This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Erik (talk | contribs) at 22:30, 5 January 2016 (→Follow on statements: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:30, 5 January 2016 by Erik (talk | contribs) (→Follow on statements: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "WP:DRN" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:DNR. "WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR. |
|
| 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 | |
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.
| 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.
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
|
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:
|
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| Dragon Age: The Veilguard | New | Sariel Xilo (t) | 17 days, 22 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, | Wikibenboy94 (t) | 3 days, 22 hours |
| It's Coming (film), Draft:The Misguided | Closed | Stan1900 (t) | 3 days, 14 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 3 days, 5 hours | Kovcszaln6 (t) | 3 days, 5 hours |
| Autism | New | Oolong (t) | 3 days, 3 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 15 hours | Oolong (t) | 1 days, 9 hours |
| Sri Lankan Vellalar | New | Kautilyapundit (t) | 1 days, 13 hours | None | n/a | Kautilyapundit (t) | 1 days, 13 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 19:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Campus sexual_assault/Archive_3#Reverts
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Mattnad on 15:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC).
 | 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 Request for Comments. If edit-warring persists, page protection may be requested at requests for page protect; 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 WP:3RR. Avoid edit-warring in general, but if the edit-warring gets to 3RR, it may be reported at the edit-warring noticeboard. Dispute resolution has failed because the editors failed to follow the instruction to avoid editing the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview In the Campus sexual assault 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 understates the level ("many" instead of "majority") has been removed by Nblund (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. Have you tried to resolve this previously? We have discussed this at length, including an RFC (inconclusive), and later discussion How do you think we can help? 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. Mattnad (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NblundAs 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:
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 "original research coattrack" because Fisher's study did not specifically examine the AAU survey or that it was "fringe" work. However, as Carwil noted in the RfC, Fisher's paper is actually cited in the AAU article in relation to the exact finding we're discussing (page 36), and Fisher is actually a lead author of the AAU study. Nblund (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by AquillionI'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 WP:UNDUE 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. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CarwilPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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 WP:NEWSORG. 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. 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.--Carwil (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by VQuakrPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Talk:Campus sexual_assault discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
As a starting point, I think it would be helpful if Mattnad would remove and stop trying to re-insert 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. 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? Nblund (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
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, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Update: VQuakr has indicated 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. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (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 has taken the position that Fisher's plain English quote in the Washinton post is "unverified" and contradicted by Nblund's interpretation of a general statement from the study. 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.Mattnad (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) First statement by volunteer moderatorI 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC) First statements by editorsMattnad, 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 explained in this edit, 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, 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. 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 Minnesota paper And here is a nearly identical quote in a story from the HuffingtonPost
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. 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 conflict between sources, I think we should favor the more numerous and more reliable version. The AAU report 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. Nblund (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Second statement by moderatorI 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? Second statements by editorsI think the status quo is okay (first paragraph of this section), 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. Nblund (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
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 Washington Post (with author attribution). 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: ,, ,,,, , , 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. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Third statement by moderatorThe 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 WP:ANI, but I encourage you to try to work out content in order to alleviate any conduct issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Third statements by editorsI'm open to continuing this discussion if we restore the status quo first. 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. 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. Nblund (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
|
Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by FreeatlastChitchat on 06:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC).
| 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 WP:RFC carefully-and-clearly-worded request for comments, if that's not already been tried. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview Some editors want to remove people who are clearly critics of religion. People like A. C. Grayling, Sanal Edamaruku, Meera Nanda and Tarek Fatah 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 A. C. Grayling and got him back, but now others are being excluded without any reason given on the talkpage. Have you tried to resolve this previously? 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 How do you think we can help? 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. Summary of dispute by Capitals00Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Completely disregarding this forum shopping, A. C. Grayling was included already, and these issues have been already solved on talk page as most editors support present version and supported by WP:VERIFY, WP:BLP. Capitals00 (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Summary of dispute by D4iNa4Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)
|
Talk:Panagiotis Kone
– New discussion.
Filed by DevilWearsBrioni on 10:11, 28 December 2015 (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
- DevilWearsBrioni (talk · contribs)
- Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
- Zoupan (talk · contribs)
- MorenaReka (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Asked User:SilkTork for assistance who confirmed that the entry was troublesome. I've also posted my concerns on noticeboards.
How do you think we can help?
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
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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. Alexikoua (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Zoupan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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.--Zoupan 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MorenaReka
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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):
- Gazzetta dello Sport 3 September 2011 says "greco di origine albanese" ("Greek of Albanian origin")
- Repubblica 21 December 2012 "Figlio di professori albanesi" ("Son of Albanian professors")
- Il Foglio 2 September 2013 Non è facile nascere albanese e ritrovarsi Greco ("It is not easy to be born Albanian and find yourself Greek")
And I can bring several sources in Albanian, but I'm going to bring only some that have his ethnicity in the title itself:
- BalkanWeb 20 June 2015 Kone “çmend” grekët: Jam 100% shqiptar! ("Kone makes Greeks mad: I'm 100% Albanian")
- JavaNews 20 June 2015 Panajot Kone: Nuk e harroj që jam shqiptar ("I don't forget that I'm an Albanian")
- Lajme 30 June 2011 Une, shqiptari i greqizuar qe enderroj Lacion ("I, the Hellenized Albanian who dream about Lazio").
