Closed as failed. There are several problems with this moderated discussion, no one of which would be reason to fail it. We appear to have two editors who do not like each other, and who are criticizing each other in ways that are not quite personal attacks. Also, the two editors each have sections called Source Annex, which are before the main flow of the discussion, and are updating these sections or engaging in back-and-forth discussion. This makes it difficult for the moderator to maintain control of the discussion. The moderator became aware that there was continuing activity in the Source Annexes by being pinged to the Source Annex and requested to explain the Preview button. It is difficult enough to moderate a discussion with three editors, two of whom do not like each other, without having the discussion take place in two places at once. Also, both editors have been contacting me on my user talk page, which just means that mediation is not working.
There are at least six ways forward for the editors. First, they can go on their own to the reliable source noticeboard. If so, they should be aware that the volunteers there probably do not want to wade through Source Annexes, or overly lengthy discussions of exchanges on the Internet. Second, one of them can prepare a Request for Comments. If they then continue arguing, this may annoy or confuse the community participants. Third, they can agree on the compromise that I suggested and they rejected. Fourth, one of them can file a report at WP:ANI. One possible result of that would be an interaction ban. Fifth, they can discuss on the article talk page. They already tried that once. Sixth, they can give up. Some of the choices are more likely to work than others (but that depends on what you are trying to do). Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a 'Spartan 3000' of Republic of Korea Marine Corps in the list.
Because some western news outlets announced that 'Spartan 3000' is Special Force Unit.
But South Korean news outlets announced that 'Spartan 3000' is Quick Maneuver Force.
In conclusion, 'Spartan 3000' has reliable sources with contradicting facts. So I attached dispute template two times.[disputed – discuss]
But thewolfchild didn't accept the dispute template and removed it without consensus two times.
I endured thewolfchild's arbitrary action and In order to the correct wrong information, I inquired and received official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps.
Please check for falsification of official answer. (I explained the way to verify an authentic document from ROKMC in the talk page, Please find "The way to verify an authentic document from ROKMC" in bold)
Then Please remove the 'Spartan 3000' in the list of article.
Summary of dispute by thewolfchild
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In late 2016 a bunch of stories began appearing to say that that the 1st Marine Division (South Korea) had established a regimental-size force capable of deploying anywhere on the Korean peninsula within 24 hours. This tasking was designated as the "Quick Maneuver Force."
'Spartan 3000' was just provisional nickname of ROKMC's Quick Maneuver Force in March 2016. As comments by Footwiks make clear, some newspapers interpreted this rotational tasking of an infantry regiment as a "special forces unit."
It does not follow the normal template for South Korean unit nicknames (eg "Fierce Tiger"). Later in May 2016 the nickname chosen was "Jeseung Unit" (제승부대, 제승(制勝) means guarantee victory).
There are not any South Korean or Western sources which 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)' is called a Special Force Unit.
Western news outlets didn't know about the presence of 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)' and Western news outlets repeated the incorrect view that the ROKMC still operate a Special Forces unit - 'Spartan 3000'.
I request that any mention of "Spartan 3000" in the article List of military special forces units be limited to a footnote stating that it is an erroneous designation, not adopted by the Republic of Korea Armed Forces, for a *rotational tasking among three regiments,* not a unit, which now has an official South Korean nickname - "Jeseung Unit" ("Guarantee Victory").
"군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
Translation: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) - regiment size, subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, the unit dubbed 'Spartan 3000'
Collection of reliable sources from South Korean press. - Similar to above Original Korean prose from Yonhap News
"군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
(Translation of gist: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division on 1 March 2016, the unit dubbed 'Spartan 3000')
Original sources from South Korean Yonhap News (연합뉴스) didn't have any terms - "Special Force Unit (특수부대)", "Special Operations (특수작전)",
But Telegraph and Diplomat source created terms "Special Force Unit (특수부대)" and Special Operations (특수작전)" in the article. They made a translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration.
(3) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence - "the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a“decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year."
(If this article is really about "Spartan 3000", How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (regiment-level) and actually South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 and 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) was really formed in December 2017
Most importantly, NY Times source absolutely didn't have any terms "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.
(4) Nzherald (2017-09-13) - Nzherald source have a follow sentence - "according to UK newspaper the Telegraph" and "New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported" (NY Times source's reporter was also Choe Sang-Hun)"
Spartan 3000: South Korea's elite decapitation unit
New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported Seoul is using the unit to send a menacing message to Pyongyang.
He wrote it was rare for a government to announce a strategy to assassinate a head of state, but Seoul wants "to keep the North :on edge and nervous about the consequences of further developing its nuclear arsenal".
The unit is due to be fully established by the end of the year,
(If this article is really about "Spartan 30000", How can ROKMC fully establish unit by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (regiment-level) and actually South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 and 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) was really formed in December 2017
according to the South Korean defence minister Song Young-moo said the unit could conduct cross-border raids, while re-tooled helicopters and aircraft could also enter North Korean territory at night.
(cited Korean source (4 September 2017): Song Young-moo (송영무) stated that Decapitation Unit will be formed on 1 December 2017)
In reality the unit is capable of much more than that.
SPARTAN 3000
The special force unit, which was first unveiled last year, can be deployed to any part of the Korean Peninsula within a day, :according to UK newspaper the Telegraph.
(5) In conclusion: firstly: NY Times source (4 September 2017) was not about the "Spartan 3000", secondly: Nzherald source :(13 September 2017) cited Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and NY Times source (7 September 2017) - Nzherald Reporter mistook Spartan 3000 for 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) established by the end of 2017 then Reporter blended them together in the article.
Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and The Diplomat source (24 March 2016) cited South Korean Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스).
Of course some Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are Special Forces, But definitely all Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are not Special Forces. This is why Wikipedia have independent 2 articles - Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force and Special Force.)
(2)
Upper six South Korean additional sources attached by Thewolfchild saying similarly as follows: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, dubbed "Spartan 3000". (5 South Korean news articles had term: 신속기동부대, 1 English news article by South Korean press had term: Mobile Unit)
(3)
Upper six South Korean additional sources attached by Thewolfchild definitely didn't say as follows: ROKMC had formation of the Special Force Unit (특수부대) - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, dubbed "Spartan 3000". (5 South Korean news articles didn't had terms: 특수부대 / 특수작전, 1 English article by South Korean press didn't had term: Special Force Unit / Special Operations)
In other words, In the upper six South Korean additional sources, We can't find any sentences as follows:
"Spartan 3000" is a Special Force Unit (특수부대) or Main tasks of "Spartan 3000"' are Special Operations (특수작전).
(4)
In conclusion: Spartan 3000 is a special force unit and This is supported by upper 6 South Korean sources. Thewolfchild's this statement is the Original Research, Rather 6 South Korean sources attached by Thewolfchild are consistently supporting that 'Spartan 3000 is a just Quick Maneuver Force, definitely not a Special Force Unit.Footwiks (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
(5) Cause of misunderstanding about South Korean sources
Now it all makes sense, I translated the South Korean sources by Google translator. Google translated "해병대 신속기동부대" into "Marine Corps Rapid Task Force or Rapid Maneuver Unit" in the South Korean sources.
It appears that thewolfchild misunderstood that my South Korean source are not about ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force.
So, rather thewolfchild added my sources at his source annex.
For the record, "(대한민국) 해병대 신속기동부대" = "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force". These are Korean and English official names.
