Revision as of 04:18, 24 December 2024

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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.

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 06:46, 25 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.

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

Current disputes

Dragon Age: The Veilguard

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Dragon Age: The Veilguard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Sariel Xilo (talk · contribs)
• BMWF (talk · contribs)
• Wikibenboy94 (talk · contribs)

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?

• Current discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Prose
• Previous discussion: Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard#Review bomb context

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

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

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.

¶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".

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Autism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Oolong (talk · contribs)
• Димитрий Улянов Иванов (talk · contribs)
• Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk · contribs)
• HarmonyA8 (talk · contribs)
• TempusTacet (talk · contribs)
• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs)
• FactOrOpinion (talk · contribs)
• 2409:40E0:102E:C01E:8000:0:0:0 (talk · contribs)
• GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by TempusTacet

Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing

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

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

Summary of dispute by GreenMeansGo

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

Autism discussion

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sri Lankan Vellalar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Kautilyapundit (talk · contribs)
• Luigi Boy (talk · contribs)

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

Kamaria Ahir

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kamaria Ahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Ratnahastin (talk · contribs)

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

• Volunteer Note - This appears to be an issue about the reliability of sources. Is this a question about the reliability of sources? If so, the proper forum is the reliable source noticeboard, where the volunteers are more familiar with the source reliability guidelines than at DRN. This case will be closed within 48 hours unless an issue is identified about article content that is not a source reliability question. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards