from the broader definitions used by Fisher which many students don't think are as serious as Fisher thinks they are. Also, per Nblund's own sources, part of the disagreement in interpretation comes from feminist opinion, which is fine to include, but does not disqualify other views.


In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: {{xt|''Veilguard'' was also subject to ] on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "]". Some outlets noted that {{underline|while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative,}} the user reviews of ''Veilguard'' on ], '''which requires users to play the game before leaving a review''', have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove {{underline|offensive}} reviews}}. ] (]) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
:So, what I've been seeking is NPOV balance, where it belongs per the sources - with the AAU study section.] (]) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)===
'''Volunteer note 3:''' After an inquiry on my user talk page, I've taken a look at the discussion and added and notified three parties who have been involved in the recent discussion. I don't think that they're absolutely necessary parties to this case going forward, but they ought to be given a chance to participate if they care to do so. Regards, ] (]) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC) '''Update:''' ] has at her/his user talk page that s/he does not care to participate here, which should ''not'' affect whether or not a volunteer opens the case. — ] (]) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read ] and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.
] (]) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


:Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). ] (]) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
'''Participant Comment''': I'm fine with this finding not being in the lede, but in the particular section related to the AAU study from where it came. However, Nblund has argued against this, saying it's common to most studies, so it would be undue to put in that section. She and Carwil refer heavily to Bonnie Fisher whom they have cited as an expert and one of the AAU study designers to support this argument. However, a direct quote from Fisher says otherwise. Per a Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” . I would seem the Fisher sees this finding as new, important, and worthy of "discussion". However Nblund Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure that Nblund is interpreting Misplaced Pages guidelines correctly and perhaps not discussing this in good faith.] (]) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


====First statement by volunteer moderator==== ====Clarification by Moderator (Dragon Age)====
I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that ] is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of ] applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in.
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I expect every editor to check this page at least every 48 hours and to comment if requested. I will check this page at least every 24 hours. Be civil and concise. There is a widespread belief in Misplaced Pages that civility is encouraged but optional. It is not. It is mandatory, especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify anything. Comment on content, not contributors. Will every participant please provide a short summary within the next 48 hours of what they think the issues are? If you think that RFCs, rather than moderated discussion, are in order, put that in your statement. ] (]) 18:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. It is recommended that you not discuss the article at its talk page while this discussion is in progress, because comments at the talk page may not be seen here. ] (]) 18:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


====First statements by editors==== ===Zeroth statements by editors (Dragon Age)===
I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined , I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed & ), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. ] (]) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Mattnad, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've more or less reached agreement on most of the issues here. From where I sit, it seems like the primary sticking point is over whether to present this finding in the AAU section. I think presenting it in that section is misleading, because, as I , this finding isn't unique to the AAU study. You cited the quote from Fisher in the Washington Post as evidence that this finding is new, but I don't think that quote is especially persuasive. '''EDIT''': an RfC would be ideal, but I think we're fairly close to consensus here and I'm ready to see this get resolved.


===First statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)===
First, I think that quote is actually fairly ambiguous. Fisher doesn't specify what part of the finding in question hasn't been measured in the past.
Do two editors want moderated discussion? The filing editor has said that they agree to ] and has made a statement about what they want to change in the article. Another editor made a statement at the beginning, but has not agreed to ]. If they agree to those rules, I will open moderated discussion, and we will try to work on the various differences. If they do not either agree to the rules or make some other statement, I will close this discussion as declined due to lack of response.


Are there any other questions? ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Second, it seems like it may have been a misquote or quoted out of context. Other sources that covered the AAU report include a very similar quote in reference to different portions of the survey. From a
{{Quote box
|quote=The survey found that 11 percent of undergraduate women experienced vaginal penetration or oral sex without their "active, ongoing voluntary agreement." This rate ranged from 5 percent to 21 percent among the 27 schools. "'''That will stimulate a lot of discussion,'''" said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. "'''We as researchers don't know a lot about this -- it hasn't been measured in the past.'''"
}}
And here is a nearly identical quote in a story from the {{Quote box
|quote=The AAU survey found 11.4 percent of undergraduate women and 14.8 percent of undergrad LGBTQ students at these campuses experienced sexual assault involving penetration or oral sex due to a lack of affirmative consent. "'''That in itself is going to stimulate a lot of discussion,'''" said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at University of Cincinnati, and consultant at Westat, the firm that conducted the survey. "'''We don't, as researchers, know much about this phenomenon because it hasn't been measured in the past.'''"
}}


:I've pinged the two other editors in case they only watched this noticeboard for a week & haven't seen that a moderator opened the discussion. ] (]) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
The fact that other sources reproduced this quote in reference to a different survey finding suggests, to me at least, that Fisher said this, but may have said it in relation to another portion of this survey. I'm particularly skeptical that the WaPo version is accurate because Fisher herself has produced this same finding in her past work, and has written on it extensively.
::I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. ] (]) 20:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)


===First statements by editors (Dragon Age)===
Third, even if Fisher was accurately quoted, we have numerous reliable sources that show that this finding is consistent with past research, and where there is ], I think we should favor the more numerous and more reliable version. The itself says fairly explicitly that this finding is consistent with past research: "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003). (p. 36)" And other academic sources also note that the "not serious enough to report" finding is fairly common. ] (]) 21:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
:Nblund, the question is common, but in the AAU study the rate that people responded in the affirmative to "not serious enough" at 50% to 75% (depending on the type of assault or misconduct) is unheard of. By comparison the Federal Government's ''Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010'' report found only 10.6% of respondents who had been sexually assaulted indicated they didn't report it due to "
Not important enough to respondent" but it was still ''dominant'' among the other choices. This enormous gap between the AAU (50% to 75%) and for instance the Federal survey (10.6%) is why it became news and why Bonnie Fisher (your preferred expert) said they've never seen this before per the Washington Post (which is a bit more rigorous than the volunteer Huffington Post reporters).
:It's also why commentators have pointed it out as a sign that the AAU study is flawed in it's definitions and categorization of sexual assault. You don't want those comments in there at all and have taken them out in the past despite being in reliable sources.


:I will add that you want us to focus on what the AAU report's ambiguous statement "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003). (p. 36)". However ] states "Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It's not clear exactly what they are referring to from the 2003 text. At any rate Misplaced Pages explicitly prefers reliable secondary sources on topics rather than primary for good reason.] (]) 13:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


====Second statement by moderator==== ===Second statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)===
It appears that two editors have agreed to moderated discussion, but that they have mostly agreed with each other and disagreed with the third editor, who has not responded on this noticeboard. Their statements of what they want to change in the article are not entirely clear, at least not to me. So what I will do at this point is to ask each editor to prepare draft versions of the sections that they think should be changed. I don't see a discussion in the current text of the article about ], so that we can read a description of the review bombing.
I had instructed the parties to be civil and concise. They have been civil but not concise. (I would rather have this than have them be concise but not civil, because that, which is too common, is a brief exchange of insults. I am satisfied that the parties are being civil.) Before we can discuss the details, we need to identify any areas of disagreement. (If we don't identify any areas of disagreement, then we can close the case.) What does each editor think needs to be changed in the article? What does each editor think needs to be kept the same in the article that the other editor wants to change? Do any of the three silent editors want to participate? It appears that there is scholarly consensus that sexual assault on campus is under-reported. So is there a question about which sources to quote, or is there a detailed disagreement about how to state the underreporting, or is it something else altogether?


I will comment that the article is no longer fully protected. The full protection expired, and the article is now semi-protected. However, I have asked that the editors in this dispute not edit the article while we are discussing its improvement.
====Second statements by editors====
I think the status quo is okay (first paragraph of ]), and I think Carwil's suggestion of including expanding in to a short section on non-reporting that includes criticisms like the one Mattnad cites is also reasonable -- I removed those previously because they weren't attributed in-text and weren't presented as minority viewpoints. I think the sticking point is over whether or not the stat should be included in the AAU section. This seems unhelpful to me, and I think Mattnad and I are actually in agreement that the Prevalence and Incidence section needs to be trimmed in a way that doesn't emphasize individual surveys so much.
'''EDIT''' to answer the last question: 2015 AAU report found that most who don't report an assault do so because they did not think it was serious enough to report. Mattnad's view, as I understand it, is that this finding is unique and new to this report and wants to present them that way, my view is that these are consistent with previous research and should be presented as such.


I don't understand what the ] issue is, and I don't want to read through the history and previous discussion to determine what the ] issue is. So please state more specifically what the ] issue is if you want it considered, or let me infer it from the rewritten sections, or I might ignore it, which might be what you want. It seems that the two editors who have responded do not see a ] issue, so it can be disregarded if it isn't mentioned and the third editor doesn't describe it.
] (]) 17:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Please provide your rewritten sections.


Are there any other questions?
The status quo as Nblund puts it reflects her making changes, well after the dispute started, that suit her position. I didn't stop her, but I didn't agree with the approach either. It should be noted that Fisher qualifies the "not serious enough" response as Feminist opinion, "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." Fisher is not referring mainstream research here, but opinions. It's certainly not "established research" as Nblund suggested.
] (]) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


===Second statements by editors (Dragon Age)===
''As a compromise, I'd say we can leave Nblund's preamble in so long as we can also include the specific findings in the AAU section.'' I think those should be there per reliable secondary sources, including analysis of its implications by the (with author attribution).
Proposed text:
;Lead
''Dragon Age: The Veilguard'' released for ], ], and ] on October 31, 2024. {{strikethrough|After release ''Dragon Age: The Veilguard'' topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record.}} The game received generally positive reviews from critics, '''who praised its cast, representation of ] characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat'''. It was nominated for Game of the Year at the ] and Innovation in Accessibility at ].
;Reception
¶1 ''Dragon Age: The Veilguard'' received "generally favorable" reviews from critics {{strikethrough|for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions}} according to the ] website ].<ref name="MC XSXS Reviews">{{cite web |url=https://www.metacritic.com/game/dragon-age-the-veilguard/critic-reviews/?platform=xbox-series-x |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Xbox Series X Critic Reviews) |website=] |access-date=December 4, 2024}}</ref> ] determined that 68% of critics recommended the game.<ref name="OC Reviews">{{cite web |url=https://opencritic.com/game/17037/dragon-age-the-veilguard |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Reviews |website=] |access-date=November 12, 2024}}</ref> ''Veilguard'' was subject to ] on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "]". '''{{underline|Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative}}''', the user reviews of ''Veilguard'' on ], '''which requires users to play the game before leaving a review''', have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove '''offensive reviews'''.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2024-11-05 |title=Metacritic responds after Dragon Age: The Veilguard review bombing |url=https://www.eurogamer.net/metacritic-responds-after-dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-bombing |access-date=2024-11-06 |work=Eurogamer.net |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2024-11-05 |title=Dragon Age The Veilguard is getting review bombed, and now Metacritic has something to say |url=https://www.pcgamesn.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard/metacritic-respond-review-bomb |access-date=2024-11-06 |website=PCGamesN |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Watson |first=Philip |date=2024-11-05 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard's Poor Review Bombing Leads To Metacritic Response |url=https://www.cgmagonline.com/news/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-bombing/ |access-date=2024-11-06 |website=] |language=en-CA}}</ref>


{{collapse top|Reception ¶2 is not under dispute but here for additional context if needed.}}
We have multiple reliable sources commenting directly on the AAU study, noting the majority (sometimes "vast majority") of respondents "didn't think it was serious enough." These rates are very high (up to 75%) which is why so many sources picked up on it. Here are a few samples: ,, ,,,, , ,
¶2 Hayes Madsen of '']'' called ''Veilguard'' a "fresh start for the franchise" with the game "practically a soft reset".<ref name=":2">{{Cite magazine |last=Madsen |first=Hayes |date=2024-10-28 |title='Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Is a Return to Form for a Beloved RPG Franchise |url=https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/rs-gaming/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-1235144960/ |access-date=2024-10-29 |magazine=Rolling Stone |language=en-US}}</ref> Leana Hafer for '']'' similarly commented that the "story feels like both a send-off and a soft reboot, in a way, which was paradoxically a bit refreshing and disappointing at the same time". She also found it "cool" that the Inquisitor returns as "a fairly important character".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=Hafer |first=Leana |date=2024-10-28 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Review |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review |access-date=2024-10-29 |website=] |language=en}}</ref> Andy Bickerton of ] viewed the game as a "well-executed ]". However, he called the decision to not include prior player narrative choices a "letdown", noting that "it's easy to see how this squandered potential, along with the tonal inconsistencies, could have arisen out of ''Veilguard''{{'}}s near-decade of troubled production".<ref name=":11">{{Cite news |last=Bickerton |first=Andy |date=October 28, 2024 |title=Tonally inconsistent 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' is still BioWare's best action game |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5165587/dragon-age-veilguard-review-story-tone |access-date=November 29, 2024 |work=]}}</ref> Lauren Morton of ''PC Gamer'' thought a downside of perceived streamlining and eliminating the "most common RPG frictions" is that it "can feel more action adventure than ] at moments".<ref name="PCGUS Morton rev">{{cite web |last=Morton |first=Lauren |date=October 28, 2024 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard review |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review/ |access-date=October 28, 2024 |website=]}}</ref>
{{collapse bottom}}


¶3 '''Critics were mixed on the game's story.''' Matt Purslow from ''IGN'' '''thought that''' ''Veilguard'' was "at war with itself", as he felt that the game was not interested in exploring the franchise's past despite being its first direct sequel, and that the game sidelined major characters such as Solas and Varric.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-the-veilguard-is-at-war-with-itself|title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself|first=Matt|last=Purslow|work=]|date=November 9, 2024|accessdate=November 10, 2024}}</ref> Malindy Hetfeld of '']'' '''criticized''' the "surprisingly mediocre" writing in ''Veilguard'', describing the protagonist Rook as more of a witty observer than a "person with opinions".<ref name="Guardian review">{{cite web |last=Hetfeld |first=Malindy |date=October 28, 2024 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard review — a good RPG, but an underwhelming Dragon Age game |url=https://www.theguardian.com/games/2024/oct/28/dragon-age-the-veilguard-review-bioware-electronic-arts |access-date=October 28, 2024 |website=]}}</ref> She also found the "comically evil" new villainous gods disappointing compared to the more "compelling" Solas.<ref name="Guardian review" /> Hafer opined that ''Veilguard'' has "weird" pacing, and that the overaching plot "is nothing particularly outstanding in its overall structure", with the only interesting factor being Solas.<ref name=":1" /> Madsen argued that Solas was "a secondary protagonist", with the game focusing on his choices, their impact, "and how your journey as Rook mirrors" his journey.<ref name=":2" /> Ash Parrish of '']'' appreciated how Solas' arc subverted her desire to kill him despite longstanding animosity; she praised BioWare for crafting "his story arc in a way that didn't soften his actions as villain backstories typically do, but in a way that I felt compelled to make a different choice".<ref name="Verge full review">{{Cite web |last=Parrish |first=Ash |date=2024-11-28 |title=The hardest part of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is making a choice |url=https://www.theverge.com/24307786/dragon-age-the-veilguard-full-review |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref> Reviewers were divided over how consequential player choices were to the narrative,<ref name="Verge early review">{{Cite web |last=Parrish |first=Ash |date=2024-10-28 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard starts slow but strong |url=https://www.theverge.com/24281631/dragon-age-the-veilguard-early-review-ps5-xbox-pc |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=The Verge |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref name="Guardian review" /><ref name="PCGUS Morton rev"/><ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Hashimoto |first=Kazuma |date=2024-10-28 |title=I Played 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' and Got Myself Stuck in a Gay Love Triangle |url=https://www.them.us/story/dragon-age-the-veilguard-lgbtq-romance-options-essay-lucanis-davrin |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=Them |language=en-US}}</ref> with some finding major decisions "few and far between".<ref name="Guardian review" /><ref name=":2" />
It's established practice in Misplaced Pages to refer to reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. In this case, I think it's fair and acceptable to include what's been said about this particular study. Nblund refers to a single author, Bonnie Fisher's '''general opinions''' from 1999 and 2003 as a justification for suppressing the details. Those dated opinions should not disqualify what's been '''specifically reported''' and discussed around the current 2015 AAU study. In my view, Nblund's desire to suppress the AAU findings is out of line with Misplaced Pages practice and is founded in WP:SYN.
] (]) 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
:Can you clarify whether you are disputing the facts or just disputing the rules? In other words: do you believe that this is actually a new or unique finding and wish to present it that way or do you agree with my view that this is a not new or unique finding, but you are concerned that it is novel synthesis if we note that?
:Also, I think we all agree that the AAU found that the overwhelming majority of non-reporting victims gave this response, and that other news outlets reported it. But do any of those sources support the argument that this is a new finding? There's a quote from Fisher, but are there any others? ] (]) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
::I'm not suggesting either of your options above. This is an editorial debate. The facts are not in dispute and I have no idea what you mean by "disputing the rules." My point is that we should include the facts as presented by reliable sources.


{{collapse top|The rest of the reception section for context on lead summary. While it uses similar summary style sentences as above (see bolded text), it is not under dispute.}}
::Here's what I think you're doing: since the "not important enough" question has been part of past surveys, so you are arguing there's nothing new here, and we should not include it in the AAU section. However, I recall you are doing this because you don't want anything "that it makes the findings appear less impactful" which is grounded in your opinion and not reliable sources. You also ignore the detail about the magnitude of the finding, which Fisher as ''originally quoted'' states is new ground. The Minnesota paper indicates it drew from the WP article, but then changed the context. Even if Fisher hadn't said that, multiple reliable sources have cited the stats - They are notable and well supported.
¶4 Madsen praised ''Veilguard'' for its attention to detail when showcasing the player's iteration of Rook and the game's companions, calling the characters "wonderfully written and well integrated into the plot".<ref name=":2" /> Todd Harper of '']'' emphasized the companions as the heart of the game, noting that they were "weird and idiosyncratic in the best ways".<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Harper |first=Todd |date=2024-10-28 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the friend group simulator we've been waiting for |url=https://www.polygon.com/review/470712/review-dragon-age-the-veilguard-ps5-xbox-pc |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=Polygon |language=en-US}}</ref> Kazuma Hashimoto of '']'' commented that at a surface level companions feel like "fantasy clichés and tropes", but with earned trust reveal "mundane moments" that make them feel closer to "normal people"; he also praised both the romance and non-romance options for interacting with companions.<ref name=":3"/> Hafer appreciated that companions are each "stars of their own story" with "complex, memorable, likable, distinct personalities", but was disappointed that in combat they felt more like extensions of the player character.<ref name=":1" /> Parrish enjoyed the "fun banter" of companions, and praised the romance options in ''Veilguard'', highlighting that unlike previous ''Dragon Age'' games, it explicitly indicates when the player becomes locked into a romance path.<ref name="Verge full review" /> Conversely, Oliver Brandt of '']'' viewed the choice to make all companions romanceable regardless of player gender expression as "a small step back" from other ''Dragon Age'' games.<ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Brandt |first=Oliver |date=2024-10-31 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first triple-A game to handle gender identity the right way |url=https://www.si.com/videogames/features/dragon-age-the-veilguard-taash-gender-identity |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=] |language=en-US}}</ref> Harvey Randall of ''PC Gamer'' highlighted a lack of nuance in Rook's romantic dialogue if a player chooses to discuss Rook's gender identity.<ref name=":9" /> Morton thought companions lacked nuance and individual characterizations,<ref name="PCGUS Morton companions rev" /> noting that "good people don't make great characters".<ref name="PCGUS Morton rev" /> She further criticized the lack of a "functional mechanism for disapproval" and interpersonal group conflicts.<ref name="PCGUS Morton companions rev">{{Cite news |last=Morton |first=Lauren |date=2024-11-15 |title=The Veilguard is the first Dragon Age game where my companions don't care enough about anything to argue with me |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/the-veilguard-is-the-first-dragon-age-game-where-my-companions-dont-care-enough-about-anything-to-argue-with-me/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |work=PC Gamer |language=en}}</ref>


¶5 '''''Veilguard'' generally received praise for its inclusive ] and representation of ] and ] characters.'''<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":14">{{Cite web |last=Mora |first=Alyssa |date=September 19, 2024 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard Preview: BioWare Finally Nails The Character Creator I've Always Wanted |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/dragon-age-the-veilguard-preview-bioware-finally-nails-the-character-creator-ive-always-wanted |access-date=November 30, 2024 |website=IGN |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":10">{{Cite web |last=Bea |first=Robin |date=2024-11-06 |title='Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Makes Me Feel Seen As a Trans Player, But Still Disappointed |url=https://www.inverse.com/gaming/dragon-age-veilguard-trans-characters |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=Inverse |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=Henley |first=Stacey |date=2024-11-06 |title=Why Dragon Age: The Veilguard Uses The Term 'Non-Binary' |url=https://www.thegamer.com/dragon-age-the-veilguard-non-binary-modern-immersion-breaking/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=TheGamer |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Puc |first=Samantha |date=2024-11-03 |title=This 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' companion's story ruined me in the best way |url=https://www.themarysue.com/this-dragon-age-the-veilguard-companions-story-ruined-me-in-the-best-way/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |website=The Mary Sue}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Marshall |first=Cass |date=2024-11-01 |title=How role-playing a trans or nonbinary Rook works in Dragon Age: The Veilguard |url=https://www.polygon.com/gaming/472513/dragon-age-veilguard-trans-nonbinary-identity-role-play |access-date=2024-11-30 |website=Polygon |language=en-US}}</ref> Alyssa Mora of ''IGN'' emphasized the character creator's "body diversity" where "the options feel almost endless".<ref name=":14" /> Both Robin Bea of '']'' and Brandt commended Taash's story arc,<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10" /> with Brandt noting while BioWare has previously "touched on queer stories", ''Vanguard'' "goes one step further, unashamedly and unabashedly calling one of its most compelling characters nonbinary".<ref name=":8" /> Bea acknowledged the "smart writing" in ''Veilguard'' in addressing transgender representation. However, she critiqued the use of a ] narrative as "low-hanging fruit", and thought Rook's gender identity was not fully explored beyond Taash's storyline and so did not "always feel like a fully-actualized trans character".<ref name=":10" /> Stacey Henley of '']'' appreciated the deliberate use of modern language in Taash's story in comparison to ''Inquisition''{{'s}} ], though noted the language has been contentious with audiences as potentially "immersion breaking".<ref name=":12" /> Randall was more critical, noting how ''Veilguard'' "both failed and succeeded" in the narrative aspects focused on non-binary characters, and that the overall "scattershot, clumsy, and unpolished" writing impacts the "use of queer language in a fantasy context".<ref name=":9">{{Cite news |last=Randall |first=Harvey |date=2024-11-13 |title=Dragon Age: The Veilguard's leap forward in trans inclusion comes from a heartfelt place, but its problems left me feeling frustrated, angry, and tired |url=https://www.pcgamer.com/games/dragon-age/dragon-age-the-veilguards-leap-forward-in-trans-inclusion-comes-from-a-heartfelt-place-but-its-problems-left-me-feeling-frustrated-angry-and-tired/ |access-date=2024-11-29 |work=PC Gamer |language=en}}</ref> They found the lack of a fictional ] connecting the word to the cultures of Thedas problematic, reflecting wider story issues as the game seems "barely interested in the politics of its own setting".<ref name=":9" />
::I've offered a compromise - letting you include hypothetical opinions on why women might say this in the preceding section (which should be appropriate qualified). So. Are you up for it?] (]) 18:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
:::It seems like there might be a factual dispute: you said that the 50-75% finding is "very high" and "unprecedented", and argued that Fisher's quote indicates that the magnitude of the finding is new. I find this assertion puzzling, because I already pointed to three previous surveys where . If this is your reasoning, can you provide any additional reliable sources that specifically bolster the view that this is new finding? Or is the quote from Fisher the only basis you have? If you agree that this is ''not'' a new finding, can you suggest how you would avoid obscuring that fact if you cite this in the AAU subsection? Why not mention it in the subsection for the ] or ], which found similar rates of this response?
:::It sounds like your proposed compromise is that, in exchange for getting the thing I identified as the nub of the dispute, you will refrain from excising reliably sourced materials from a prominent expert. I don't think that's really a compromise at all since you haven't made a tenable case for removing those statements. It could make for awkward wording, but I don't see much of a problem with noting that AAU study was ''one of a number of surveys'' that found that most non-reporting victims give this response, as long as it comes in the context of a discussion of scholarly interpretations of that result. ] (]) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
::::Your "scholarly source" refers to feminist opinion as the counterpoint and interpretation " "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." That is one view, and allowable with attribution, but not the only one. It is also far from definitive and uses the qualifiers "may merely indicate". By restricting the sources to the only ones you approve of violates NPOV. There is no reason to exclude what newspapers say about the AAU study. If you refuse to move on this, perhaps this forum is not going to work. To the moderators, it would seem that Nblund is not interested in compromise here at all.] (]) 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::It seems like you're mistaken about what is in the entry: the 2003 paper you're quoting from isn't what is cited in the section you're contesting, nor are the arguments about false consciousnesses or a belief that victimization is acceptable. The content cited in the entry is sourced to Fisher's 2009 book, which I quoted in the RfC (bottom of the edit). The statements are also attributed to Fisher et. al in text, and use the term "they may reason that..." to reflect Fisher's own wording. Since the statement you're contesting wasn't in the entry to begin with, it doesn't seem like a compromise to suggest we can "leave it" in place.
:::::I haven't said we should exclude what the newspapers say or only include sources I agree with, I have that we should present the views of prominent experts, and avoid inaccurately presenting those findings as new or unique. I just suggested a way we could mention that this finding was in the AAU report while avoiding inaccurately characterizing it as a new finding. I also asked you some clarifying questions, I think it would help move things along if you would address those.] (]) 22:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Nblund, you previously cited Fisher as follows . I'm done with this. To the moderators, Nbund has no desire to compromise. What would you recommend I do?] (]) 23:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Yes Mattnad, I did cite that in a post on the ''talk page,'' but it's not in the entry and it never has been, so what relevance does it have here? I don't think you can seriously expect me to compromise about a citation that doesn't exist in the entry. ] (]) 00:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::You went ahead and did that despite concerns on the talk page, and did that before the RFC was closed, ignoring efforts to discuss. You're arguments shift, but the fundamentals don't change. You want only your POV.] (]) 01:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::It seems like you're citing a concern about conduct rather than a content issue, which isn't the purpose of this process. I notice that you are . I think maybe it would be a good idea to take a step back from the brink here: there is ample evidence that you don't have consensus support for this and multiple editors have questioned your approach. Participating in this process isn't mandatory, but obtaining consensus before making edits is, and I don't think there's any chance that the method your pursuing now is going to allow you to get what you want. I think I made a pretty reasonable offer that would allow you to include this material while still avoiding portraying this finding as new, i'm willing to continue the conversation if you self-revert. ] (]) 02:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
====Third statement by moderator====
The back-and-forth discussion above is hard to follow. I normally say that threaded discussion is not permitted. I had forgotten to say that this time. Threaded discussion is not permitted. (That rule is not retroactive.) Address the moderator, not each other. Comment on content, not contributors. Does the real question have to do with the AAU report, and whether it is different from the other sources? I think that we all agree that there is agreement that sexual assault on campus is under-reported, but that sometimes it is considered "not worth reporting". On what points do the two editors disagree? Also, starting over, does either editor have a specific proposal for a compromise? (Also, we do not discuss conduct issues here. Often discussion of the underlying content issue may alleviate conduct issues. If either editor thinks that conduct issues are too serious to permit discussion here, then, since discussion here is optional, you may go to ], but I encourage you to try to work out content in order to alleviate any conduct issues.) ] (]) 18:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
:What exactly is meant by "I'm open to continuing this discussion if we restore the status quo first"? The purpose of this discussion is to decide what the article should be in the future, not whether the article is in the "wrong version" or whether a previous change needs to be reverted. ] (]) 01:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
::Can I answer this here? Mattnad the disputed material last night. I'm willing to continue if we restore it to the version that we had prior to this edit. ] (]) 01:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