From 2016 to 2023, All South Korean sources have the term necessarily "해병대 신속기동부대" and subsidiarily "스파르탄 3000 (Spartan 3000)", "제승부대 (Jeseung Unit)", as nicknames
Nope, I didn't "misunderstand" anything. Unless Footwiks wants to claim that each of those six sources does not specifically confirm the unit name as "Spartan 3000". That's all I "understood" them to say and that's the only reason I added them to my annex and stated that I might use them as additional sourcing. I made no other claims. (fyi this, my 17th edit, is a reply to Footwiks 448th edit -no lie- ...could the moderator perhaps remind editors here about the wp:preview function? This is seriously blowing up the page history which could create needless difficulties for all editors using the DRN board. Thanks) - wolf14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Those six South Korean sources published in March 2016 have similar Korean phrase.
"군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
Translation: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) - regiment size, subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, the unit dubbed 'Spartan 3000'
But Google translated "신속기동부대" into "Rapid Task Force", sometimes "Rapid Rapid Maneuver Unit".
Please remember that Those six South Korean sources published in March 2016 have terms "신속기동부대 (Quick Maneuver Force)", nickname "스파르탄 3000 (Spartan 3000)" but don't have any terms "특수부대 (Special Force Unit) and "특수작전 (Special Operations). Footwiks (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
4. Analysis of extra sources attached by Thewolfchild
According to RS, Except NBC News, It appears that most sources are unreliable. But I analysed.
(1) english.alahednews.com.lb (2016-??-??) - This source have a follow sentence: a Seoul military official told South Korean Yonhap News Agency.
=> Yonhap News didn't announce that "Spartan 3000" is Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's task is special operation.,
Original source from Yonhap News announced that "Spartan 3000" is Quick Maneuver Force.
(2) nbcnews.com (2017-04-07) - This source have a follow sentence: Last year, South Korea announced the creation of a special operations unit called Spartan 3000 to operate behind enemy frontlines inside North Korea
=> South Korean Government and All South Korean media outlets didn't announce that "Spartan 3000" is a Special Operational Unit or Spartan 3000's task is Special Operation, They announced that "Spartan 3000" is a Quick Maneuver Force
(4) businessinsider.com (2017-09-12) - This source have a follow sentence: South Korea's defense minister is publicly boasting that it will create a new "decapitation unit" called the Spartan 3000
(5) vox.com (2017-09-12) - This source have a follow sentence: South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told lawmakers of the government’s intention to build the “decapitation unit” on September 4, the day after the recent nuclear test. The administration wants the team ready by the end of the year.
(6) inews.co.uk (2017-09-14) - This source have a follow sentence: Such exercises are the prelude to the formal formation later this year of the unit, Spartan 3000.
(7) thedrive.com (2019-06-29) - This source have a follow sentence: On Sept. 4, 2017, South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo suggested the country’s military might create a new special operations element specifically for the task of hunting down North Korean regime members in the event of a crisis. The unit would reportedly work closely with American counterparts training for the same mission, as part of the secretive Operations Plan 5015. Earlier in 2017, the Pentagon denied a report that the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, better known as SEAL Team Six, was in the country training for these potential targeted raids.
“We are in the process of conceptualizing the plan,” Song explained in response to a question from lawmakers about how the South Korean could figuratively decapitate the Kim government, according to The Korea Herald. “I believe we can create the unit by Dec. 1 and have it become operational.” (This is the discription of
=> If upper 4 articles (4~7) are really about "Spartan 3000", How can ROKMC establish the unit (brigade-level) with by the end of 2017?, "Spartan 3000" was already fully formed in March 2016 (regiment-level) and actually South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told creation of Decapitation Unit (참수부대) on 4 September 2017 and 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) was really formed in December 2017
(8) stripes.com (207-06-06) - This source have a follow sentence: Hedelund, who is going to command the II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune, said his successor will take over as the South Korean marines have formed a 3,000-member quick response force to respond to natiural disasters and other emergencies. They also are developing their own aviation capabilities.
“They want to develop their marine corps toward this task force concept that they have a ready-to-fight kind of crisis reaction force that they would have permanently established. And they have begun that effort,” he said.
The Yonhap news agency reported last year that the unit, dubbed Spartan 3000, had the main purpose of destroying “key military facilities” in North Korea but also has been trained to tackle natural disasters.
=> This source have the term - Quick Response Force and don't have the term - "Special Force Unit" or "Special Opersation".
=> This source is supporting my opinions.
(10) popularmechanics.com (2022-08-31)
=> Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources.
Source annex (thewolfchild)
FYI - widely accepted sources about the unit from around the world:[1][2][3][4]
Six additonal refs, as noted in "Second statements by thewolfchild"; (Six South Korean sources are published on 20 March 2016)
first source (Yonhap News) states: "The nickname of this unit was built as 'Spartan 3000', reminiscent of the Spartans, the elite warriors of ancient Greece."
second source (Seoul Broadcasting System) also states: "The nickname of this unit was built as 'Spartan 3000', reminiscent of the elite warriors of ancient Greece, the Spartans."
third source (Channel A) The headline states: "'Spartan 3000' hit Dongchang-ri missile base".
And it goes on to say: "The movie '300' was the main character of Sparta's 300th order that stopped the millionth army of Persia. ..."
"A similar name has been attached to the rapid maneuver unit of our Marine Corps, which attacks all over North Korea, including Pyongyang. ... "
"The Marine Corps organized the 'Spartan 3000', a regiment-level rapid task force, based on the movie '300' about the battle of Sparta. ..."
"The Spartan 3000 is expected to strike preemptively by infiltrating the Yongbyon nuclear facility and the Dongchang-ri missile base as well as Pyongyang, the main stronghold in case of emergency."
fourth source (Hankook Ilbo), it states: "In reference to the Spartans, the elite warriors of ancient Greece, the nickname of the unit was also built as 'Spartan 3000'. It is to strengthen the will to create a strong unit that can fight and win anytime, anywhere."
fifth source (Kumkin Ilbo): "Meanwhile, the South Korean Navy and Marine Corps announced that they had organized a regiment-level rapid task force called 'Spartan 3000'..."
sixth source (Yonhap English edition): "The regimental-level unit of 3,000 troops was launched in the southeastern coastal city of Pohang on March 1, dubbed "Spartan 3000," the official said."
Hi, I notified thewolfchild and Buckshot06. They recognized that I opened this case on dispute resolution noticeboard. Footwiks (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
No, I wasn't aware of this and don't recall being notified or "recognizing that I was". I'm only aware of this because of the ping above from Robert McC. I also noticed that some other participants from the discussion weren't included above and therefore likely weren't notified either (Seventh Ward Dragon -aka "WhichUserAmI", Piotrus and Horse Eye's Back). fyi - wolf03:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
(1) Notice to User:thewolfchild
Intentionally, I didn't leave a notice on User:thewolfchild's talk page.
Because When I left a message on thewolfchild's talk page, he looked angry and warned at my talk page as follows.
Talk pages... again
I've aleady mentioned watchlists to you before, but again... the List of military special forces units article, and it's associated talk page, are on my watchlist. As such, it is not necessary for you to post a notice on my user talk page everytime you want me to see an edit you've made to that article, or it's talk page (the one we've had the very, very lengthy discussion on already), I will see it automatically when I check my watchlist. So please, unless it's for a different and valid reason, please stop posting these messages to my user talk page. They simply are not necessary. Thank you - wolf 13:36, 9 June 2023
Therefore I Ieft a notice on talkpage in List of military special force unit. Simultaneously, I left a notice on Buckshot06's talk page.