To say the least we have contradicting sources, and that's what I had suggested in the talk page: to contrast sources in Italian, Greek and Albanian and present them all, but the opposing side have ignored my reasonable and policy compliant request and as well as the continuous requests of DevilwearsBrioni. --MorenaReka (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Resnjari
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?Resnjari (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- 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 wp:original research, it is also distorting Kone's words. Some change is this warranted so the article reflects Kone's words.Resnjari (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Panagiotis Kone discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- Volunteer note - First, this case is properly filed, and there has been adequate discussion on the talk page. Second, User:Resnjari 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - For what it's worth, I believe User:Resnjari'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. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Dan Eisenberg on 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#College campuses section has too much of a newspaper quality to it (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Dan Eisenberg (talk · contribs)
- ScottyNolan (talk · contribs)
- N.F.B.R (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
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.
How do you think we can help?
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
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- See also: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ScottyNolan Poeticbent talk 02:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice: If the other primary editor involved, ScottyNolan, 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, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)
- @TransporterMan: I'm a little confused? ScottyNolan 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. - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 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 request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 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? Robert McClenon (talk) 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 WP:NOTNP and this seems like a haphazard list of recent and not particularly noteworthy or historically significant anti-semitic incidents. Also see WP:RECENT. I think much of this content will not pass the ten-year test. - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by KBAegis on 01:13, 29 December 2015 (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
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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
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
How do you think we can help?
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
The edit in question is not supported by the source provided, and it is blatantly POV. The article is a WP:BLP, 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.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll also note that I've suggested possible alternative language based on the source in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- 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 dispute resolution, including here, is to be preferred over edit-warring. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Note to participants: I am willing to moderate this case, pending a response from the second party. /wia /tlk 15:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note to participants: I have opened the case and will provide an opening statement shortly. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
First round of statements
First statement by volunteer moderator
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
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".
@KBAegis: you are concerned that failure to mention the CISA content constitutes whitewashing. Given Misplaced Pages's original research policy 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? @CFredkin: you state that the sentence is not supported by The Intercept article and runs afoul of verifiability, neutrality and biographies of living persons 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? /wiae /tlk 19:53, 30 December 2015 (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, /wiae /tlk 12:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
First statement by KBAegis
First statement by CFredkin
As I stated previously, based on the source, I think we can reasonably say that Gardner voted for the omnibus budget bill, which contained the CISA provision.CFredkin (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Coordinator's note
I rather suspect that KBAegis 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, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)
Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave
– Discussion in progress.
Filed by Dschslava on 23:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:White savior narrative in film#12 Years a Slave (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Dschslava (talk · contribs)
- Erik (talk · contribs)
- 70.190.188.48 (talk · contribs)
- Betty Logan (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on talk page of article.
How do you think we can help?
Extra opinions would be nice.
Summary of dispute by Erik
12 Years a Slave was added to white savior narrative in film 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 white savior narrative in film 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.) Erik (talk | contrib) 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- McCoy, Dorian L.; Rodricks, Dirk J. (2015). "Critical Race Theory in Higher Education: 20 Years of Theoretical and Research Innovations". ASHE Higher Education Report. 41 (3). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-11203-7.
Critics contended it was yet another film showcasing a White savior with Pitt (who also produced the film) positioning himself as such.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
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. Erik (talk | contrib) 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. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Betty Logan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film. The policies which are applicable here are WP:Verfiability and WP:WEIGHT. 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". Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- Volunteer comment - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the other parties have been properly notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer 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. 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. P.S. Participation on this discussion is entirely voluntary. Good luck and Regards—UY Scuti 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 White savior_narrative_in_film, 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 reliably sourced and thus verifiable, 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 (@Dschslava, Erik, 70.190.188.48, and Betty Logan:) to keep it concise and civil and to direct your comments to me. Regards—UY Scuti 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Follow on statements
- @UY Scuti: I think that you summed up the dispute quite well. Nothing to add from me. @70.190.188.48:, the ball is in your court. Dschslava (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- @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. Erik (talk | contrib) 16:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer note: This case will be general closed if the IP editor (primary and essential for this case) doesn't make his case in 48 hours. Regards—UY Scuti 17:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- @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. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 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. Erik (talk | contrib) 22:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015
– New discussion.
Filed by Boruch Baum on 01:19, 1 January 2016 (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
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.
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.
What has me particularly bothered was how quickly and extremely the correspondent escalated to vulgarism.
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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
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.
How do you think we can help?
1] Calm down the environment 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, tractate, and am at doubts if this is the beginning of some minor stalking.
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 WT:JUDAISM for their input.
As far as the behavioral issue goes, WP:BRD 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.