¶6 '''Critics enjoyed ''Veilguard''{{'}}s graphics and level design but were divided on the game's combat.''' Bickerton felt that ''Veilguard''{{'}}s strongest feature was its action gameplay, writing "mastering combat and party composition is a thoroughly rewarding experience from start to finish".<ref name=":11" /> He also highlighted the game's "accessibility and difficulty settings" as being welcoming for more casual players.<ref name=":11" /> Hetfeld viewed ''Veilguard''{{'}}s combat as functional but repetitive, without "much room for strategy", and similar to numerous other games.<ref name="Guardian review" /> Hafer called the boss fights the highlight of combat.<ref name=":1" /> Parrish praised the combo system, the new elemental effects on weapons, and the ability for player mages to switch between melee and ranged for a "kinetic, almost chaotic energy". However, she critiqued the length of encounters from the "wave after wave of tanky enemies with multiple health bars".<ref name="Verge full review" /> Harper thought the combat was "hit or miss", and that the combo system was less complex than ''Inquisition'' and the ''Mass Effect'' games.<ref name=":4" /> Hafer stated that the game has "visual splendor",<ref name=":1" /> and Harper called it "graphically gorgeous".<ref name=":4" /> Parrish opined that the "companions and environments are arresting in their design".<ref name="Verge early review" /> Bickerton thought the level design was an improvement on ''Inquisition''{{'}}s "bland open zones", and praised side quests for their depth and the rewarding of exploration with "useful loot and impactful plot points".<ref name=":11" /> Morton viewed each area's "incredible visual design" as a standout feature of ''Veilguard''. She found it was better off for removing ''Inquisition''{{'}}s "giant zones" and having "more constrained maps of coiled corridors and clearings".<ref name="PCGUS Morton rev" />
====Third statements by editors====
{{Reflist-talk}}
I'm open to continuing this discussion if we restore the status quo first.
{{collapse bottom}}


In the lead and reception ¶1/¶3, I bolded prose which I think should be included & did strikethroughs on what I think should be removed. The lead & reception ¶3 summary sentences were removed for being synth although I disagree with that assessment. It would be helpful to have an outside opinion review them. Additionally, reception ¶1 (in bold & underline) includes the review bomb sentence that was part of the original November consensus that BMWF argued against; when raising synth concerns, they removed it again. I believe it adds important context as news outlets contrasted the two platforms in articles focused on what was occurring at Metacritic (ie. the negative user reviews on Metacritic were very different from the user reviews on Steam). ] (]) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
To answer your questions: I don't think anyone is disputing that the AAU found that most women give the "not serious enough" response, but it seems like Mattnad wants to present this finding as new and unique to the AAU.


I fully support all the proposed changes Sariel Xilo has outlined above and have no further issues to raise, so a draft version from me will be redundant. ] (]) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If Mattnad can provide some additional reliable sources to bolster that claim, I think that might be reasonable, but I don't think it's verifiable on the basis of what I have seen so far. That said: I think that it would be okay to mention that the AAU was one of a number of studies that found that most women who do not report a sexual assault do so because they did not think the attack was serious enough to report. I also think it would be reasonable to include a brief discussion of the interpretations of that finding offered by critics of this kind of research, and we could cite people like Stuart Taylor Jr. and Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young -- as long as those views were attributed and clearly presented as minority viewpoints held by non-experts. ] (]) 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


== Autism ==
{{DRN archive bottom}}


{{DR case status}}
== Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries ==
<!-- ] 15:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737128771}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->

{{drn filing editor|Oolong|15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|FreeatlastChitchat|06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|reason=Futile. Other disputants have not responded or have indicated that they are not interested in participating. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is never mandatory. Filing party should consider a ] ''carefully-and-clearly-worded'' request for comments, if that's not already been tried. — ] (]) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)}}


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 183: Line 146:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Autism}}
* {{pagelinks|Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|FreeatlastChitchat}} * {{User|Oolong}}
* {{User|Capitals00}} * {{User|Димитрий Улянов Иванов}}
* {{User|D4iNa4}} * {{User|Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan}}
* {{User|HarmonyA8}}
* {{User|TempusTacet}}
* {{User|WhatamIdoing}}
* {{User|FactOrOpinion}}
* {{User|2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0}}
* {{User|GreenMeansGo}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.
Some editors want to remove people who are clearly critics of religion. People like ], ], ] and ] have clearly criticised various religions in their books, but even then a couple of editors wish to remove them from the list. I would like them to be included in the list. I am requesting dispute resolution so that we can decide once and for all which person to involve and whom to exclude(if there are any exclusions). The debate on talkpage seems to be going nowhere as the editor in question will not even respond to my arguments. A while ago I discussed the exclusion of ] and got him back, but now others are being excluded without any reason given on the talkpage.


On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>


Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do ''within'' medicine, or ''outside'' of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about ''whether'' something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.
Tried to initiate something on the talkpage when Grayling was excluded, he was included due to discussion. Response to recent exclusions seems to be nill. Instead of discussing the editor in question went into revert-mode


This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>


A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?
This dispute can be resolved by deciding once and for all whom to include and whom to exclude. As the editors removing these people will not listen to me perhaps an uninvolved volunteer will have a better chance.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
==== Summary of dispute by Capitals00 ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


]
Completely disregarding this ], ] was included already, and these issues have been already solved on talk page as most editors support present version and supported by ], ]. ] (]) 06:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
]
]
]
]]
Related: ]


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
==== Summary of dispute by D4iNa4 ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the ''route'' to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.
=== Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page, and the filing editor has notified the other parties. One of those editors appears to be declining to participate. Waiting for a reply from the other editor. Two other editors participated in the editing of the template page itself before it was locked due to edit-warring. Should they also be invited to participate in this discussion? I am neither opening nor declining this case. ] (]) 01:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - I recommend that this case be accepted. The template is currently full-protected and it is clear that the participants are unable to reach agreement without additional advice. It would be a bit much to discuss each and every entry at the DRN, but the general principles for inclusion/exclusion need to be determined. - ] (]) 19:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
:@] and ], I am willing to work on all the critics if it helps solve this problem once and for all. I can provide sources where each and every one of them has criticized the religion under which they have been listed. However, the editors who have been reverting me have not been discussing anything, neither on the TP, nor here. I am not sure what a person can do in this situation. Regards ] (]) 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов ====
'''24 hour closing notice:''' Since one editor feels that this has been solved (which implies that s/he does not care to participate here) and the other has not responded, this case will be closed as futile by a volunteer after this time tomorrow unless there is a dramatic change in that situation. Regards, ] (]) 20:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
:@] the page is currently under full protection, nothing has been solved. What can I do to solve this problem? ] (]) 03:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.
{{DRN archive bottom}}


This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders).
== Talk:Panagiotis Kone ==
This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see ].


Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|DevilWearsBrioni|10:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 10:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1452507065}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->


In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.


==== Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan ====
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Panagiotis Kone}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|DevilWearsBrioni}}
* {{User|Alexikoua}}
* {{User|Zoupan}}
* {{User|MorenaReka}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


Yes, as ] says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.
I don't believe the following: "Kone was born in Tirana, Albania, to an ethnic Greek family" is supported by the source, in which the subject is being quoted as having said: "I still have relatives in Albania, they're all Greek." This, I argue is a conjectural interpretation of the subjects declaration. I also argue that the quote is a mistranslation of the original source in Italian (see contradicting sources on the talk page). Further, I propose removing "in Albania" from "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania", because it's again a conjectural interpretation of the source; it implies he meant that he hasn't faced any discrimination because he was born in Albania, but according to the source, he declared "I have never denied my origin, but in Greece I haven't been discriminated". It's not up to us to put a meaning to Kone's words, thus "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin" would be more in line with what he actually said.


There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>


:I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. ] (]) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Asked User:SilkTork for assistance who confirmed that the entry was troublesome. I've also posted my concerns on noticeboards.
::I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.
::My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). ] (]) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8 ====
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

Determine whether the entry in question contains original research, and if the explanation I've provided regarding the conflicting sources is valid.

==== Summary of dispute by Alexikoua ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
The part in question can be traslanted in English: ''I've migrated from Tirana to Athens with my family at the age of two years. I still have some members of my family in Albania, but they are all Greeks''. This doesn't leave any doubt that he originates from the Greek-Albanian community (i.e. ethnic Greek community in Albania), since even his relatives that are still in Albania are Greeks. Anything else is simply OR (such as poor translations via google) in this case. ] (]) 23:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by Zoupan ==== ==== Summary of dispute by TempusTacet ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
The subject calls himself ethnic Greek. The issue is that some users try to downplay this ethnic identification by using OR (see the talk page), and now by using vagueness, such as changing "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania" to "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin". That's all I have to say about this.--] 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by MorenaReka ==== ==== Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
There are several sources that say that Kone is an ethnic Albanian, and nationalized Greek at a young age. Not even the Greek source says that he is an ethnic Greek, actually, whereas the Albanian sources and the Italian ones talk freely about the Albanian ethnicity of Kone (note that Kone has been playing in Italy since 2010 and we have many sources in Italian). Using google translate (I don't know Italian), I brought the following sources in Italian (if my translations from Italian are poor, like Alexikoua is saying, I invite someone else to assist with them):
#
#
#
And I can bring several sources in Albanian, but I'm going to bring only some that have his ethnicity in the title itself:
#
#
#.
To say the least we have contradicting sources, and that's what I had suggested in the talk page: , but the opposing side have ignored my reasonable and policy compliant request and as well as the continuous requests of DevilwearsBrioni. --] (]) 14:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{tl|MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). ] (]) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
==== Summary of dispute by Resnjari ====


==== Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion ====
I have been observing this matter now for some time now. Points of dispute are over whether Kone meant "origin" (in Greek) as in ''heritage'' or ''ethnic background'' or whether ''origin'' meant as in he just is from Albania in a geographical and citizenship sense. Regarding the sources, we need Greek translations from editors who have not been involved in the dispute and who have a very good record of being impartial. This is the only way around this to clear up the matter. The news article do attribute these statements to Kone. Its the meaning or meanings that need elaboration. Thoughts from the administrators adjudicating the case on this proposal, of seeking out translations from other editors having a long record of impartiality to determine the matter and establish whether the proposed changes are relevant to the article?] (]) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
::::'''Additional comment''':Ok, i probably jumped the gun there. Nonetheless in the end some proper impartial translations are going to be needed of Kone's more recent statements regarding himself and his heritage. The issue of Kone's statements regarding his identity reflect the wider identity issues(and fluidity) surrounding some of Albania's Orthodox community (Albanian speakers, Aromanian speakers etc) and their migration to Greece. Regarding this part of the Kone matter at the moment, the sentence in the article needs to be altered as the source quoting Kone makes reference to him saying he has Greek relatives in Albania, not to being of Greek origin. The article itself however has a sentence which purports to interpret that as Kone stating he has an outright Greek origin. Apart from it being ] research, it is also distorting Kone's words. Some change is this warranted so the article reflects Kone's words.] (]) 07:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. ] (]) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


:I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by ] below, as well as ], and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the ''Zeroeth statements by editors'' section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.
=== Talk:Panagiotis Kone discussion ===
:Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. ] (]) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer note''' - First, this case is properly filed, and there has been adequate discussion on the talk page. Second, ] has commented. Do they want to be added as a party, or are they making a neutral comment? At this point, we are waiting for statements from the other parties as to whether they want to participate in voluntary moderated discussion. ] (]) 20:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


==== Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 ====
*'''Comment''' - For what it's worth, I believe ]'s summary adds confusion to the discussion, because he seems to have misunderstood the points I put forth. The interpretation of Kone's press release from 2015 is -- although related to the issue at hand -- a separate point that I haven't made here, yet. ] (]) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


==== Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo ====
== Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it ==

{{DR case status|open}}
{{drn filing editor|Dan Eisenberg|22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 22:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1452551961}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Dan Eisenberg}}
* {{User|ScottyNolan}}
* {{User|N.F.B.R}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

There is disagreement about whether several recent anti-semitic incidents should be included in the college section of this article. Some feel it helps to make the points of the article, while I believe this is unenyclopedic (wikipedia is not a newspaper) and contrary to general wikipedia standards.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

Discussion on talk page and citing wikipedia policies--but resolution does not seem to be forthcoming after almost a month and I don't feel discussions are proving the most productive.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

It would be helpful for an experienced editor familiar with wikipedia policies and norms to weigh in on this.

==== Summary of dispute by ScottyNolan ====
For my opinion, examples of certain incidents (some have been already erased) are important to brighten and point on several trends in the issue of antisemitism in US campuses.

==== Summary of dispute by N.F.B.R ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


''Note: Editor is "]" and will not be participating.'' --] (]) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been discussion at the talk page. One of the other editors was notified; I have notified the other editor. Waiting for statements from the other editors since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. ] (]) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
*'''''See also''''': ] '''<font color="darkblue" face="Papyrus">]</font>''' <font style="color:#FFFFFF;font-size:7.0pt;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">]</font> 02:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

<s>'''24-hour closing notice:''' If the other primary editor involved, ], does not respond by this time tomorrow by providing a Summary of Dispute, above, this case will be closed by a volunteer as futile. Regards, ] (]) 20:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)</s>
:{{ping|TransporterMan}} I'm a little confused? ] has provided a summary of the dispute, albeit rather short. N.F.B.R has not responded, but that account seems to be not very active (only 2 edits ever made on it) and I would think we could proceed without N.F.B.R? Thanks. - ] (]) 22:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
::You're right on both counts, my apologies, but if N.F.B.R. is eliminated then we have a discussion which only has one edit by one of the participants. That would seem not to satisfy that there have been ''extensive'' discussion on the article talk page, as required by this noticeboard. Having said that, I'm going to withdraw the closing notice and leave this open to see if a volunteer cares to take it. If none does, it will be closed as stale in two or three dates. Should that occur, you might want to consider a ]. Regards, ] (]) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
====First statement by moderator====
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I will repeat the usual ground rules. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. I advise against discussion on the talk page while discussion is in progress here, because while this discussion is open, this discussion should be the discussion of record. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify the issues, and the objective is to clarify the issues so as to resolve or compromise them. Comment on content, not contributors. I will check this page every 24 hours, and I expect every editor to check this page at least every 48 hours. (Failure to provide requested statements or answers in 48 hours may cause the discussion to fail.) The first question is: Will each editor please explain, briefly (be civil and concise) whether they think that any changes to the article are needed, and, if so, why, or, if they do not want changes but other editors do, explain why they think that the article is all right? In particular, if anyone thinks that there is a "newspaper" quality to the section, please explain what that means. Does that mean too much detailed focus on individual incidents, or what? ] (]) 03:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

====First statements by editors====
Thanks for your help Robert McClenon. I think the article should omit the the lists of individual anti-semitic incidents in order to be more encyclopedic and better fit my understanding of wikipedia standards. The issue is that Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper ] and this seems like a haphazard list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see ]. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. - ] (]) 05:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

== Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source ==

{{DR case status|open}}
{{drn filing editor|KBAegis|01:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 01:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1452561209}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|KBAegis}}
* {{User|CFredkin}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

I've had an edit I made removed multiple times by another editor. I'd like to know how to proceed. The other editor is simply removing the text rather than altering it in any meaningful way.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

I've requested for him to make sense of the standard he's applying and how it differs from simply whitewashing. I've also proposed that the text get altered rather than simply removed. He just removes it

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

Please weigh in, let us know how to proceed, and protect the page if necessary. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know how I can improve my behavior. Thanks!