(edit conflict) with this version - Oy... ok, 1) the above post is an example of why we use diffs, instead of posting lengthy quotes or comments like "Evidence: see time & date at some place about something".
2) I asked you to stop posting comments about the discussion on my user talk page becuase they belong on the article talk page. I did not ban you from posting in my user talk page, and regardless, mandatory notifications are something you would post on my user talk page because you're actually required to. This is all in the user talk page guidelines, which I have already specifically linked for you on your talk page (see diff-> here).
3) Just because you happened to mention your DRN post in a lenghty comment largely about something else, is not considered a proper notification.
4) Just because you happen to mention waaay back on May 15 that you going to "seek assistance at WP:DR", and then didn't until today, is not considered "evidence" of a notification.
5) But, with all that said, I clearly know about this DR report now, so... consider me notifiied. - wolf04:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Just a note to keep an eye on this sub-thread, before you wade too deeply into this matter. There is a proposed compromise solution that I'm hoping will be accepted shortly and if so, would negate the need for this report to be actioned any further. - wolf 05:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC) - Nevermind. - wolf16:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I was notified of this discussion by Footwiks, I did not choose to participate because I don't believe that Footwiks can be reasoned with nor do I condone the OR-lite that Footwiks has taken in communicating with the subject. I would be more likely to participate if I saw positive outcomes, but given that the most likely outcome is having to wade through endless walls of repetitive and simplistic argumentation with no satisfactory result occurring... Count me out, like way out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Special Forces)
It is not clear from the responses, especially the response from User:Footwiks, whether there is a content dispute that can be resolved by moderated discussion. It appears that User:Footwiks is giving inconsistent answers, which is not truthful. Footwiks said that they had notified User:thewolfchild, when they had not done that, and then they said that they did not notify them. You also said that you had asked for a Third Opinion when you had not asked for a Third Opinion. Do you really want me to have to fail this case and make a report to WP:ANI? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Will all editors who wish to have moderated discussion please read the usual rules and indicate whether you agree to the rules, and to moderated discussion. Be civil and concise. Also, please state briefly what part of the article you want changed, or what part of the article you want left the same that another editor wants changed. If at least two editors want moderated discussion and have a disagreement about article content, we will begin moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I misunderstood the rule about DRN, So I noticed to Thewolfchild on talk page of concerning article (List of military special forces units) instead of Thewolfchild'S talk page.
In my defense,
To discusssion start, When I left a message on thewolfchild at's talk page in May, He seems to be angry.
Especially When I left a message about ROKMC answer on talk page of thewolfchild at 11:20, 9 June 2023. thewolfchild left a message at my talk page.
thewolfchild's message as follows
Talk pages... again
I've aleady mentioned watchlists to you before, but again... the List of military special forces units article, and it's associated talk page, are on my watchlist. As such, it is not necessary for you to post a notice on my user talk page everytime you want me to see an edit you've made to that article, or it's talk page (the one we've had the very, very lengthy discussion on already), I will see it automatically when I check my watchlist. So please, unless it's for a different and valid reason, please stop posting these messages to my user talk page. They simply are not necessary. Thank you - wolf 13:36, 9 June 2023
I just don't want to make him angry and I guessed that If I left a notice on talk page of concerning article (List of military special forces units), Wolf can perceive notice, due to Wolf's watchlist.
So I left a notice on talk page of concerning article at 06:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC).
Then I noticed to Buckshot06 at 06:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC), In conclusion, I noticed to involved users at roughly the same time.
And Thewolfchild answered "Fair enough (though I thought you had already done that) at 06:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC) on talk page of concerning article.
Therefore, I thought that Thewolfchild perceived the opening of case on DRN
Then I mentioned to you "Hi, I notified thewolfchild and Buckshot06. They recognized that I opened this case on dispute resolution noticeboard." at 14:01, 10 June 2023"
And I left a request at Third Opinion board at 09:06, 15 May 2023
Please read the usual ground rules (again). By taking part in this discussion, you are agreeing to the rules. I will restate some of the rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements often do not clarify the issues. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator (me) and the community.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for missing the history of the Third Opinion request.
There appears to be one issue, which is whether to list the South Korean 3000 Spartan unit. Is it correct that that is an issue? Are there also any other issues? Please answer only those questions at this time. There will be other questions, such as why or why not, later. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree to the rules.
Yes, There is only one issue about removal or keeping of South Korean "Spartan 3000" unit on the list.
I'll try to be brief; the "Spartan 3000" entry at the special forces list is the issue. It's supported by four reliable sources, and is linked to the ROKMC parent article. Here is what that article looked like prior to this dispute: diff. Now, this may be another, related issue, but Footwiks has drastically changed that article (diff) with no less than 54 edits (current count), since this dispute started. This is despite my repeated objections and requests that he wait for the dispute to be resolved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Apparently he didn't fear making me "angry" then, though he repeatedly states such fears here. Such disingenuous mischaracterizations are basically personal attacks, and this is not the first time. Any more lies, insults, misdirects, off-topic complaining or other nonsense and you can count me out of this process.)
As for the entry, and it's supporting content on the parent article, it's supported by reliable sourcing, so this is pretty straight forward (or at least ought to be); if Footwiks want to change or remove the entry and it's supporting content, all he needs to do is provide sourcing that is clear, reliable, more recent, and has more weight than the current sources, and ensure any changes are factual, as per those sources. If he can do that, than I have no objection to to the entry and it's supporting content being updated. (After all, that is why we are on WP.) - wolf23:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
First statement by filing party (Special Forces)
The cause of dispute is very simple.
As Thewolfchild mentioned, the "Spartan 3000" entry at the special forces list is supported by four reliable sources. (In other words, 4 western news outlets announced that 'Spartan 3000' is a Special Force Unit.)
That's right. But these four reliable sources were from all Western News Outlets and published in 2016 and 2017.
On the other hand, between 2016 and 2023, So many South Korean reliable sources announced that this unit is a just QUICK MANEUVER FORCE, not a Special Force Unit.
That is to say, 'Spartan 3000' has reliable sources with contradicting facts. (South Korean sources vs Westerb sources) and opinions between me and Thewolfchild are likely to run parallel. So I attached dispute template on entry two times.[disputed – discuss] But thewolfchild didn't accept the dispute template and removed it without consensus two times.
Please refer to source annex (You can see translation of ROKMC Official Answer)
In conclusion, Sources including ROKMC Official Answer attached by me and Buckshot06 are clear, reliable, more recent, and has more weight than thewolfchild's source and I verified that consequently Thewolfchild's western sources have wrong information by translation error.
But thewolfchild didn't accept ROKMC official answer. Because this screenshot have possibility of forgery via photoshop and violation of sourcing guidelines.
By Wikipedia Rule, I'm not sure that I have the burden of proof to show that screenshot of ROKMC official answer is not a forgery.
Therefore, I opened the case on DRN.
In addition, Now 2023, But Thewolfchild don't have any recent sources that 'Spartan 3000' is an active unit and Special Force Unit.
Thewolfchild has Only 4 Western Sources published in 2016 and 2017. (As you know, formation and disbandment in the military units are very frequent, Therefore We need recent sources for accurate information about military unit in Wikipedia)
According to ROKMC Official Answer (Issued 8 June 2023)
현재 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭으로 운영되는 부대는 대한민국 해병대에 없습니다.
Translation: Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - 'Spartan 3000'.
List of military special forces units article can list only active units.