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. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
| Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
|---|
|
I'd like to add that I'm having the same issue with Debresser (talk · contribs) 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. Lokshin kugel (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
- Volunteer note - I will be recusing from this case because of a previous involvement with these same editors who don't like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Rocket League#Platform
– New discussion.
Filed by Arwineap on 19:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Rocket League#Platform (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template talk:Infobox video game
Users involved
Dispute overview
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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
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.
How do you think we can help?
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 OS X and Linux from given article, Rocket League. Both platforms have multiply been stated to have ports in development, just like Xbox One, which also has not been released yet but unreleatedly did not come to Arwineap's attention. Fact is that the "platforms=" tag in {{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 Rocket League's talk page, 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. Lordtobi (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion went as stated in the dispute above, Arwineap started removing OS X and Linux from the
platforms=tag of {{Infobox video game}}, which was reverted twice by 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 computing platform 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 Goat Simulator, 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 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? Lordtobi (✉) 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.
response from the other editor.— TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
- There has been additional discussion and additional parties joining in at Template talk:Infobox video game; 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. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- We commonly rectify these sorts of questions at the talk pages of either Template talk:Infobox video game or WT:VG czar 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by Lokshin kugel on 02:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC).
| 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 administrators and forums such as ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview 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? Have you tried to resolve this previously? 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. How do you think we can help? 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 JosephPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by Debresser.This article is up at Afd 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. Debresser (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC) Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism
– New discussion.
Filed by Misdemenor on 05:44, 3 January 2016 (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
- Misdemenor (talk · contribs)
- Kashmiri (talk · contribs)
- MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The issue is that the Zahiri School has been added alongside the 4 Sunni Schools on Template:Sunni Islam. 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 Zahiri, Amman Message.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
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
How do you think we can help?
By more neutral editors opinion perhaps this dispute may be resolved.
Summary of dispute by Kashmiri
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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 Amman Message, a political document that concerns itself with the influential branches of today's Islam. kashmiri 13:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MezzoMezzo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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 Sunni Islam, 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.
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. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka
– New discussion.
Filed by PiCo on 10:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC).
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Gog and Magog (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Talk:Koka and Vikoka (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
Dispute overview
This dispute covers to two articles, Gog and Magog and Koka and Vikoka. The issue is essentially one: User:Xinheart 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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Extensive Talk-page discussion; previous RfC (on Gog and Magog talk page).
How do you think we can help?
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
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Hi,
This is the second dispute resolution raised by PiCo (talk · contribs) on the same subject. The last one goes back to July 2015 and involved other respectable and learned wp contributors @Snow_Rise (talk · contribs), @Ian.thomson (talk · contribs), @TwoHorned (talk · contribs) and may be an anonymous IP. It can be consulted here, in the TP (the title of the section was set up by PiCo (talk · contribs) 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, PiCo (talk · contribs) never admitted the arguments of other contributors, and reverted one more time, and here again in December 2015. The basic argument has been said by Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) here where it is found that the introduction of René Guénon's text is justified and that author notable. Other related sources are mentioned in that section of the TP. I have nothing to add to what has been said before. PiCo (talk · contribs) should accept once the arguments given by the other non-partisan contributors and the conclusion reached previously. Xinheart (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Gog and Magog and Talk:Koka and Vikoka discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.- 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC); moved per note on User talkpage; cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer 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):
- Ian.thomson - joined discussion of RfC and later discussion of Guenon source
- 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, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 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 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 WP:RS, 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 WP:RS standards, he insists that his requirements be met as well, even be they based only on WP:IDONTLIKEIT 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 WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability as one concept and make arguments about the sources that were found in neither) making arguing with him arduous, as he would often WP:IDONTHEARTHAT 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 WP:OWN 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: "I allowed the discussion/editing process to go ahead, but the result has been a severely degraded article, the added material being unbalanced and based on primary or inadequate sources. Nor have I seen anything to convince me that Guernon is a reliable source or his ideas notable. I've therefore reverted to the last good version."
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 WP:OWN bebahviour is not in evidence at other articles/talk pages like it is for Gog and Magog. Make of that what you will. Snow 09:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
User talk:190.150.36.88
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Filed by 190.150.36.88 on 01:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
| Closed for multiple reasons. There has been no discussion on the article talk page, Talk:László Csatáry, only on user talk pages. The filing editor has not notified the other editor. In addition, the filing editor has made unambiguous legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview 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. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I wrote to him telling him to stop deleting my edits. How do you think we can help? 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 EteethanPlease keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.User talk:190.150.36.88 discussionPlease keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Transcendental_Meditation§ion=7#3_-_References_that_should_not_be_ignored_or_deleted_on_TM_page
– New discussion.
Filed by Jdontfight on 21:25, 5 January 2016 (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
- Jdontfight (talk · contribs)
- Doc James (talk · contribs)
- MastCell (talk · contribs)
- Alexbrn (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
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.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
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 Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) "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...
How do you think we can help?
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
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.Summary of dispute by MastCell
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.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). Alexbrn (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)