==== Summary of dispute by CFredkin ====
is not supported by the source provided, and it is blatantly POV. The article is a ], and "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".

Since KBAeigs is presenting himself as new to Misplaced Pages, he/she may not be aware of policies regarding verifiability and neutrality, particularly with regards to BLP's (although I've provided links to the relevant articles in the Talk discussion). Perhaps he/she will be more amenable to coaching from other editors.] (]) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll also note that I've suggested possible alternative language based on the source in Talk.] (]) 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


=== Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source discussion === === Autism discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The filing party did not notify the other editor, but I have notified the other editor. Waiting for response from the other editor, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Both parties are cautioned that they are close to 3RR, and so are advised that any form of ], including here, is to be preferred over edit-warring. I am neither opening nor declining this case. ] (]) 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
*{{DRN-volunteer-note}} I am willing to moderate this case, pending a response from the second party. ] ] 15:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
*{{DRN-volunteer-note}} I have opened the case and will provide an opening statement shortly. ] ] 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


==== First round of statements ====


===== First statement by volunteer moderator ===== ===Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)===
I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on ] and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;
*Be ]. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
*Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a ] is likely to ignore it.
*Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
*Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
*Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.


In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the ] of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).
Good day, I will be moderating the discussion. I'll ask that each party (myself included) make a point of checking in every 48 hours, that discussion here be centred on the content at issue, and that no party (myself included) edit the article in question while the discussion is underway. There appear to be two issues at play:
#Should CISA-related content appear in the article?
#If so, how should it be worded? The proposed wording was {{tq|In 2015, after being elected as a senator for Colorado, he hid the previously rejected CISA legislation in an omnibus spending bill along with Sens. Jim Inhofe and Thom Tillis.}} This raises two subissues:
##Is "hid" the appropriate word for CISA's inclusion in the ''Consolidated Appropriations Act''? The extent of ''The Intercept''{{'}}s discussion of this is a reference to "omnibus spending bill that included a version of CISA".
##Can Gardner, Inhofe and Tillis be said to be responsible for including CISA within the spending bill? ''The Intercept'' article refers to Gardner, Inhofe and Tillis in three ways: as "lawmakers", "legislators" and "senators".


I don't yet know whether ] is the right forum to resolve disputes about ], but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions.
{{ping|KBAegis}} you are concerned that failure to mention the CISA content constitutes whitewashing. Given ] prohibiting content that "reach or impl a conclusion not stated by the sources", would your concerns be allayed if a sentence (or sentences) were included, phrased to describe exactly what reliable sources have said? {{ping|CFredkin}} you state that the sentence is not supported by ''The Intercept'' article and runs afoul of ], ] and ] policies. If you're okay with some CISA-related content in the article, could you suggest a phrasing that you think would comply with these policies? ] ] 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:Per TransporterMan's note below, I will be closing this case as abandoned at 1900 hours UTC tomorrow if there is no response. Thanks, ] ] 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


:Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?
===== First statement by KBAegis =====
:I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.
:Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.
:I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is (published in the ) and ], posted here and . You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. ] (]) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


===== First statement by CFredkin ===== ===Zeroth statements by editors (Autism)===
As I , based on the source, I think we can reasonably say that Gardner voted for the omnibus budget bill, which contained the CISA provision.] (]) 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


== Sri Lankan Vellalar ==
===== Coordinator's note =====
I rather suspect that ] may have left the encyclopedia, having only 16 edits. I'd recommend that if s/he has not responded to the ping I've given here by 19:00 UTC on January 6 that this case be closed as abandoned, subject to being refiled (not reopened) only on a commitment to respond within 48 hours to every inquiry posted here. Regards, ] (]) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)

== Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave ==

{{DR case status|open}}
{{drn filing editor|Dschslava|23:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1452815806}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Dschslava}}
* {{User|Erik}}
* {{User|70.190.188.48}}
* {{User|Betty Logan}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

There is currently a dispute on whether the film 'Twelve Years a Slave' should be included amongst the list of examples of the white savior narrative in film.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

Discussion on talk page of article.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

Extra opinions would be nice.

==== Summary of dispute by Erik ====
''12 Years a Slave'' was added to ] because there were reliable sources discussing how the film had a white savior. The IP editor personally believes that the sources are wrong and that there can only be a white savior throughout the film, not at the end. While the film may be different from others in this regard, the list's film entry actually specifically discusses the scope in which the white savior appears: ''"While ''12 Years a Slave'' focused mainly on Northup's resilience, and a Canadian did in reality rescue Northup, the film was identified as a cinematic representation of slavery that depicted a white savior."'' Where applicable, some other films on the list have similar clarifying language, such as ''The Man Who Would Be King'' being ironic but still portraying the natives as in need of a white savior, or the ''McFarland, USA'' director's attempted counter-argument. It was also argued that ''12 Years a Slave'' was much more about slavery than about a white savior. This is absolutely true, but the elements are not mutually exclusive. The film article itself should not devote a higher word count to discussing the white savior over discussing slavery. That's why the ] is only linked in the "See also" section as a tangentially related topic. Within the white savior article, though, ''12 Years a Slave'' is worth listing as part of the filmography. It is by no means the strongest example, but it is an example nonetheless, and appropriate to include since it is verifiable through reliable sources. (And it is only at the top of the list because the films are listed alphabetically.) ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

*{{cite journal | last1=McCoy | first1=Dorian L. | last2=Rodricks | first2=Dirk J. | year=2015 | title=Critical Race Theory in Higher Education: 20 Years of Theoretical and Research Innovations | series=ASHE Higher Education Report | volume=41 | issue=3 | publisher=] | isbn=978-1-119-11203-7 | quote=Critics contended it was yet another film showcasing a White savior with Pitt (who also produced the film) positioning himself as such. }}
Above is a reliable source that retrospectively reports on the criticism at the time. It refers to multiple commentators identifying the white savior in the film. This does not mean it invalidates ''12 Years a Slave'' being a quality film about slavery. Again, the elements of slavery and white savior are not mutually exclusive. Praise is not a reason to exclude a film; several films on the list are well-praised but are ''also'' identified as having a white savior. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

==== Summary of dispute by 70.190.188.48 ====
My problem with having ''12 Years a Slave'' as an example of having a white savior is that it ignores the very criticism that people have with this trope, which is that a piece of work that is essentially about the struggles of people of color against racism is all about some white person helping said people of color. You can't just stretch the definition to just mean "white guy helps non-white guy"; for most people, the white savior has to be a white protagonist, or at the very least the deuteragonist, who helps out the non-white character(s) who are struggling under a system that is either blatantly racist like Jim Crow or Apartheid, or "merely" has the undertones of racism, like the poverty-stricken areas of the inner city or a third-world country. I am not saying that because a work is pointing out the problems of its white savior narrative it should not be an example in this article; I am saying the white savior just doesn't exist! I cannot be the only person that has a problem with ''12 Years a Slave'', a film that has been praised to death for not only showing the brutality of slavery, but also for showing it from a slave's point-of-view, being included in a list of movies that has a white savior narrative. And I especially don't like how the creator of the article has full control over it and denies having other people have a say in it, and how they think that because they found three people who did not like the movie and for some reason thinks it has a white savior, this automatically cancels out the hundreds of people who praised it for '''NOT''' having a white savior. ] (]) 21:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

==== Summary of dispute by Betty Logan ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
We have various policies which govern content. It is irrelevant if an editor disagrees with the existence of such a trope; it has been extensively writen about and satisifes notability, and even gained unanimous support in an AfD: ]. The policies which are applicable here are ] and ]. Inclusion and exclusion should only be subject to sourced commentary, not to arguments put forward by editors; this is one of Misplaced Pages's fundamental core policies. I am of the opinion that this article should not take a supportive view of the trope but a balanced one. ''Twelve Years a Slave'' is included in the list because reliable sources have identified it as exhibiting the trope per WP:Verfiability. If a reliable source puts forward a challenge then in the interest of taking a balanced view of the trope then I absolutely agree that this challenge should be fully documented in the article. If there are "hundreds of people who praised it for NOT having a white savior" then in principle I agree this cancels out a minority held opinion per WP:WEIGHT. I stipulated on the article talk page that challenges to content must be via reliably sourced counter-arguments, but no sources have been forthcoming. Until there are I don't see how there can be any "resolution". ] (]) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

=== Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer comment''' - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the other parties have been properly notified. ] (]) 02:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
{{V note}} Hello and welcome to DRN. I'm UY Scuti and I'm taking this case case for moderation and will be your moderator till the end of the case, unless otherwise stated. Before getting into our discussions, let me point out some basic guidelines to make this discussion as friction-less as possible. <mark>1)Please check the discussion at least once in every 48 hours. (failing to do so, may get this case closed as stale) 2)'''Comment only on the content and not on the contributor'''. Personal attacks/Harassment are not tolerated and will have this case closed. 3)Try not to edit the disputed area of the article until the case here is closed. 4)Discuss the issue here, so that we'll have better chances of solving this dispute 5)And last but not the least, please be civil and '''concise'''.</mark> P.S. Participation on this discussion is entirely voluntary. Good luck and Regards—] <sup>]</sup> 15:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
====First statement by moderator====
Please correct me if I'm wrong. This dispute is circulating on whether to include ''Twelve Years a Slave'' in the article ], right? If so, Erik has provided a source (and two other in the article) supporting that the film indeed has a ''White savior'' trope.. Content in Misplaced Pages are to be ] and thus ], which IMO is satisfied by the sources that is given here and are used in the article itself. 70.190.188.48, are you disputing the source(s)? Do you have sources stating otherwise? If multiple sources say the film has the said trope, the trope is there regardless of the savior being a protagonist (or) deuteragonist. Are there any additions to the above said dispute? To resolved the dispute asap and peacefully, I'd like to ask the editors ({{ping|Dschslava|Erik|70.190.188.48|Betty Logan}}) to keep it concise and civil and to direct your comments to me. Regards—] <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
=====Follow on statements=====
*{{Ping|UY Scuti}} I think that you summed up the dispute quite well. Nothing to add from me. {{Ping|70.190.188.48}}, the ball is in your court. ] (]) 00:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
*{{Ping|UY Scuti}} I believe the IP editor is arguing that the film should only be listed if it has a white savior throughout the film, not at the end. It is something that would be interesting to debate outside Misplaced Pages, but it is still a generalist argument that has no weight in sourcing. I've been fine with renaming the article since ''12 Years a Slave'' isn't a "white savior narrative" per se but instead has the white savior trope or element or whatever we want to call it in the film's denouement, but that didn't appear to bite. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
{{V note}} This case will be ''general close''d if the IP editor (primary and essential for this case) doesn't make his case in '''48''' hours. Regards—] <sup>]</sup> 17:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
*{{Ping|Erik}} So you admit that ''12 Years a Slave'' isn't a white savior narrative? Then why are you so adamant on keeping it as an example? For the last time, I am not advocating for your article "white savior narrative in film" to change its name; I am only advocating for the removal of ''12 Years a Slave'' as an example of a "white savior narrative in film"! If are really that adamant on keeping ''12 Years a Slave'' in your article that you want to change the title, go ahead, but you can't just go "while the film mostly focus on Solomon Northup" when the title of your article says "white savior narrative in film". Also, I think I have made it very clear that I believe that there is such a thing as a white savior narrative. ] (]) 21:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
*:I do not mind the article title being changed so the scope would then be more all-encompassing. The article title isn't something set in stone. I probably originally named it "white savior narrative in film" because sources did not always write "white savior film" (except for Hughey's book), they talked about the "white savior" in this film and that film. "Narrative" was only a descriptive plug. It could be "trope" instead, or the article title could just be "white savior in film". I had thought you were insisting that the film needed to match the article title, but you had continued to argue generally that "white savior" is only appropriate as a full-fledged narrative and not as a key trope that appears at the end of a film. This is not supported by the sources. ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) <sup>(])</sup> 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

== Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015 ==


{{DR case status}} {{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 05:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737265469}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Boruch Baum|01:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Kautilyapundit|05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 01:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1452820784}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 453: Line 267:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49}} * {{pagelinks|Sri Lankan Vellalar}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Boruch Baum}} * {{User|Kautilyapundit}}
* {{User|Debresser}} * {{User|Luigi Boy}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.
What's going on: There are actually two disputes in parallel. The other is on the same talk page, one section up, "Debresser revert of 00:02, 25 December 2015". A direct link may fail, because I put a wikilink in the section title.


Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.
I thought I was conducting a reasonable discussion, with a detailed response, but what I get in response from the correspondent is blanket reverts, a feeling that consensus means "his way", and being called a vulgar name. My attempt to work towards a middle ground failed.


We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.
What has me particularly bothered was how quickly and extremely the correspondent escalated to vulgarism.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>
What's the issue: 1] The size of the organization; 2] how to measure the size of the organization; 3] is it the largest; 4] are its outreach efforts "agressive" and "effective"; 5] is it known primarily because of its outreach efforts.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
Backing off, not escalating or responding to personal attacks and the use of vulgarisms. Looking at the article revision history, I see that much of what the correspondent contributes are reverts, and I'm thinking that he's emotional and personal about keeping the article just his way.


This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>


==== Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy ====
1] Calm down the environment
First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:
2] Introduce consensus as more than just a one-on-one issue.
3] I think all the issues are straightforward and simple. They could be resolved by people who are not expert in the particular subject. You could introduce your own opinions into the discussion / consensus, or invite others to do so.
4] Not to get dramatic, but I see the correspondent has now been active on edits I made on another, unrelated subject, ], and am at doubts if this is the beginning of some minor stalking.


- Terminology differences
==== Summary of dispute by Debresser ====
The discussion on the talkpage is only 2 posts by Boruch Baum and two post by me, each of mine a reply to his. I asked precise questions in my second post, to which Boruch Baum has not replied. I think it is far to early to ask for dispute resolution. Even if the discussion were longer, and Boruch Baum would have answered by questions in defense of his edit, a first good step would be asking editors at ] for their input.


- The inclusion of the mythology section
As far as the behavioral issue goes, ] says clearly that once reverted, consensus should be established before making another edit, but Boruch Baum thinks that he should edit before establishing consensus. That seems to be his general attitude here on Misplaced Pages. That is also part of the problem, but if he is now willing to discuss first, which his coming here seems to imply, then that is a step forward.


'''Terminology Differences'''
Robert McClenon, I have no problem with you managing the proceedings here, since I have no problems with how you handled the other conflict between Boruch Baum and me: we were wrong, you reported us, that's the way things should be. ] (]) 13:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


The root of the terminology issue stems from my , where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were ].
=== Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015 discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. The filing editor appears to have introduced a reference to a non-existent page as well as to the subject page. I will be removing the incorrect reference. The responsibility to notify the other editor belongs to the filing party. ] (]) 02:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:
{{collapsetop|Comment on content, not contributors. ] (]) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)}}
I'd like to add that I'm having the same issue with {{User|Debresser}} on another page. He is an aggressive and unilateral reverter, assumes his reverts are automatically consensus, and accuses anybody of another opinion as being an edit warrior. He engages in ad hominem attacks easily. ] (]) 05:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
{{collapsebottom}}


- {{Langx|ta|வேளாளர்|Vēḷāḷar}} refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the ].
*'''Volunteer note''' - I will be recusing from this case because of a previous involvement with these same editors who don't like each other. ] (]) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


- {{Langx|ta|வெள்ளாளர்|Veḷḷāḷar}} represents the caste name in contemporary usage.
== Talk:Rocket League#Platform ==
This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste ] often uses this term {{Langx|ta|வேளாளர்|Vēḷāḷar}}, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.


'''Inclusion of the Mythology Section'''
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|Arwineap|19:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 19:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1452886210}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->


The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.


'''Third-Party Opinion'''
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Rocket League#Platform}}
* ]
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Arwineap}}
* {{User|Lordtobi}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed ] or not ], the concerned user should raise the issue on ]. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.
This is a dispute over what content should be included in the platform section of video game's infobox; specifically whether the platform section should list announced and/or released platforms.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

After a couple edits back and forth; there's been some discussion on the talk page but I think both parties agree it's not going anywhere.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

I think at this point we just need an uninvolved party to catch up with our discussions and give us an idea of what the appropriate policy should be.

==== Summary of dispute by Lordtobi ====
Given user, Arwineap, has started removing officially to-be-released announced platforms ] and ] from given article, '']''. Both platforms have multiply been stated to have ports in development, just like ], which also has not been released yet but unreleatedly did not come to Arwineap's attention. Fact is that the "platforms=" tag in {{tl|Infobox video game}} serves for platforms on which the game has officially been released or announced, if not canceled. And this is just the case. I have, over a longer discussion over on ], tried to explain why it is correct what is said about OS X and Linux (and also Xbox One). But I was yet again presented with another answer dealing with their own opinion about "why it can be but is not yet". I respect that given person is new to Misplaced Pages, but they should not try to get through their personal thougts or opinions about a certain topic which has been explainedly disproven. ] (]) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

* The discussion went as stated in the dispute above, {{u|Arwineap}} started removing ] and ] from the <code>platforms=</code> tag of {{tl|Infobox video game}}, which was reverted twice by {{u|Dissident93}} and the last one by myself, warning about the ongoing edit war. It was taken to the discussion on the Rocket League talk page, where I again explained why given user is wrong, which lead to a discussion about "announced platforms not being part of the ] article", which is nonsense. I replied with the conventions and guidelines given by the template itself, but all Arwineap did was denying. I was reissuing the same statement all over the discussion, trying to explain how Misplaced Pages works because he seemed like a new user, but got about the same, ignorant and redundant answer again and again. It was finally taken here nonsensely by Arwineap, until Dissident93 turned up to also regard the same reason of Arwineap's wrongness, which gave nothing but same answer again. As I looked into the template once more, I saw that it was actually not stated clearly, but still was what everyone was using on every page (except for ], which has had the same issue by Arwineap back in 2014, also for OS X and Linux), so I tried to clarify but that was undone by {{u|Czar}}, so I put it up on the template's takl page, where I only got one answer: The same redundant answer, again by Arwineap, why it would be "bad for the Linux gaming community" and personal opinions they try to cover as facts. A later answer by Dissident93 gave the agreement with the statement of the clarification. I had reached out to undo-er Czar for a statement, but received no answer so far. And this is basically where it was left. It saw no further activity by Arwineap except for and excessively unneeded comment again by Arwineap on the Rocket League talk page, but no answer or edit neither on this page, nor on the template talk page, which is why I have to do the write-down right now. I tried to remove this discussion as it was pure nonsense and this is the really wrong place for it (as issued by Czar below), but was reverted as that is "not my job", but then, I wonder, who's job is it to remove pure nonsense? ] (]) 16:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

=== Talk:Rocket League#Platform discussion ===

* '''Volunteer note:''' I'm neither taking this case or opening it for discussion, but merely noting that discussion and notice are adequate. We're waiting at this point for a volunteer to take the case. <s>response from the other editor.</s> — ] (]) 20:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
:*There has been additional discussion and additional parties joining in at ]; if a DRN volunteer takes this case, those additional parties may need to be added here, but the issue may be resolved by consensus at that forum. — ] (]) 18:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
* We commonly rectify these sorts of questions at the talk pages of either ] or ] <span style="background:#F0F0FF; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

== Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy ==

{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|Lokshin kugel|02:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|reason=Conduct dispute. DRN — see the instructions at the top of this page — does not handle disputes which are conduct disputes. If the article survives the AfD process, the filing editor may consider refiling this case but if he does so he must entirely avoid mentioning other editors' alleged motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV, POV-pushing, intolerance, incivility, or anything else about their alleged conduct or behavior. Conduct issues are handled strictly by ] and forums such as ]. — ] (]) 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Lokshin kugel}}
* {{User|Sir Joseph}}
* {{User|Debresser}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

I opened up a page to create a list of notable former orthodox Jews. I have not yet had the chance to substantially source it, but it is a project I am currently committed to. Two editors, Sir Joseph and Debresser, revert many of my insertions without giving reasons, or for overly general, unsourced reasons. They cite WP help pages incorrectly, and don't respond to the substance when I respond. They revert citing consensus, without waiting for consensus to develop on the talk page. After I open up the conversation on the talk page, if I revert based on the discussion on the talk page, they accuse me of edit warring. It seems like consensus, to them, is automatically their personal opinion, opinions they may not even bother sharing on the talk page. I have tried engaging in civil discourse, but I am shot down again and again without substantive conversation. I am trying to build this page out in good faith, but am being prevented from doing so by these two editors, both of who are committed to deleting this page. I am being turned off from editing WP due to the hostility I am experiencing. I don't know what to do to build out this page in good faith. I have tried civil discourse on the talk page, but am being shot down, often with personal attacks or instructions to other editors to ignore me, and without substantive or civil engagement, again and again. What should I do to help build this page out in good faith?

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

I have tried engaging in conversation on the talk page, and using/citing WP help pages and other pages. I first attempted WP Incidents, but it was turned down without explanation as far as I saw. I turned to editor advice, but no one has responded there. Another editor, on another page, boruch baum, reported his experience with debresser on this page, and I saw his conflict was addressed. So I am turning to this page, too, in the hopes this conflict can be resolved amicably here. Thank you.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

Advice on how to engage with hostile editors in a productive manner. Mediation and or a neutral third opinion. Thank you.

==== Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.
==== Summary of dispute by Debresser. ====
This article is up at ] and seems to go to a unanimous delete, the filing editor excluded. That fact alone not only makes this post superfluous, but also puts this post in the correct perspective. I am referring to the unanimity. ] (]) 13:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


=== Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion ===
=== Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
{{DRN archive bottom}}


== Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism == == Kamaria Ahir ==


{{DR case status}} {{DR case status}}
<!-- ] 20:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1737403441}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Misdemenor|05:44, 3 January 2016 (UTC)}}
{{drn filing editor|Nlkyair012|20:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 05:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1453009483}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>
Line 584: Line 331:


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism}} * {{pagelinks|Kamaria Ahir}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Misdemenor}} * {{User|Ratnahastin}}
* {{User|Kashmiri}}
* {{User|MezzoMezzo}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>


The dispute revolves around the use of Raj-era sources, specifically K.S. Singh’s "Anthropological Survey of India," in the article on "Kamaria Ahir." One editor, Nlkyair012, is advocating for the removal of these sources, arguing that they are outdated and unreliable. However, these historical sources, particularly those from the British Raj, are still cited in reputable modern academic works as valuable historical references for caste dynamics and structures. The issue also includes the inclusion of living people's names without proper self-identification, which violates Misplaced Pages's Biographies of Living Persons policy (BLP). The goal of this dispute resolution is to determine whether the Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh’s work should be retained or replaced, and to ensure that the article adheres to Misplaced Pages's guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.
The issue is that the Zahiri School has been added alongside the 4 Sunni Schools on ]. Zahiri was considered unorthodox by the traditional Sunni establishment and many reliable sources say its no longer active. The Zahiri school is therefore incorrectly labeled Sunni on two other articles ], ].


<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span> <span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>


]
I tried to discuss the issue with the editors involved on the article talk page and even took it to the NPOV noticeboard. See previous discussion here


]
<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>


]
By more neutral editors opinion perhaps this dispute may be resolved.


<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>
==== Summary of dispute by Kashmiri ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
Academic sources list the Zahiri among Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence. As to its extinction, the school was indeed extinct for a millennium, however there are sources that say that recently it is being revived. I don't find it convincing to disregard all the academic sources and instead rely only on the ], a political document that concerns itself with the influential branches of today's Islam. ]&nbsp;] 13:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


The dispute can be resolved by carefully reviewing the reliability of Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh's work, considering modern academic citations that rely on these sources, and determining whether they meet Misplaced Pages's standards of verifiability. Additionally, we can remove any names of living people to comply with the BLP policy while maintaining the historical and sociological content that is well-sourced. Collaboration on improving the article is key, and I suggest that experts in anthropology or caste studies provide input on the appropriateness of these sources for this article.
==== Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzo ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
This is forum shopping by Misdemeanor, after a bad faith SPI on myself and Kashmiri as well as a circular discussion on the talk page and another noticeboard didn't yield the results he wanted. In short: Misdemeanor has a dogmatic religious belief that Sunni Islam can only ever be four schools of thought, and flatly rejects - and has even tried to outright delete - academic, peer reviewed, mainstream sources that run counter to his religious beliefs. All discussions with him end up going in circles because the bottom line is that, as part of his personal dogma, Zahirism or anything else can never be Sunni regardless of he fact that ''his'' definition of Sunni Islam runs counter to the established consensus via RS at ], as well as the fact that multiple reliable sources refer to Zahirism as Sunni and as having experienced a minor revival in the late 20th century.<br>
I know it might seem crass to speak about the other editor, but I am absolutely convinced that 90% of this issue is the editor, not the content. ] (]) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


The current dispute is about the inclusion of Raj-era sources, particularly from the British colonial period, in the article "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Kamaria_Ahir)." I believe these sources are valuable for understanding the historical context of caste structures in India, despite their age. While I acknowledge that (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Age_matters) advises caution with older sources, it does not outright prohibit their use, especially when they provide unique historical insights that modern works may lack. Raj-era ethnographic works were written by government officials and are often cited in contemporary research for their firsthand observations, making them relevant in understanding caste dynamics.
=== Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>


A central issue in this dispute is the use of K.S. Singh’s "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Anthropological_Survey_of_India)" (ASI), which I have cited in the article. The ASI, although created under government supervision, is a significant academic resource that continues to be referenced in Indian academia. While some may question its modern reliability, it remains an authoritative source, and dismissing it entirely without further scrutiny undermines its contribution to the topic. As per (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Scholarship), high-quality academic sources are essential, but older sources like K.S. Singh’s are still valid when used in conjunction with modern studies to provide a complete view of the topic.
*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been adequate discussion at the talk page. The other editors have been notified. I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but it appears ready to be accepted. ] (]) 18:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


I also understand concerns related to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons), particularly regarding the inclusion of living people's names in caste articles. If specific names are a violation of (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLP_categories), I agree they should be removed. However, this does not justify removing the entire article or historical context that is verifiable and supported by well-established sources. The article provides valuable historical and sociological context that should not be discarded simply due to concerns over individual names.
== Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka ==


The sources I have used are critical to the article’s depth and accuracy. While there are concerns over the accessibility and page numbers of some sources, I am willing to work to improve verifiability, such as by adding missing page numbers or citing additional resources. According to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), I aim to improve the article's citation standards, but my main goal is to maintain the article’s historical integrity while complying with Misplaced Pages’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and reliability.
{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|PiCo|10:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 10:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1453114012}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->


(https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ratnahastin) has raised concerns about the reliability and relevance of these sources, particularly due to their age. However, rather than removing content entirely, I propose that we retain these sources while improving the article’s clarity and citation standards. The article can be collaboratively improved to ensure it meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines while preserving the depth of the subject matter.
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>


==== Summary of dispute by Ratnahastin ====
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The OP does not really understand the purpose of WP:DR. The proper venue for this dispute was ]. - ] (]) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Gog and Magog}}
* {{pagelinks|Talk:Koka and Vikoka}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|PiCo}}
* {{User|Xinheart}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

This dispute covers to two articles, ] and ]. The issue is essentially one: ] wishes to include material to the effect that there are "similarities" between the names Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka, and that scholars have made "comparisons" between two legendary walls, one in Christian/Muslim legend, the other in Hindu cosmology.

My position is that these two ideas are NOT held by current scholarship in the relevant areas of biblical studies, Islamic studies, Sanskrit studies, or mythological/folkloric studies. They are, in short, non-notable.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

Extensive Talk-page discussion; previous RfC (on Gog and Magog talk page).

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

Is this idea - that there is a connection between the names Gog/Magog and Koka/Vikoka, and also between the "wall of Dhul Qarnayn" and the Hindu world-wall - one that should be in the article?

==== Summary of dispute by Xinheart ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>
Hi,

This is the second dispute resolution raised by {{User|PiCo}} on the same subject. The last one goes back to July 2015 and involved other respectable and learned wp contributors @{{User|Snow_Rise}}, @{{User|Ian.thomson}}, @{{User|TwoHorned}} and may be an anonymous IP. It can be consulted (the title of the section was set up by {{User|PiCo}} in a ironical manner on purpose, that was noted by the others participants). The conclusion written in August 2015 was that no formal consensus reached, but "''involved editors seem to have reached consensus on alternative wording''". Basically, it was admitted that the introduction I proposed, written differently, is acceptable and involves notable authors in the field of metaphysics and symbolic studies. Despite this, {{user|PiCo}} never admitted the arguments of other contributors, and reverted , and . The basic argument has been said by {{User|Ian.thomson}} where it is found that the introduction of ]'s text is justified and that author notable. Other related sources are mentioned . I have nothing to add to what has been said before. {{user|PiCo}} should accept once the arguments given by the other non-partisan contributors and the conclusion reached previously. ] (]) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

=== ] and ] discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>

*'''Volunteer note''' - There has been adequate discussion on the two article talk pages, and the other editor has been notified. While most discussions at this noticeboard are of a single article, I don't see anything in the rules for this page that prevents a discussion of the extent to which two articles are related. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. ] (]) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC); <small>moved per {{diff|User talk:Robert McClenon|diff=698283335|oldid=698281608|label=note on User talkpage}}; cheers, ] in ] of ] 04:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)</small>

{{V note}} While the two original editors have responded, there does seem to have been a bit of a growth of involved and interested editors. These editors may include (from talkpage discussions):
:{{u|Ian.thomson}} - joined discussion of RfC and later discussion of Guenon source
:{{u|Snow Rise}} - bot-summoned to RfC and provided extensive advice and comment both during and after the RfC

I've pinged them in case they would like to join but I have not placed a notification on their respective talk pages. Cheers, ] in ] of ] 04:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC); I would also like to state that I am neither accepting nor declining the case, 04:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

=== My observations of the dispute and of Xinheart and PiCo ===
Hi folks. Very pressed for time at present, and much of what I have found for the project is divided still further by some involved projects and discussions, so I will try to comment here once at length to provide my opinion of the dispute and the parties, but I will probably not comment further unless anyone has any really pressing questions. Apologies at the outset for the probable length here.

I'll begin this noting that I don't think the content question is too complex, and those who want to understand it are best served by reviewing the thread. I came to the thread via RfC notice just after the article had been protected by {{u|KrakatoaKatie}}, following a brief edit war between PiCo and Xinheart. Aside from the two of them, about half dozen other editors took part in the RfC discussion (which PiCo opened), most of them summoned by bot like myself, having had no prior exposure to the dispute, but also a pair of IPs (one of which may have been Xinheart, who registered during the discussion). None of those of us who arrived felt that either disputant was particularly in the right concerning how they regarded the sources and the disputed piece of content. Nevertheless, over the course of a couple of days, we were able to hammer out a reasonable compromise solution, the gist of which was that the sources in question were ], but that the statements they were being used to support needed to be better written, attributed, and contextualized.

Xinheart, for his part, seemed to realize that he was new and that he was working within a collegial/consensus framework here and, after the initial edit war with PiCo, conformed himself well to the policy issues and worked with the RfC respondents to construct a more neutral middle-ground approach to the content. PiCo, by comparison, refused to have anything be not exactly as he wanted. He has very idiosyncratic notions on sources in particular, and whenever those opinions part from our actual ] standards, he insists that his requirements be met as well, even be they based only on ] notions. Of all of the editors participating in the relevant threads, he was the sole party who believed the sources were not reliable (particularly because the author was not a biblical scholar). Worse, despite apparently having been an active on-and-off participant on Misplaced Pages for years, he seemed to lack basic familiarity and competency with some of the policies being discussed (for example, he would often confuse ] and ] as one concept and make arguments about the sources that were found in neither) making arguing with him arduous, as he would often ] any discussion of the actual wording and purpose of those policies.

But the truly disruptive behaviour only started after the discussion closed. PiCo would wait until eyes were off the page and then would revert the consensus content. When challenged, he would offer arguments like "Well, I'm re-opening the discussion. So the present !vote is now 1:2." even when the previous discussion had just concluded days or weeks before, and the opinions expressed within it were still germane. Troubled by this behaviour and also by constant reverts of the content of various editors aside from Xinheart, I looked at the revision history of the article and discovered that for the previous few months, PiCo had undone the substantial majority of all edits to the article made by ''any'' other editor but himself, and there were quite a few such editors. I haven't had time to investigate in detail whether this trend has continued until today, but I should not be surprised if it has. There is a rather severe case of ] in his behaviour with regard to this article, and he doesn't mince words when it comes to the fact that he believes that he is its primary custodian and knows what is best for it: ]

So, long story short, I'm very heartened that PiCo has chosen to bring the issues to dispute resolution, but if you take this case, I recommend keeping an admin involved, because if PiCo does not like what other contributors are trying to tell him, my experience with him on this article is that he will just ignore the consensus and keep doing what he wants to do until someone with tools shows up, even if he was the one who requested the third party opinions in the first place. Peculiarly, and to his credit, this behaviour seems confined largely to Gog and Magog; I've since seen his contributions at other biblical articles (apparently his one area of involvement on Misplaced Pages) and, although he always has strong opinions and has expressed some potentially problematic motivations for his work in that area (he likes to challenge the dogmatic sensibilities of zealous believers), the ] bebahviour is not in evidence at other articles/talk pages like it is for Gog and Magog. Make of that what you will. ] ] 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

== User talk:190.150.36.88 ==

{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|190.150.36.88|01:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed for multiple reasons. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, ], only on user talk pages. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. In addition, the filing editor has made ]. ] (]) 02:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|User talk:190.150.36.88}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Eteethan}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

A person by the name of Eteethan from Boston is deleting my edits to the entry on Laszlo Csatary that is incorrect. There is a book that has been written about this that exonerates Laszlo Csatary with documented proof from the National Archives of Hungary. This man in Boston is attempting to suppress the truth. That is illegal in America. He needs to be stopped. He has no business getting involved in what he knows nothing about. I will not stand for this abuse of my family.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

I wrote to him telling him to stop deleting my edits.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

Delete the article on Laszlo Csatary. It is not true. Laszlo Csatary was stationed elsewhere when the deportations happened. He had nothing to do with them.

==== Summary of dispute by Eteethan ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

=== User talk:190.150.36.88 discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
{{DRN archive bottom}}

== http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&section=7#3_-_References_that_should_not_be_ignored_or_deleted_on_TM_page ==

{{DR case status}}
{{drn filing editor|Jdontfight|21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)}}
<!-- ] 21:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1453238717}}<!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental Meditation&section=7#3_-_References_that_should_not_be_ignored_or_deleted_on_TM_page}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Jdontfight}}
* {{User|Doc James}}
* {{User|MastCell}}
* {{User|Alexbrn}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

The page is one of some "delicate" pages on which there often this kind of behaviour of deleting without proper arguments.
Using good reliable scientific sources (medicine) (Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)) should lead to some editing. But this is regularly deleted.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you tried to resolve this previously?'''</span>

No argument nor any reliable sources seems to be good enough for them. It is obvious that they just don't want any improvement of this section. I have listed some of those references of peer reviewed meta-analysis and literature review, in the last section named: "References that should not be ignored or deleted on TM page". According to ] "Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library (although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality)". There is rarely such quality of sources in a discussion, but there are still continuously deleted...

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help?'''</span>

Misplaced Pages should be edited on reliable sources. When there are such sources and especially when those are scientific sources, there should not be any obstacle and fair play recognition. This is clearly the type of situation that could damage the reputation of the wikipedia project.

==== Summary of dispute by Doc James ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by MastCell ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>

==== Summary of dispute by Alexbrn ====
Decline DR. This has not been properly discussed on the article Talk page yet (where indeed there are unanswered questions on the material in dispute). ] (]) 21:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

==== Summary of dispute by ====
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.</div>


=== Kamaria Ahir discussion ===
=== http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation&section=7#3_-_References_that_should_not_be_ignored_or_deleted_on_TM_page discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div> <div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>

Latest revision as of 02:06, 24 December 2024

Informal venue for resolving content disputes "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.
Skip to Table of Contents
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) Shortcuts

    This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

    Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
    Do you need assistance? Would you like to help?
    Request dispute resolution

    If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.

    • This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
    • We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
    • The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
    • Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
    • Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
    • Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
    If you need help:

    If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.

    • This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
    • For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
    		 Become a volunteer

    We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.

    Volunteers should remember:
    • Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
    • Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Misplaced Pages, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
    • Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
    Open/close quick reference
    • To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
    • To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
    Case Created Last volunteer edit Last modified
    Title Status User Time User Time User Time
    Dragon Age: The Veilguard New Sariel Xilo (t) 18 days, 6 hours Robert McClenon (t) 5 days, 7 hours Wikibenboy94 (t) 4 days, 5 hours
    Autism New Oolong (t) 3 days, 10 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 22 hours Oolong (t) 1 days, 16 hours
    Sri Lankan Vellalar New Kautilyapundit (t) 1 days, 20 hours None n/a Kautilyapundit (t) 1 days, 20 hours
    Kamaria Ahir New Nlkyair012 (t) 6 hours None n/a Nlkyair012 (t) 6 hours

    If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
    Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 20:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


    Archived DRN Cases

    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
    11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
    21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
    31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
    41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
    51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
    61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
    71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
    81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
    91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
    101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
    111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
    121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
    131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
    141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
    151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
    161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
    171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
    181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
    191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
    201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
    211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
    221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
    231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
    241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
    251, 252


    This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.


    Purge this page to refreshIf this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes.
    Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

    Current disputes

    Dragon Age: The Veilguard

    – New discussion. Filed by Sariel Xilo on 20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    1) Disagreement on if WP:SYNTH is occurring in the topline summary sentences. The arguments for including these sentences is that one sentence in the lead is an accurate summary of the article's reception section & follows MOS:INTRO/Misplaced Pages:Summary style & the second sentence is in a reception section paragraph & follows WP:VG/REC advice for opening sentences. The argument against is that SYNTH is occurring & these summary sentences should not be included. 2) Rewriting a sentence on review bombing to remove context on negative reviews after a November talk page discussion came to consensus. 3) Other more minor disagreements about exact prose.

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

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    An independent review of the prose to ensure it is following policy as it seems the discussion has stalled out & to help us reach a consensus on the main content disagreements. The back and forth has led to the article being under a full lock until the dispute is resolved.

    Summary of dispute by BMWF

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

    Summary of dispute by Wikibenboy94

    The edits and justifications on the article by BMWF, who appears to have an ardent approach to following certain rules and guidelines, I have found particularly questionable. In my opinion:

    1. The aforementioned summaries, in both the lead and body, of points in the reception section do not amount to WP:SYNTH, and reception summaries in leads for countless articles would be removed if it did.

    2. Including the Steam player base numbers is not relevant for the lead, at least not in place of the lack of official sales figures, and where the sales section largely consists of theorising how much Dragon Age: Veilguard has sold.

    3. Identifying each platform for the game that was given a Metacritic consensus of "generally favorable" is redundant when the consensuses are the same for all the platforms; they should only be identified if there are differing consensuses, or at most should be written as "for all platforms".

    4. The invoking of WP:SAID while changing the wording so that a critic of the game "said" instead of "thought" and "referred to" instead of "criticized" I don't find warranted for what was initially written (note there are other instances of the words "thought" and "criticized" still remaining in the section). Similarly, the initial wording of "offensive reviews" I feel is more neutral and less loaded than "abusive reviews".

    5. I am less invested in how the review bombing is outlined, though do think some mention should be made on how Steam requires proof that you have played the game first before reviewing it, unlike Metacritic (or vice versa). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

    Dragon Age: The Veilguard discussion

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

    To expand a bit a on the listing, I believe that at this point both @Wikibenboy94 and I agree that there are no WP:SYNTH issues in the topline summary sentences removed by @BMWF in this edit and agree on restoring them which BMWF opposes. I also agree with Wikibenboy94 on points 2-4 that they outlined in their summary of the dispute.

    In terms of the review bomb sentence, I think the following compromise version should satisfy the request for clarity on Steam users (bold is the text added by BMWF) while restoring context (underlined) that was in the November consensus on this issue: Veilguard was also subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

    I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two participants want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state that you agree to the rules (if you want moderated discussion). The purpose of dispute resolution is to improve the article. So please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    Quick clarity question on DRN Rule A - my assumption is that the rule is to not edit war over the disputed content but updates/improvements in other sections are fine. This question occurred to me after the fact (I corrected a template in the awards table which is unrelated to the dispute but was a mistake I made). Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    Clarification by Moderator (Dragon Age)

    I generally prefer to have the parties avoid editing any part of the article, at least until all of the parties agree on what the area of dispute is. Since the other editors have not yet stated what they think the issues are, I am not relaxing the rule against editing the article, except with regard to the change that User:Sariel Xilo is asking about, that was already made. In that case, the principle of no harm, no foul applies to the change that has already been made. Leave the change in. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statements by editors (Dragon Age)

    I agree to DRN Rule A. As outlined above, I would like to restore the topline summary sentences in the lead & reception section (ie. the sentences removed in the lead in this edit & in the reception in this edit), restore other word changes as outlined by Wikibenboy94's in their points 2-4, & I would like use the above proposed compromise version of the review bomb prose. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

    First statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

    Do two editors want moderated discussion? The filing editor has said that they agree to DRN Rule A and has made a statement about what they want to change in the article. Another editor made a statement at the beginning, but has not agreed to DRN Rule A. If they agree to those rules, I will open moderated discussion, and we will try to work on the various differences. If they do not either agree to the rules or make some other statement, I will close this discussion as declined due to lack of response.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

    I've pinged the two other editors in case they only watched this noticeboard for a week & haven't seen that a moderator opened the discussion. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
    I have read and agree to DRN Rule A. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

    First statements by editors (Dragon Age)

    Second statement by possible moderator (Dragon Age)

    It appears that two editors have agreed to moderated discussion, but that they have mostly agreed with each other and disagreed with the third editor, who has not responded on this noticeboard. Their statements of what they want to change in the article are not entirely clear, at least not to me. So what I will do at this point is to ask each editor to prepare draft versions of the sections that they think should be changed. I don't see a discussion in the current text of the article about review bombing, so that we can read a description of the review bombing.