(Foreword of article: This is a list of military special forces units, also known as special operations forces (SOF), currently active with countries around the world)
If thewolfchild want to keep the "Spartan 3000" on the list, he have to show the recent sources that 'Spartan 3000' is active unit and Special Force Unit.Footwiks (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator (Special Forces)
The issue appears to be one of which sources should be relied on with regard to the Spartan 3000 unit. Are there any other issues?
Are the editors willing to agree, as a compromise, to list the Spartan 3000 unit with a note indicating that its status is reported differently by different sources? If not, the usual tests for sources are whether the sources are reliable and are independent, and whether the source is primary or secondary.
Editors supporting inclusion of the Spartan 3000 unit have listed four sources. Is there any disagreement about those sources? What source is being cited for exclusion of the Spartan 3000 unit? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by Footwiks (Special Forces)
(1) Yes, Issue is about reliable sources with regard to Spartan 3000 unit. There are not any other issues.
(2) Thanks for your moderation, But I can't accept a compromise. Yes, Let's do the usual tests for sources.
(3) Below sources are being cited for exclusion of the Spartan 3000 unit.
Please refer to upper Source Annex (Sources about: Spartan 3000 is a Quick Maneuver Force, support to remove Spartan 3000 on the list.)
Most important source in the Source Annex (support to remove Spartan 3000 on the list) is the newest ROKMC Official Answer.
2016년 언론에서 보도된 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭은 해병대에서 공식적으로 붙인 명칭이 아니며
현재 공식 명칭은 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)입니다.
Translation =>
ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - 'Spartan 3000' which announced by the the press in 2016.
Currently, official name is ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE.
2.
'제승부대(Jeseung Unit)'라고도 불렀지만 현재는 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)라는 명칭으로 통일해서
사용하고 있으며 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)는 새롭게 창설된 특수부대가 아니고
기존 1사단 내 소속 부대들이 번갈아 임무를 수행하는 형태로 운영되고 있습니다.
Translation =>
The name - 'Jeseung Unit' had been in use in ROKMC.
But, currently the name - 'ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE' is in use consistently.
ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not a newly formed Special Force Unit.
Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.
3.
현재 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭으로 운영되는 부대는 대한민국 해병대에 없습니다.
Translation =>
Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - 'Spartan 3000'.
According to ROKMC Official Answer, In conclusion, Currently ROKMC don't have a Special Force Unit and 'Spartan 3000 Unit'.
An official response to an information request supersedes everything!
Four western sources supporting inclusion of the Spartan 3000 were published in 2016 and 2017. Now 2023.
As you know, formation and disbandment in the military units are very frequent, Therefore We need recent sources for accurate information about military unit in Wikipedia.
There are not any recent sources that 'Spartan 3000' is an active unit and Special Force Unit.
We can't ignore newest ROKMC Official Answer and We can't do original research.
Wolf suggested on the talkpage that "..the entry would remain on this list, but it would be changed to the "official name" that you wanted, along with whatever sources you have now that you feel are sufficient. The entry would also have a note (eg: in brackets) that the unit nickname is "Spartan 3000". There wouldn't be any prose added, as this is a list article, and any prose would be found in the linked/parent article. This proposal addresses the entry on this list only, and does not involve the ROKMC article. This is a comprise because it addresses both of our positions (though not completely in either case, which is typical in successful compromises)."
I responded to Wolf and Footwiks after a large amount of intervening text that:
"I think that TheWolfChild's proposed solution is fine; the issue is that the changing nickname over time, and its basis, needs to be explained. "Spartan 3000" can be included, and if that nickname was only sourced from one particular point of view (was it only from some Western newspapers originally?- Daily Mail etc sometimes creates nicknames), that can be included. if it was dropped in some official way, that can also be included, with the date. When the "Guarantee Victory" nickname was officially adopted, that would be noted as well. What might be better is a paragraph of text above the entry at [correct page now inserted, sicList of marines and naval infantry forces ] to explain the rotational tasking involved, the initial Spartan 3000 nickname and any relevant sourcing details, and the adoption of the official nickname later. Context there, not hidden down in a footnote at the bottom helps readers understand better, I think."
Now,
I have told Footwiks that an official response to an information request supersedes everything - which it would do in terms of truth, if the information can be accepted as accurate. However, as Wolf correctly says, WP works on verifiability, not truth. Secondary sources supersede primary sources. If Wolf remains decided that our rule about secondary sources, years ago, confused by translation and poor journalism (the origin of this entire problem - journalists making things up) must take precedence over an official, up to date, clear explanation of the situation, then our rules make it clear - secondary sources win out.
In this case, "Spartan 3000" would have to remain. But, also, a note should be appended conveying the official Korean answer, and thus an explanation that sources disagree. Footwiks, I would urge you to read my text very carefully: Wolf is correct - four newspaper stories meet our standards of WP:V, secondary sources, more than any official WP:PRIMARY source answer.
Wolf does not particularly desire text in the entry. However, to avoid lengthy further arguments about minor details that could be easily reduced by a few sentences of explanatory text, I would kindly request also that it be explicitly agreed that each country entry on this page could have paragraphs of text in the entry. Real life is not cut and dried and cannot be reduced to one line. The difference between the Taliban Red Unit and 1 Commando Regiment Zimbabwe National Army is significant, and should not expect to be explained by one line with several footnotes at the end. Buckshot06(talk)21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by thewolfchild (Special Forces)
Following comments posted to the article talk page yesterday by Footwiks, he noted several sources that he felt somehow supported his position. I have gone through all eight sources he listed and found that six actually support the current entry noted as "Spartan 3000". The seventh and eighth sources are not clear, in that I'm not sure what in them he would reply on to support the changes he seeks (eg: there is no mention of a "Quick Maneuver Force", the details about the units are different (are they the same unit?), and there is no mention of "Spartan 3000" - so no support for that unit's name being changed. I'll add the first six refs to the Source annex, in that they all clearly support the unit name as "Spartan 3000". If/when the "Official Response from the ROKMC" is validated, and if permitted to be used as a source, I would also like to include it as support for the now-well documented fact that the unit's name is "Spartan 3000". - wolf04:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, these are all South Korean/"Eastern sources, provided by Footwiks, so hopefully this will not only put the "east vs west" sourcing to rest, but also help conclude this report as there is now ten sources supporting the current entry. - wolf04:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
It appears that User:Footwiks is stating that the South Korean government stated that the unit in question is a quick maneuver force and is not a special forces unit. Is that correct? The South Korean government is a primary source. Has that statement been reported by a reliable secondary source? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thewolfchild presented some fake sources (including New York Times (12 September 2017)) and After reading whole prose thoroughly, I revealed
logically that the rest of western sources made a translation error or intentional exaggeration for attention of article.
I also thoroughly checked out all Korean secondary sources attached by Thewolfchild. These sources are saying "Spartan 3000 is a Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대). South Korean Sources didn't have any terms - "Special Force Unit" (특수부대) or "Special Operations" (특수작전)
Please Please thoroughly check out 3. Analysis of Western sources attached by Thewolfchild and 4. Analysis of South Korean sources attached by Thewolfchild at Source Annex Part and Please do tests for sources by Thewolfchild.
If you have any question about my analysis, Please feel free to ask questions.
사단의 2개 여단이 합동참모본부로부터 지정돼 임무를 수행하는 '해병대 신속기동부대'는 기동전력을 상시 편조해 어떠한 지역으로도 신속하게 출동할 수 있는 태세를 갖춘다.
Translation =>
2 brigades undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn, ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is capable of fast deployment outside anywhere.
This article don't have any sentences as follows.
"ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is a Special Force Unit." or "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force's main task is a special operations..."
(4) Do we have to go to reliable source noticeboard? But now issue about sources are became simple, In my editorial judgment and common sense, Spartan 3000 should be removed on the list. The reason.... Thewolfchild's western sources supporting that Spartan 3000 is Special Force Unit are just translation error or intentional exaggeration for attention of article. Now Thewolfchild don't have any sources to support his opinions.
If you thoroughly checked out 3 and 4 Analysis of sources attached by Thewolfchild, I hope that you will decide by good editorial judgment and common sense.
It appears that we have a sourcing disagreement, and I will likely have to request opinions from the reliable source noticeboard. For that purpose, I will need to ask the parties to identify their best sources. I see that User:Buckshot06 and User:thewolfchild have identified secondary sources. User:Footwiks disagrees, saying that their source is more recent, but I didn't see a straightforward identification of a secondary source. Their source discussion is long and confusing. So please clarify or tighten up the discussion of your source. I am not sure that the volunteers at RSN will be able to review your source any better than I was. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Will each editor please provide between one and three sources that they want opinions on the value of?
Please do not appeal to my good editorial judgment. I am not an editorial judge but a mediator.
The alternative is a compromise, which is to list the Spartan 3000 unit with a notation that its status is the subject of disagreement among sources. Are the editors agreeable to that compromise? Is there an alternate compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by Footwiks (Special Forces)
(1)
If you check out 3. Analysis of 4 Western sources attached by Thewolfchild and 4 Analysis of South Korean sources attached by Thewolfchild throughly, You can understand point of source issue and Thewolfchild source's flaws. But You seems to be very busy.
I want to hold here, Let's go to the reliable source noticeboard. thewolfchild have 4 western sources . So I provide 4 South Korean sources (4 vs 4)
History of Quick Republic of Korea Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force.
In March 2016, ROKMC had a formation of Quick Maneuver Force (provisinal nickname: "Spartan 3000")
In May 2016, ROKMC officially launched Quick Maneuver Force (official name: "ROK Navy·Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force", Official nickname: "Jeseung Unit - 제승(制勝)부대")
In June 2016, ROKMC had a first excise.
Currently, Official name - 'ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force' is in use consistently (discarded all nicknames)
My 4 valuable sources are supporting upper History of ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force. (All South Korean sources including 4 about ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force didn't have any sentences: "Spartan 3000" is a Special forces Unit (특수부대) or Main task of "Spartan 3000" is the Special Operation (특수작전)
2016년 언론에서 보도된 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭은 해병대에서 공식적으로 붙인 명칭이 아니며
현재 공식 명칭은 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)입니다.
Translation =>
ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - 'Spartan 3000' which announced by the the press in 2016.
Currently, official name is ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE.
(4-2).
'제승부대(Jeseung Unit)'라고도 불렀지만 현재는 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)라는 명칭으로 통일해서
사용하고 있으며 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)는 새롭게 창설된 특수부대가 아니고
기존 1사단 내 소속 부대들이 번갈아 임무를 수행하는 형태로 운영되고 있습니다.
Translation =>
The name - 'Jeseung Unit' had been in use in ROKMC.
But, currently the name - 'ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE' is in use consistently.
ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not newly formed Special Force Unit.
Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.
(4-3).
현재 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭으로 운영되는 부대는 대한민국 해병대에 없습니다.
Translation =>
Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - 'Spartan 3000'.
(2)
Thanks for your morderation, But I can't accept any compromises. I look forward to good editorial judgment and common sense at the reliable source noticeboard.
This dispute has been caused by a translation, confusion, and journalistic exaggeration issue, as the red-titled table above and source analysis by Footwiks shows.
I suggest we accept Robert's compromise suggestion - listing but a clear notice that sources are in dispute.
I suggest that Spartan 3000 is listed as a special forces unit (by the first three Western translation sources Footwiks cites), and then reference is also made to the original Yonhap news article (and Korean follow on stories), saying that the new Quick Maneuver Force is a ROKMC regiment. Buckshot06(talk)20:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
As you know, nickname "Spartan 3000" was discarded before May 2016. I revealed that 2 Thewolfchild's western secondary sources had translations errors or journalistic exaggeration issue. I also revealed the rest Thewolfchild's western secondary sources are not relevant sources about "Spartan 3000".
Why do you protect 4 faulty western sources?
Now, "Spartan 3000" has no any reasons to keep on the list.
Fourth statements by thewolfchild (Special Forces)
Yep, take all the disputed refs to RSN. The reliablility or sources can't be determined here based on the complaints of a single editor such as "fake news" (the NYT!), or original research, translation error, intentional journalistic exaggeration, reporter mistook 'x' for 'y', cultural bias, etc., etc. ... this is precisely why we have RSN. - wolf01:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Special Forces)
What part of "Comment on content, not contributors" has not been understood? What part of "Discuss edits, not editors" has not been understood? You don't need to refer to each other by name, let alone to refer to each other in ways that cast aspersions. I have collapsed some of the previous posts. Comments on contributors that were made before I told you to read the rules are left standing. I will be more aggressive in my review of your comments in the future. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Please do not appeal to my good editorial judgment. I am not an editorial judge but a mediator.
Listings of sources at the Reliable Source Noticeboard should be concise, just as a lot of things should be concise. If I present a half-page at RSN, the eyes of the volunteers there may glaze over. I will copy the most concise list of one to three sources that each editor has given. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statements by Footwiks (Special Forces)
I arranged my sources and points concisely as much as possible.
Google translated "해병대 신속기동부대" into "Marine Corps Rapid Task Force or Rapid Maneuver Unit" in the South Korean sources.
For the record, "(대한민국) 해병대 신속기동부대" = "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force". These are Korean and English official names.
(1-2) From 2016 to 2023, All South Korean sources including 3 source here, have the term necessarily "해병대 신속기동부대 (ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force)" and subsidiarily "스파르탄 3000 (Spartan 3000)", "제승부대 (Jeseung Unit)", as nicknames
When you check out the prose from South Koreans source, Please find the Korean term "신속기동부대", "스파르탄 3000", "제승부대"
Of course some Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are Special Forces, But definitely all Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are not Special Forces. This is why Wikipedia have independent 2 articles - Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force and Special Force.)
(2) Sources
These South Korean sources consistently saying "Spartan 3000" is a just Quick Maneuver Force , not Special Force Unit. So These sources support to remove "Spartan 3000 " on the list of military special forces units.
ROKMC had a formation of the "Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대)", as regiment-level and subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, The unit, dubbed "Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 3000)"
So far, “It took 24 hours for battalion-level units and 48 hours for regiment-level units to start operations across the Korean Peninsula, but the newly formed Quick Maneuver Force can operate within 24 hours even though it is at the regiment-level,
Lee Chan-hyuk (musician) attached to "Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대)", nickname "Jeseung Unit (제승부대)" - subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division which is organized in March 2016. Lee Chan-hyuk will serve as a normal infantryman in the Quick Maneuver Force.
ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - "Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 3000)" which announced by the the press in 2016.
Currently, official name is "ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE (대한민국 해병대 신속기동부대)"
The name - "Jeseung Unit (제승부대)" had been in use in ROKMC.
But, currently the name - "ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE (대한민국 해병대 신속기동부대)" is in use consistently.
"ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE (대한민국 해병대 신속기동부대)" is not newly formed Special Force Unit.
Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.
Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - "Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 3000)".