    I will comment that the article is no longer fully protected. The full protection expired, and the article is now semi-protected. However, I have asked that the editors in this dispute not edit the article while we are discussing its improvement.

    I don't understand what the synthesis issue is, and I don't want to read through the history and previous discussion to determine what the synthesis issue is. So please state more specifically what the synthesis issue is if you want it considered, or let me infer it from the rewritten sections, or I might ignore it, which might be what you want. It seems that the two editors who have responded do not see a synthesis issue, so it can be disregarded if it isn't mentioned and the third editor doesn't describe it.

    Please provide your rewritten sections.

    Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    Second statements by editors (Dragon Age)

    Proposed text:

    Lead

    Dragon Age: The Veilguard released for PlayStation 5, Windows, and Xbox Series X/S on October 31, 2024. After release Dragon Age: The Veilguard topped Steam charts and broke BioWare's concurrent player record. The game received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised its cast, representation of sexual minority characters, graphics, and level design, but were more critical of the story, aspects of the writing, and combat. It was nominated for Game of the Year at the Golden Joystick Awards and Innovation in Accessibility at The Game Awards.

    Reception

    ¶1 Dragon Age: The Veilguard received "generally favorable" reviews from critics for its Windows, Xbox Series X/S, and PlayStation 5 versions according to the review aggregator website Metacritic. OpenCritic determined that 68% of critics recommended the game. Veilguard was subject to review bombing on Metacritic, with users criticizing the game for being "woke". Some outlets noted that while the user reviews on Metacritic are largely negative, the user reviews of Veilguard on Steam, which requires users to play the game before leaving a review, have a "mostly positive" rating. In response, Metacritic emphasized their moderation system which would remove offensive reviews.

    Reception ¶2 is not under dispute but here for additional context if needed.

    ¶2 Hayes Madsen of Rolling Stone called Veilguard a "fresh start for the franchise" with the game "practically a soft reset". Leana Hafer for IGN similarly commented that the "story feels like both a send-off and a soft reboot, in a way, which was paradoxically a bit refreshing and disappointing at the same time". She also found it "cool" that the Inquisitor returns as "a fairly important character". Andy Bickerton of NPR viewed the game as a "well-executed action RPG". However, he called the decision to not include prior player narrative choices a "letdown", noting that "it's easy to see how this squandered potential, along with the tonal inconsistencies, could have arisen out of Veilguard's near-decade of troubled production". Lauren Morton of PC Gamer thought a downside of perceived streamlining and eliminating the "most common RPG frictions" is that it "can feel more action adventure than RPG at moments".

    ¶3 Critics were mixed on the game's story. Matt Purslow from IGN thought that Veilguard was "at war with itself", as he felt that the game was not interested in exploring the franchise's past despite being its first direct sequel, and that the game sidelined major characters such as Solas and Varric. Malindy Hetfeld of The Guardian criticized the "surprisingly mediocre" writing in Veilguard, describing the protagonist Rook as more of a witty observer than a "person with opinions". She also found the "comically evil" new villainous gods disappointing compared to the more "compelling" Solas. Hafer opined that Veilguard has "weird" pacing, and that the overaching plot "is nothing particularly outstanding in its overall structure", with the only interesting factor being Solas. Madsen argued that Solas was "a secondary protagonist", with the game focusing on his choices, their impact, "and how your journey as Rook mirrors" his journey. Ash Parrish of The Verge appreciated how Solas' arc subverted her desire to kill him despite longstanding animosity; she praised BioWare for crafting "his story arc in a way that didn't soften his actions as villain backstories typically do, but in a way that I felt compelled to make a different choice". Reviewers were divided over how consequential player choices were to the narrative, with some finding major decisions "few and far between".

    The rest of the reception section for context on lead summary. While it uses similar summary style sentences as above (see bolded text), it is not under dispute.

    ¶4 Madsen praised Veilguard for its attention to detail when showcasing the player's iteration of Rook and the game's companions, calling the characters "wonderfully written and well integrated into the plot". Todd Harper of Polygon emphasized the companions as the heart of the game, noting that they were "weird and idiosyncratic in the best ways". Kazuma Hashimoto of Them commented that at a surface level companions feel like "fantasy clichés and tropes", but with earned trust reveal "mundane moments" that make them feel closer to "normal people"; he also praised both the romance and non-romance options for interacting with companions. Hafer appreciated that companions are each "stars of their own story" with "complex, memorable, likable, distinct personalities", but was disappointed that in combat they felt more like extensions of the player character. Parrish enjoyed the "fun banter" of companions, and praised the romance options in Veilguard, highlighting that unlike previous Dragon Age games, it explicitly indicates when the player becomes locked into a romance path. Conversely, Oliver Brandt of Sports Illustrated viewed the choice to make all companions romanceable regardless of player gender expression as "a small step back" from other Dragon Age games. Harvey Randall of PC Gamer highlighted a lack of nuance in Rook's romantic dialogue if a player chooses to discuss Rook's gender identity. Morton thought companions lacked nuance and individual characterizations, noting that "good people don't make great characters". She further criticized the lack of a "functional mechanism for disapproval" and interpersonal group conflicts.

    ¶5 Veilguard generally received praise for its inclusive character creator and representation of transgender and non-binary characters. Alyssa Mora of IGN emphasized the character creator's "body diversity" where "the options feel almost endless". Both Robin Bea of Inverse and Brandt commended Taash's story arc, with Brandt noting while BioWare has previously "touched on queer stories", Vanguard "goes one step further, unashamedly and unabashedly calling one of its most compelling characters nonbinary". Bea acknowledged the "smart writing" in Veilguard in addressing transgender representation. However, she critiqued the use of a coming out narrative as "low-hanging fruit", and thought Rook's gender identity was not fully explored beyond Taash's storyline and so did not "always feel like a fully-actualized trans character". Stacey Henley of TheGamer appreciated the deliberate use of modern language in Taash's story in comparison to Inquisition's Krem, though noted the language has been contentious with audiences as potentially "immersion breaking". Randall was more critical, noting how Veilguard "both failed and succeeded" in the narrative aspects focused on non-binary characters, and that the overall "scattershot, clumsy, and unpolished" writing impacts the "use of queer language in a fantasy context". They found the lack of a fictional etymology connecting the word to the cultures of Thedas problematic, reflecting wider story issues as the game seems "barely interested in the politics of its own setting".

    ¶6 Critics enjoyed Veilguard's graphics and level design but were divided on the game's combat. Bickerton felt that Veilguard's strongest feature was its action gameplay, writing "mastering combat and party composition is a thoroughly rewarding experience from start to finish". He also highlighted the game's "accessibility and difficulty settings" as being welcoming for more casual players. Hetfeld viewed Veilguard's combat as functional but repetitive, without "much room for strategy", and similar to numerous other games. Hafer called the boss fights the highlight of combat. Parrish praised the combo system, the new elemental effects on weapons, and the ability for player mages to switch between melee and ranged for a "kinetic, almost chaotic energy". However, she critiqued the length of encounters from the "wave after wave of tanky enemies with multiple health bars". Harper thought the combat was "hit or miss", and that the combo system was less complex than Inquisition and the Mass Effect games. Hafer stated that the game has "visual splendor", and Harper called it "graphically gorgeous". Parrish opined that the "companions and environments are arresting in their design". Bickerton thought the level design was an improvement on Inquisition's "bland open zones", and praised side quests for their depth and the rewarding of exploration with "useful loot and impactful plot points". Morton viewed each area's "incredible visual design" as a standout feature of Veilguard. She found it was better off for removing Inquisition's "giant zones" and having "more constrained maps of coiled corridors and clearings".

    References

    1. "Dragon Age: The Veilguard (Xbox Series X Critic Reviews)". Metacritic. Retrieved December 4, 2024.
    2. "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Reviews". OpenCritic. Retrieved November 12, 2024.
    3. "Metacritic responds after Dragon Age: The Veilguard review bombing". Eurogamer.net. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
    4. "Dragon Age The Veilguard is getting review bombed, and now Metacritic has something to say". PCGamesN. 2024-11-05. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
    5. Watson, Philip (2024-11-05). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's Poor Review Bombing Leads To Metacritic Response". CGMagazine. Retrieved 2024-11-06.
    6. ^ Madsen, Hayes (2024-10-28). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Is a Return to Form for a Beloved RPG Franchise". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
    7. ^ Hafer, Leana (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Review". IGN. Retrieved 2024-10-29.
    8. ^ Bickerton, Andy (October 28, 2024). "Tonally inconsistent 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' is still BioWare's best action game". NPR. Retrieved November 29, 2024.
    9. ^ Morton, Lauren (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review". PC Gamer. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
    10. Purslow, Matt (November 9, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Is at War With Itself". IGN. Retrieved November 10, 2024.
    11. ^ Hetfeld, Malindy (October 28, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard review — a good RPG, but an underwhelming Dragon Age game". The Guardian. Retrieved October 28, 2024.
    12. ^ Parrish, Ash (2024-11-28). "The hardest part of Dragon Age: The Veilguard is making a choice". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    13. ^ Parrish, Ash (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard starts slow but strong". The Verge. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
    14. ^ Hashimoto, Kazuma (2024-10-28). "I Played 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' and Got Myself Stuck in a Gay Love Triangle". Them. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    15. ^ Harper, Todd (2024-10-28). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the friend group simulator we've been waiting for". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-10-30.
    16. ^ Brandt, Oliver (2024-10-31). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard is the first triple-A game to handle gender identity the right way". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    17. ^ Randall, Harvey (2024-11-13). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard's leap forward in trans inclusion comes from a heartfelt place, but its problems left me feeling frustrated, angry, and tired". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    18. ^ Morton, Lauren (2024-11-15). "The Veilguard is the first Dragon Age game where my companions don't care enough about anything to argue with me". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    19. ^ Mora, Alyssa (September 19, 2024). "Dragon Age: The Veilguard Preview: BioWare Finally Nails The Character Creator I've Always Wanted". IGN. Retrieved November 30, 2024.
    20. ^ Bea, Robin (2024-11-06). "'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' Makes Me Feel Seen As a Trans Player, But Still Disappointed". Inverse. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    21. ^ Henley, Stacey (2024-11-06). "Why Dragon Age: The Veilguard Uses The Term 'Non-Binary'". TheGamer. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    22. Puc, Samantha (2024-11-03). "This 'Dragon Age: The Veilguard' companion's story ruined me in the best way". The Mary Sue. Retrieved 2024-11-29.
    23. Marshall, Cass (2024-11-01). "How role-playing a trans or nonbinary Rook works in Dragon Age: The Veilguard". Polygon. Retrieved 2024-11-30.

    In the lead and reception ¶1/¶3, I bolded prose which I think should be included & did strikethroughs on what I think should be removed. The lead & reception ¶3 summary sentences were removed for being synth although I disagree with that assessment. It would be helpful to have an outside opinion review them. Additionally, reception ¶1 (in bold & underline) includes the review bomb sentence that was part of the original November consensus that BMWF argued against; when raising synth concerns, they removed it again. I believe it adds important context as news outlets contrasted the two platforms in articles focused on what was occurring at Metacritic (ie. the negative user reviews on Metacritic were very different from the user reviews on Steam). Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

    I fully support all the proposed changes Sariel Xilo has outlined above and have no further issues to raise, so a draft version from me will be redundant. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

    Autism

    – New discussion. Filed by Oolong on 15:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    Autism, in the wider world, is subject to a very deep disagreement about what it is, and what it means for society.

    On Misplaced Pages, this schism (or paradigm shift) is manifesting in an interesting way, because the root of the disagreement is essentially about the degree to which it is correct or helpful to view autism as a medical issue - a disorder - at all.

    Misplaced Pages has quite detailed guidelines for what to do within medicine, or outside of medicine, but it is less clear what to do when the dispute is about whether something is best thought of as a health issue, and/or something else (for example: a different way of thinking and experiencing the world, a disability, an identity etc.) There are many implications for this distinction, including (to some extent) what we include and (strictly) what counts as a reliable source for any particular piece of information. Many scientists have taken various positions on the issue of neurodiversity, as have autistic and other neurodivergent people, practitioners, family members and writers (all of these overlap greatly). The concept has greatly risen in prominence in recent years.

    This underlying dispute manifests in many different ways, across many autism-related articles, often giving rise to tensions, and incredulity on more than one side, when people refuse to accept things that apparently seem obvious to the other side. These go back many years, but have reached a relatively heated pitch in recent weeks, with a number of editors making efforts to change the main autism entry in various ways.

    A major point of contention is around systemic bias, relating to what I would call testimonial injustice. Who should be listened to, when it comes to what people should be reading about autism? What exactly should we balancing when we weigh viewpoints "in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources"?

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

    Talk:Autism Talk:Autism#Autism and disability Talk:Autism#Too little focus on anthropology and social dynamics; too intense focus on medical genetics. Talk:Autism#Extent of Scientific Consensus on Terminology & Reconciling Perspectives Talk:Autism#Glaring Omissions] Related: Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_228#Applied_behavior_analysis

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    There are tensions and disagreements for which the resolution is not obvious, and neither is the route to a resolution; much of this has run in circles around what different sources do or do not demonstrate, and which Misplaced Pages guidelines apply, where, and how. There has also some agressive argumentation and editing which seems unhelpful. Outside input on how to work towards a balanced conclusion - conceivably even something like a consensus - could be helpful.

    Summary of dispute by Димитрий Улянов Иванов

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

    The central tension in the dispute revolves around how autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is characterised and the prominence given to this characterisation. Some editors have argued for either reducing, minimising, or entirely removing references to autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder with symptoms, impairments, and varying levels of severity.