(3) Conclusion
(3-1) All South Korean sources including 3 source here, don' have any sentences or terms: "Spartan 3000" is a Special Force Unit (특수부대) or Main task of "Spartan 3000"' is a Special Operation (특수작전).
WP:Primary, secondary and tertiary sources says:
"Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages."
Thus I was incorrect: PRIMARY can supersede SECONDARY if the case is clear and common sense dictates. Here, four mistaken SECONDARY sources from 2016 are superseded by the Korean PRIMARY response from 2023 which exactly addresses the query.
The New Zealand Herald source was the worst of all. The reporter mistook the "Spartan 3000" unit (based on the Telegraph) for the South Korean Army's 13th Special Forces Brigade / Kim Jong Un Decapitation Unit (based on NY Times) then blended the "Spartan 3000" and the 13th Special Forces Brigade together in the article. This is not surprising: NZ reporters have little knowledge of these things.
I would respectfully request that the clarification from the Korean Govt this year be allowed to supersede four translation-garbled stories from seven years ago. Buckshot06(talk)03:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It now appears that one of the editors has changed their view on acceptable sources. So I will now ask the editors whether they agree to remove the mention of the unit in question. That is the only question at this point. I am not asking about sources, although I will resume asking about sources on the next round of discussion. Do we have agreement to remove the mention of the unit sometimes called 3000 Spartan?
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of fastest production cars by acceleration
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed. The first problem with this case request is the number of parties, with eight registered editors including the filer, and three unregistered editors. Moderated discussion isn't feasible with such a large number of editors, and it isn't clear whether the filer is asking for moderated discussion anyway. With a large number of editors, Request for Comments is usually more practical. Second, the filing party seems to be raising two issues, or maybe conflating them. The first is whether reliable sources indicate that there were at least 25 Neveras. The second is whether the threshold for inclusion in the list should be changed from 25 to 50 cars. Questions about the reliability of sources should be taken to the reliable source noticeboard. Questions about whether to change the threshold for a list should be resolved by RFC. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, use an RFC, and use an RFC if there is a question about changing the threshold. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The issue as I see it is whether or not reliable sources should be believed when assessing if Rimac has built more than 25 Nevera's. Drachentötbär has put forward Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and others. SoldierBoy12345 and Markkonen, citing a number of examples, say that based on Rimac's previous history Rimac are not to be believed and the reliable sources are being mislead.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I am hoping that can we agree that at the moment the only available reliable souces state that 50 cars have been built and that should a reliable source in the future state otherwise, then we remove the car from the list then.
Summary of dispute by SoldierBoy12345
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Drachentötbär
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Markkonen
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 213.202.86.77
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Opatijac97
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 89.164.131.118
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 141.136.227.94
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Cutlass
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
List of fastest production cars by acceleration discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Goose as Food
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Premature. Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, DRN requires extensive talk page discussion before seeking assistance. That's not happened. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. Moreover, and more significantly, disputed page renaming has its own process and resolution which should be followed rather than seeking dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A user removed information from "Goose as Food" that did not relate to the method of dry-heat roasting and renamed the page "Roast Goose". This make a general topic too specific without reason, and without rehoming the deleted information somewhere else. I reverted the edits and the page rename, and the other user restored his/her edits without explanation.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Decide whether the original broader article about "Goose as Food" was more valuable than the new narrower page about only "Roast Goose". Compel either me or RZuo to abide by the decision.
Summary of dispute by RZuo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Goose as Food discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frontiers in Psychology
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed for two reasons. First, the filing editor does not appear to be requesting moderated discussion, but more previously uninvolved editors. DRN is not a forum for requesting more uninvolved editors, and doesn't work that way. Second, the filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. The second problem could be resolved by giving notice, but there is still a question as to whether DRN is the right forum. The editors should resume discussion on the article talk page, and should request more uninvolved editors at WikiProject Psychology. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, and a moderator is requested, a new request can be made here. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The publisher of this journal has been criticized by a reliable source as being questionable or predatory. There is disagreement about whether to include this information in the lead. Extensive discussion took place in 2019, unable to reach consensus, and has recently begun again.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The IPv4 IP editor involved opened a 3OR request to which WPscatter responded. MrOllie took issue with the wording of the 3OR request and does not consider it neutral. Special:Permalink/1161132778
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Hopefully the opinions of some uninvolved editors, notified in an unbiased fashion, can help reach consensus.
Summary of dispute by MrOllie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Headbomb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 71.94.157.77
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2600:1012:B129:6106:0:33:4D33:9101
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Frontiers in Psychology discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Template:Lee Kuan Yew family tree
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as not the right forum under the circumstances. DRN requires extensive discussion on the talk page, and the unregistered editor is not discussing. When an unregistered editor persists in making unexplained edits and does not discuss, semi-protection should be requested, and I have made that request. I have also explained at the Teahouse that semi-protection is the appropriate remedy at this point. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Editors have repeatedly changed the birth and death year of the people on this template page without providing a source. Some attempts are made to start a discussion on the talk page without a response. The page is getting closer to an edit war, so dispute resolution is needed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I'm hoping to bring in a third party into this dispute. Hopefully more people can help decide whether the changes the IP editors are making are justified.
Summary of dispute by 2001:E68:540F:9E43:501B:86F0:FF00:C64E
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 2001:E68:540F:9E43:C02:6FD1:CE3A:7D17
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Template:Lee Kuan Yew family tree discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Elections in Cuba
Latest comment: 1 year ago74 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
An editor is trying to add what they see as a major POV to the page by specifying who made the claims that a country is or is not democratic, as what country is or is not democratic is based on opinion.[1]
(see: difficulties in measuring democracy)
This was rejected as "Cuba is in the west" and "these aren't "commentators" these are academics" and as pushing POV, where the introducing editor viewed it as introducing NPOV.
It was also rejected on the basis that there is a scientific consensus on it not being democratic, but to begin with, 3/4 sources cited making that claim are American universities, which have an active bias in this case.
so "Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting"
should read "Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic by westerncommentators because the government does not allow free and fair voting"
The same editor also tried to add the context that despite the USA citing the lack of democracy in Cuba as one of the primary reasons to continue the embargo[2], the USA does do business and ally itself with dictatorships around the world and is sometimes not considered a democracy (or less of a democracy) itself by people inside and outside it's borders, this is hypocritical.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
The second edit was rejected as being wp:synth and wp:or, despite being a common argument and being published in wp:rs.
so "The United States does not consider Cuba a democracy and sees it as one of the primary reasons to continue it's embargo against Cuba."
should be extended with "This is seen as a double standard by those inside and outside the united states, as the united states does harbor positive relationships with dictatorships around the world and is sometimes not considered a true democracy."
getting clarification on the wider Wikipedia consensus on the subjectivity of Democracy:
should claims of being democratic and not being democratic be clarified in cases where the outcome is instrumentalised as part of geopolitics?
getting clarification on what WP:synth is and is not.
Summary of dispute by SlaterSteven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To my mind it does not matter where the sources are from, they are RS. Thus is seems to be to be trying to imply bias.
As to the USA not being democratic, this is irrelevant, as it does not in fact tell us anything about Cuba or its democracy.
Now the issue of the USA's hypocrisy is less controversial, but the sources used were not that good, and none of them linked the hypocrisy to Cuba. Thus (again) it told us nothing about the subject and was (it seems to be) trying to draw inferences the sources did not make. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
There is one sentence (not even really a paragraph) in question, this edit [[2]].It is hard to see (and no source has been provided for the claim that the USA is less democratic than Cuba. And for such a claim wp:fringe would come into it. Nor do any of the (usable) sources mention Cuba (the only ones that do fail RS), thus it is hard to see what this is telling us about the topic. The issue of its hypocrisy is on better ground, but still is not really about Cuba, thus (again) it's hard to see what it adds. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Czello
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The sources in question do not specify that Cuba isn't considered democratic by western standards. They simply say that Cuba is not considered a democracy. Discrediting the sources by saying they have a western POV is WP:OR. — Czello(music)10:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Elections in Cuba discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Do User:Bart Terpstra, User:Slatersteven, and User:Czello want to take part in moderated discussion? If so, please read the usual rules and indicate whether you agree to the rules and to moderated discussion. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. If you want moderated discussion, please state, in one paragraph, what part or parts of the article you want changed, or what part or parts of the article you want left alone that another editor wants changed.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Nothing to add to what I have said above, many of the sources used are dubious (at best) for some serious allegations for the claim that the USA is not all that democratic or is hypocritical. It does not matter if RS are "western". Nor does any of it tell us anything about democracy in Cuba, the US can be hypocritical, and still right about Cuba, the sources can be "Western" and still be right about Cuba. Hell, I note that some of the sources used for the proposed addition say Cuba is not democratic (the accusation being that it is happy to deal with other undemocratic nations why not Cuba, so it seems to hypocrisy is not in how it defines democracy, but rather in how it treats Cuba). Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth Statements by Bart Terpstra
The specific edits requested have been added to the dispute overview.
The additions seek to provide notable context and to improve NPOV.
What countries are sufficiently democratic is a contentested topic, as such, who is making the claim that Cuba is not democratic is relevant, what standard are they using?
The rest of the world (minus Israel) does not consider the United States reasoning sufficient to condemn Cuba, which gives context to how much weight their claim should have.
It is not original research to note a source might have a conflict of interest or otherwise be biased, that is part of the standard editorial practice of wikipedia.
But even if it was WP:OR, i can find WP:RS that has the opinion that the analysis of Cuban democracy is done through western standards of what they think a democracy should look like.
This is in contrast to what people elsewhere in the world belief democracy should be.
And finally, a source almost always does not list their own bias and ideology, you will not catch the New York times specifying it's editorial guidelines and storied history of how those came to be embedded in every article, therefore it's not a valid argument to say a source does not have a POV because it does not admit the POV explicitly.Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Terpstra (talk • contribs) 16:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (Cuba)
Does User:Czello want to take part in moderated discussion? If so, please read the usual rules and indicate whether you agree to the rules and to moderated discussion. Other editors please read the usual rules again anyway. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Please state, concisely, what part or parts of the article you want changed, or what part or parts of the article you want left alone that another editor wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to specify exactly what sentences in the article are in dispute, and what they either want to change, or want to leave the same if another editor wants to change it. Do not tell why you want a particular change made at this time. We will discuss the whys later. At this time I am only asking what words are the subject of disagreement. Also, we are not discussing whether Cuba is a democracy, let alone whether the United States is a democracy. We are discussing what the article should say, which should summarize what reliable sources say about Cuban elections. If there are several parts of the article that are in dispute, list them all, briefly. Be civil and concise.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The sentences in dispute appear to be here (which I've addressed above) and here. To address the second link, this is clearly problematic as it's commenting on America's own issues rather than focusing on Cuba itself. It appears to be written in order to de-legitimise the US's stance on Cuba. — Czello(music)17:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator (Cuba)
The topic of the article is elections in Cuba. The policies of the United States of America toward Cuba are not relevant, except that the removal of irrelevant material from the article can be discussed. At this point, we can focus on two matters. The first is what the article should say about what reliable sources say about whether elections in Cuba are fair and free. The second is what, if any, irrelevant material should be removed from the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
First, is there agreement that the article should say that elections in Cuba are not fair and free? If there is disagreement, what should the article say?
Second, should any irrelevant material be removed from the article?
Whether or not Cuba's electoral system amounts to a valid democracy is either a qualified opinion or not relevant.
If it's a qualified opinion, it should mention by whom. Whose POV is it.
Because there is no objective measure by which you can measure which country is a democracy and which is not.
And also, there is a clear incentive to politicize this term to include geopolitical allies and exclude geopolitical foes.
How should the context be added that the USA and Israel are the only ones who see Cuban's current form of government as a reason for the embargo be integrated into the article?
The fact that the USA and Israel are outliers is notable and due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Terpstra (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Third Statement by Slatersteven (Cuba)
First, is there agreement that the article should say that elections in Cuba are not fair and free? If there is disagreement, what should the article say?
No, I do not think there is. As this is the germ of this dispute. There does seem to be agreement among RS that they are not (as I pointed out even some of the sources used to claim bias on the part of the US say (literally) it's not democratic). No sources have been produced that actually dispute Cuba is not undemocratic. Of course if RS can be found that says it is democratic, we say so (based upon what they say such as "but this is disputed").
Second, should any irrelevant material be removed from the article?
First, is there agreement that the article should say that elections in Cuba are not fair and free? If there is disagreement, what should the article say? Myself and Slatersteven appear to be in agreement on this, without any asterisks, qualifiers, modifiers, or other wording that would bring the statement into disrepute. However Bart's disagreement with this is the nature of the dispute.
Second, should any irrelevant material be removed from the article? The only irrelevant material I can see are the ones in my links above, both of which are (at the time of writing) currently not present in the article. This is the disputed content, and I (and Slatersteven) are arguing it should remain absent. — Czello(music)14:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator (Cuba)
This article is not about the US embargo of Cuba. The mention of the US embargo appears to be a distraction. Is there any reason why it should be kept?
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources that say that elections in Cuba are fair and free, or that Cuba is a democracy? If so, we should identify them. If not, please discuss how to word a statement that the elections are not considered fair and free by reliable sources. Conduct the back-and-forth discussion in the space below. The discussion can continue until I stop the back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Fourth Statements by Bart Terpstra (Cuba)
The United States perspective on the elections is cited as one of (if not the) primary reason to continue it's embargo. The embargo is one of the fundamental characteristics that defines Cuba as it exists today, from geo-politics, to international trade or standard of living.
The Republic of Cuba is more accurately described as a unitary socialist republic[1] (edited).
It practices a form of constitutional respresentative democracy.
This is a fact.
There are other factors that make Cuba less democratic, but whether enough negatives make a country not a democracy is an opinion.
The United States has sufficient factors that make it less democratic as well, but whether it is not questioned, why?
For instance, people in Cuba enjoy universal suffrage, those in the USA do not (1/12+ people of age can not vote).
Both have severely limited options for wanting to introduce change to the system, new political movements are de facto impossible.
i could go on, but i do not feel i need to go point by point to show that there is a demarcation problem with democratic/non-democratic and that it's NPOV improvement to add who claims something is or isn't a democracy
It does not matter if the lack of democracy is the only reason for the embargo, that does not tell us anything about Cubas's democracy (or lack of it).
As to "unitary socialist republic" fine let's say "and are described by some as a unitary socialist republic", not sure what this adds. But I do not see the term in the provided source. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
i was deceived by the way britannica edits your url while you are browsing their website.
I don't see much worth in keeping the embargo part. It could be cut down with a brief mention that Cuba's lack of democracy is the cause.