    This proposed reframing of the article stands in stark contrast to the scientific consensus around the world. As regards the scientific consensus, the validity and relevance of the terminology for ASD has been established by standardised diagnostic criteria (e.g., the World Health Organization's ICD-11 and American Psychological Association's DSM-5), the developers of evidence-based national guidelines (e.g., the UK National Institute for Health & Care Excellence and the European Society for Child & Adolescent Psychiatry), and consensus statements endorsing these guidelines (e.g. IAP Guidelines on Neuro Developmental Disorders). This is further substantiated by other peer-reviewed, secondary sources such as systematic reviews. For further details, see list of quoted references.

    Since the article pertains to health where readers may rely on its information to make health-related decisions, restricting these high-quality references can have profound repercussions. Some editors have cited a series of blog posts and advocacy papers as sources supporting the notion that a neurodiversity-only perspective, which decouples ASD from these terms, is more, or at least comparably, appropriate for the article because of its publicity and acceptance amongst a subset of autistic advocates. However, it has been argued that relying on these sources is problematic for several reasons. First, Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines consider peer-reviewed sources as the most reliable when available; that blog posts are generally discouraged; and that it is the members of a particular scientific discipline who determine what is considered factual or pseudoscience. Second, while some advocacy sources are peer-reviewed, they are usually advocating for a future change that is not currently established. The dispute has since increasingly been over how Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines can be correctly interpreted.

    In my view, a failure to properly reflect the international scientific classification in this article will contribute to the stigmatisation of ASD and its treatments to millions of people around the world. Your decision may disproportionately mislead the poorest and highest risk of readers due to economic and educational disadvantages. This will increase morbidity, create chaos in families and drive up health care costs.

    While considering each reply, I urge reviewers to carefully consider and weigh in the scientific evidence in regards to their recommendations.

    Summary of dispute by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan

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

    Yes, as User:Oolong says, some of the dispute seems to concern epistemic injustice concerns and how to interpret standards of evidence here.

    There is also definitely a strong debate going on over whether, per established standards of evidence for wikipedia and for medical claims within wikipedia, there is in fact a consensus of reputable sources (especially recent sources) supporting a traditional medical understanding of autism, or whether per such standards of evidence there appears to be a division between traditional medical and neurodiversity-aligned perspectives on autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

    I would like to reiterate that any drop in evidential standards could lead to the inclusion of debunked and dangerous practices, particularly as at least one editor has revealed themselves to be sympathetic toward facilitated communication - an anti-autistic practice which is often falsely claimed to be supported from a neurodiversity perspective - the inclusion of which has already been litigated on Misplaced Pages. The medical model being poor does not automatically lead to the populist online autism movement being good. Autistic people deserve the same standards as everyone else. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F104:371A:5F87:5238 (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    I don't believe anybody is advocating for reduced evidential standards. The question is about which standards apply to what.
    My position on FC is that it is a dubious practice, worryingly open to abuse, but that we need to be wary of over-generalising from the evidence available on it (and that it is worth looking at studies publised since this was last 'litigated on Misplaced Pages'). Oolong (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by HarmonyA8

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

    Summary of dispute by TempusTacet

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

    Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

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

    I think that only the first three editors in this list (Oolong, Димитрий Улянов Иванов, and Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan) are very relevant. However, I'm willing to help (e.g., to provide assistance with the {{MEDRS evaluation}} of sources). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by FactOrOpinion

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

    The conflict seems to be very longstanding, and I've only participated in the discussion during the last week, so my understanding of the conflict is very incomplete. A significant piece of it is that there are contrasting approaches to thinking about autism — a medical model and a neurodiversity perspective — and the article currently emphasizes the first of those, which makes it feel unbalanced to others. There are differences of opinion about which views/content are significant (in the NPOV sense) and therefore should be represented in the article; and among the various groups who might seek out the article (e.g., autistic people, family members, allies, different kinds of professionals), some will not find much content, even though there are reliable sources for it. For example, there's little about the lived experiences of people with autism, and some content that one might expect to be touched on with a link to further info (e.g., autistic meltdowns) are totally absent. Arguably, the text is not as accessible to as broad an array of readers as it should be. Some of the conflict seems linked to the role of scholarship. Everyone recognizes that when scholarly sources are available, they're usually the best sources; however, some may think that if content cannot be sourced to a scholarly source, then it shouldn't be included. I recognize that MEDRS guides sources for biomedical info; but some of the relevant info for the article is not biomedical. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    I am willing to try dispute resolution, but I have no experience with it. I have read the rules introduced by Robert McClenon below, as well as DRN Rule A, and I agree to these rules. It's not clear to me when I should move to the Zeroeth statements by editors section rather than responding here. Once that's clarified, I'll respond to Robert McClenon's questions in the appropriate section.
    Important note: I have no expertise in the subject. I ended up at the Autism talk page because an editor who is autistic posted a concern at the Teahouse about the imbalance in the article and felt that their Talk concerns were not being given due weight, and I hoped that I could be a bit helpful on the talk page. Given the breadth of the disagreement and my lack of expertise, it will be hard for me to suggest specific changes in the article, though I can make more general comments (e.g., comments about whether certain content might be introduced in order to address the needs of diverse readers who'd come to the article seeking information, whether the text is likely to be accessible to such readers, whether I think a given WP:PAG is being correctly interpreted). My guess is that I will not be as active in the discussion as the editors with subject matter knowledge / editors who have a longer history in the dispute, and it may be that my comments will simply be too general to be helpful and that I should therefore bow out. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Summary of dispute by 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0

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

    Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo

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

    Note: Editor is "done with the discussion" and will not be participating. --Oolong (talk) 09:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    Autism discussion

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


    Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Autism)

    I am ready to assess whether moderated discussion will be useful to improve the article on Autism and to resolve any content disputes. If we do use moderated discussion, this is likely to be a long mediation, and I will probably have to develop a new set of rules. I know that the rules will include;

    • Be civil. Civility is required everywhere in Misplaced Pages, and is essential to resolving content disputes.
    • Be concise. Long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not always convey useful information. Remember that an editor who sees a wall of text is likely to ignore it.
    • Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. (I will be the moderator.) Address your answers to the moderator and to the community.
    • Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so discuss the article or proposed changes to the article.
    • Do not make any reports to conduct forums while moderated discussion is in progress. One objective of moderated discussion is to avoid discussions of conduct and to resolve content issues first, because often the conduct issues resolve themselves when the content dispute is resolved.

    In the meantime, my first question for each editor is whether you would like to try moderated discussion (mediation) in order to resolve content disputes. If you answer yes, I have a two-part question and another question. The purpose of moderated discussion, or of any dispute resolution, is to improve an article. I will split my usual introductory question into two parts. First, please state what changes, if any, you want to make to the lede section of the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Second, please list the sections and subsections of the body of the article that you want to change. We can go into more detail about those changes later. Third, please provide links to any previous discussions of content or conduct issues about the topic that have not been resolved. I just want a list of all of the previous discussions. Do not comment on them, because I am trying to focus the discussion by asking my usual introductory question (in a two-part form).

    I don't yet know whether DRN is the right forum to resolve disputes about autism, but I will try to make that assessment based on the answers to the above questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Yes, I would like to try moderated discussion. Are you looking for responses as replies here, or in the section below (or...)?
    I've never participated in a dispute resolution procedure here (aside from the one linked above which was closed because I didn't get a notification, and didn't know to refresh the page daily, and which I didn't know how to reopen). Also, like many of the parties to this dispute, I am autistic. Explicit instructions will therefore be welcome! Thank you.
    Answering your other questions will be complicated, because what really needs to happen involves rather extensive changes. Even small changes have persistently been blocked by parties taking one particular position on this, so moving on to questions around the bigger changes required has repeatedly been stymied.
    I feel that I should flag up two essays that I've written, provoked by past discussions around all of this, to clarify my position - I hope you agree that this is appropriate here. The first is Autism and Scientism (published in the Middletown Centre for Autism Research Journal) and Autism, Misplaced Pages and Epistemic Injustice, posted here and published in Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. You are under no obligation to read these or take them into consideration, but they might help you to understand some of the issues at stake if you do so. Oolong (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

    Zeroth statements by editors (Autism)

    Sri Lankan Vellalar

    – New discussion. Filed by Kautilyapundit on 05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    A user repeatedly adds misleading edits to the caste article. In the section on mythological origins, they introduced misleading edits. If the source states "A," they modify it to say "B" to support their narrative. This constitutes WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The sources should specifically discuss the origin of the Sri Lankan Vellalar, but they fail to do so, instead recounting tales of other caste groups. There are other sources discussing the mythological origin of Vellalars, but he dismisses them and continues adding misleading edits with synthesized sources.

    Additionally, the user seems to be using AI to counter my responses. They don't fully understand my points and keep repeating the same arguments in different contexts.

    We also sought a third opinion, but that editor doesn't appear to be active on the talk page. He has no idea on south asian group articles and its complex editing rules.

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

    Talk:Sri_Lankan_Vellalar

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    This noticeboard might have more professional editors who are knowledgeable about South Asian groups and communities. I believe they can resolve the dispute by cross-verifying our points.

    Summary of dispute by Luigi Boy

    First and foremost, I would like to thank user Kautilyapundit for initiating this dispute. This discussion will undoubtedly help clarify and resolve the concerns at hand. From my perspective, there are two distinct issues that need to be addressed:

    - Terminology differences

    - The inclusion of the mythology section

    Terminology Differences

    The root of the terminology issue stems from my edit, where I restored information that had been removed without adequate justification or proof that the cited sources were WP:FRINGE.

    To provide clarity, I included a sentence explaining the transliteration of the term Vellalar. Specifically:

    - Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar refers to the context found in ancient Tamil literature like the Akananuru.

    - Tamil: வெள்ளாளர், romanized: Veḷḷāḷar represents the caste name in contemporary usage. This distinction adds context about the societies mentioned in classical Tamil texts and the evolution of terminology over time. The confusion arises mainly because the parent caste Vellalar often uses this term Tamil: வேளாளர், romanized: Vēḷāḷar, whereas modern usage differentiates the two terms.

    Inclusion of the Mythology Section

    The second issue is the inclusion (or exclusion) of the mythology section. The claim that I oppose adding more mythology is a misrepresentation of my stance. I've never dismissed other mythological references. If additional, well-sourced myths exist, I encourage to include those as well.

    The argument for removing the existing mythology section hinges on the fact that the parent article does not discuss this topic. However, this overlooks the fact that the mythology in question is specific to Sri Lankan Vellalars and does not pertain to the parent caste. Removing the section entirely would erase relevant, sourced context unique to this sub-caste.

    Third-Party Opinion

    Fortunately, user AirshipJungleman29 has provided a third opinion on this matter. They rightly suggested that if the sources in question are deemed WP:FRINGE or not WP:RS, the concerned user should raise the issue on WP:RSN. To date, no such dispute has been initiated, leaving the claim unsubstantiated.

    I hope this explanation addresses the concerns raised by Kautilyapundit and provides clarity on the rationale behind my edits. I am open to further discussions and look forward to collaborative resolutions to improve the article.

    Sri Lankan Vellalar discussion

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

    Kamaria Ahir

    – New discussion. Filed by Nlkyair012 on 20:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC).

    Have you discussed this on a talk page?

    Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

    Location of dispute

    Users involved

    Dispute overview

    The dispute revolves around the use of Raj-era sources, specifically K.S. Singh’s "Anthropological Survey of India," in the article on "Kamaria Ahir." One editor, Nlkyair012, is advocating for the removal of these sources, arguing that they are outdated and unreliable. However, these historical sources, particularly those from the British Raj, are still cited in reputable modern academic works as valuable historical references for caste dynamics and structures. The issue also includes the inclusion of living people's names without proper self-identification, which violates Misplaced Pages's Biographies of Living Persons policy (BLP). The goal of this dispute resolution is to determine whether the Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh’s work should be retained or replaced, and to ensure that the article adheres to Misplaced Pages's guidelines on neutrality and verifiability.

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

    ]

    ]

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    The dispute can be resolved by carefully reviewing the reliability of Raj-era sources and K.S. Singh's work, considering modern academic citations that rely on these sources, and determining whether they meet Misplaced Pages's standards of verifiability. Additionally, we can remove any names of living people to comply with the BLP policy while maintaining the historical and sociological content that is well-sourced. Collaboration on improving the article is key, and I suggest that experts in anthropology or caste studies provide input on the appropriateness of these sources for this article.

    The current dispute is about the inclusion of Raj-era sources, particularly from the British colonial period, in the article "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Kamaria_Ahir)." I believe these sources are valuable for understanding the historical context of caste structures in India, despite their age. While I acknowledge that (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Age_matters) advises caution with older sources, it does not outright prohibit their use, especially when they provide unique historical insights that modern works may lack. Raj-era ethnographic works were written by government officials and are often cited in contemporary research for their firsthand observations, making them relevant in understanding caste dynamics.

    A central issue in this dispute is the use of K.S. Singh’s "(https://en.wikipedia.org/Anthropological_Survey_of_India)" (ASI), which I have cited in the article. The ASI, although created under government supervision, is a significant academic resource that continues to be referenced in Indian academia. While some may question its modern reliability, it remains an authoritative source, and dismissing it entirely without further scrutiny undermines its contribution to the topic. As per (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Scholarship), high-quality academic sources are essential, but older sources like K.S. Singh’s are still valid when used in conjunction with modern studies to provide a complete view of the topic.

    I also understand concerns related to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons), particularly regarding the inclusion of living people's names in caste articles. If specific names are a violation of (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BLP_categories), I agree they should be removed. However, this does not justify removing the entire article or historical context that is verifiable and supported by well-established sources. The article provides valuable historical and sociological context that should not be discarded simply due to concerns over individual names.

    The sources I have used are critical to the article’s depth and accuracy. While there are concerns over the accessibility and page numbers of some sources, I am willing to work to improve verifiability, such as by adding missing page numbers or citing additional resources. According to (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources), I aim to improve the article's citation standards, but my main goal is to maintain the article’s historical integrity while complying with Misplaced Pages’s standards for verifiability, neutrality, and reliability.

    (https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Ratnahastin) has raised concerns about the reliability and relevance of these sources, particularly due to their age. However, rather than removing content entirely, I propose that we retain these sources while improving the article’s clarity and citation standards. The article can be collaboratively improved to ensure it meets Misplaced Pages's guidelines while preserving the depth of the subject matter.

    Summary of dispute by Ratnahastin

    The OP does not really understand the purpose of WP:DR. The proper venue for this dispute was WP:RSN. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

    Kamaria Ahir discussion

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