If not, please discuss how to word a statement that the elections are not considered fair and free by reliable sources. I believe the current wording is satisfactory: "Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting.". — Czello(music)11:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator (Cuba)
Are there any reliable sources that say that elections in Cuba are fair and free? If so, we should identify them. If not (that is, if some reliable sources say that elections are not fair and free, and no reliable sources say that they are fair and free), why is it necessary to qualify the statement? Are there any sources that we consider reliable that consider one-party elections to be democratic or fair and free? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is not about the US embargo of Cuba. The embargo may be one of the defining features of the Cuban economy, or of the geopolitical status of Cuba, but this article is not about the embargo. Is there a reason why the embargo is relevant to the subject of elections in Cuba?
This article is not about elections in the United States. This article is not about whether US policy toward Cuba is inconsistent or hypocritical.
We appear to have an impasse, with two editors supporting the existing wording, and one editor who wishes to change it. We may have to resort to a Request for Comments, but, if so, we need to clarify the differing viewpoints, which also sometimes permits compromise. So what does each editor want the article to say in the lede paragraph about elections in Cuba?
Either remove "not considered democratic" or add by whom, as democracy is a subjective category and different positions on the matter exist (but any source that says so becomes unreliable in the eyes of many because it disagrees with the mainstream American view). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Terpstra (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
So what does each editor want the article to say in the lede paragraph about elections in Cuba? Per my last comment, I believe the current wording is sufficient - in that we state, in wikivoice, that "Elections in Cuba are not considered democratic because the government does not allow free and fair voting." — Czello(music)19:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator (Cuba)
Comment in your own sections, or in the space for back-and-forth discussion.
I will repeat a question. Are there any sources that say that elections in Cuba are fair and free? If so, please identify them.
It appears that we have an impasse, with two editors satisfied with the current wording, and one who wishes to qualify it. We can resolve the impasse in one of three ways. Someone can propose a compromise. The editor who is in the minority can accept that there is rough consensus against them. We can submit a Request for Comments. So I am asking User:Bart Terpstra to provide the language that they think should be used to qualify the statement that the elections are not fair and free. If there is no compromise, then the RFC will ask the community to choose between the existing language and the qualified language. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, is there any language in the article that any editor thinks should be removed?
Unitary state, pre-amble, constitution is definition of unitary (central government), article 133.
Cuban-Marxist, pre-amble: founded on cuban-marxist principles.
but links to Marxist-lennist: article 5: The Communist Party of Cuba, unique, Martiano, Fidelista, and Marxist-Leninist. (there is no Cuban-Marxist rn and i don't know how redirects get chosen)
One-party: constitution implies existence of multiple political organizations, but other sources assert it's a one-party state, so i assume this is fine.
Republic: calls itself a republic throughout.
Socialist: article 4.
And the reasoning should capture that democracy is not able to be established as an objective fact, because what true democracy should be is contested, therefore we should make clear it's a particular POV, not representing every significant view one can have on it.
Alternative wording of these options is allowed, I care more about the spirit of the change.
We have to have the RFC then, as without at least one source actually contesting the idea Cuba is undemocratic, we should not water down the text to imply a controversy that does not exist in RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Sixth Statements by Czello (Cuba)
Seventh statement by moderator (Cuba)
Bart Terpstra has offered two proposed compromises. Which proposed wording does he want to be a choice in the RFC? Unless someone has a different idea, I will compose and publish an RFC which will ask the community to choose between the current language and a version favored by Bart Terpstra. So what exactly will you, [[User:Bart Terpstra[[, ask to change the language to in Elections in Cuba? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
We are not currently discussing Politics of Cuba or Cuba. If User:Bart Terpstra has similar concerns about the wording of those articles, there are at least two ways to address the concerns. The first would be to start similar RFCs on the talk pages of those articles, specifying the language to be changed there. The second would be to wait for the conclusion of this RFC, and, if it makes the change requested by Bart Terpstra, then edit the related articles boldly, following the sense of the community, but be prepared to discuss those changes, and possibly have more comparable RFCs. Either approach is reasonable.
Strongly oppose the proposed wording for the reasons I've mentioned before, which haven't been adequately addressed. Also citing the Cuban constitution is irrelevant as it's a primary source (and obvious propaganda). If this wording is proposed at an RfC I'll expand further there, but for now I can't see how mine or Slatersteven's concerns have been addressed. — Czello(music)07:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
First statement by Toa Nidhiki05
Chiming in on this discussion here - seems like this is taking up a lot of space and energy that might be best directed elsewhere. Are there reliable, independent sources that say that Cuba's one-party elections are democratic? If there aren't, the discussion should probably end right there. ToaNidhiki0513:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Cuba)
Another editor has commented. They may continue to take part in discussion, which is now working on an RFC. Sometimes the numbering of statements is arbitrary, but it is mostly controlled by the moderator.
I have composed the draft RFC at Talk:Elections in Cuba/RFC on Lede. When we are satisfied with the RFC, I will copy it to the talk page, and will take out the anti-magic words, and it will become a real RFC. First, you may comment on it, or edit it, because we don't want to change the wording of the RFC after it starts running. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Eighth Statement by Bart Terpstra (Cuba)
The current wording looks fine.
I assume RFC's don't have opinion in the body, but exclusively in the comments?
I am now including sections for a statement in support of the change and a statement in support of the status quo. If you agree that this will be useful, please put your statements in the proper places, and then I will copy the draft RFC onto the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I have moved the Reference section to the end of the RFC because it is possible that a participant may include references in the Survey or the Discussion.
I have copied the RFC to the article discussion page, and have activated it so that it is now a live RFC. Please make your own entries in the Survey. You may optionally make statements in the Discussion section and take part in discussion there; that's what it's for. I will close this DRN thread in the near future. The RFC should run for thirty days, and can then be closed by an uninvolved editor. By the way, I thank you for taking part in a civil and orderly DRN. (Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, but is not always present.)
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
It says to state facts as facts and opinions as opinions.
The basis for labeling a country as democratic is based on subjective definitions and interpretation.
To say it is fact would be to assert that there is world wide consensus on how to best define democracy to a degree that it has become fact, i argue it has not.
This is also why i keep bringing up the USA, a known democracy, to show that creating an objective standard for democracy that includes all countries considered democracies and excludes all others is nigh impossible.
It was never "calling the kettle black", more that it's not consistent or NPOV.
Single party democracies are a significant opposing view and do indeed have a lot of problems, most of which they share with 2 party democracies.
The problem is that a lot of this comes down to WP:OR. Reliable sources, which are already in the article, state that Cuba isn't a democracy. Therefore that's what we should say. — Czello(music)16:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how to make this any clearer.
Interpretation of bias and wider context of a source is what an editor does and what the guidelines encourage and regulate.
And even if it was OR (which it is not), i can find sources giving this same context, so please focus on the content and not the optics. I am not a very original person anyway. Bart Terpstra (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Propaganda in this context is any piece of media wishing to convince you of something.
I see no reason to conclude that the constitution of Cuba is not a genuine expression of what they wish to achieve.
And yes, constitutional reform is a decent thing and can be used as a promotion tool.
But if interpretation of what sources mean is WP:OR, that's what you are doing rn Czello by saying the Cuban state doesn't really seek to achieve what it says in the constitution, which we should assume most countries at least try.
It requires more evidence to show the constitution is toilet paper then that it was something at least some people want to achieve.Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Without getting into a debate about whether or not it's propaganda (as it's their own view on their society, it is - but let's leave that) it's ultimately a primary source. We avoid primary sources and instead go with what independent sources say. Independent sources in this case say that it's not a democracy. That's not WP:OR, that's simply what's sourced. — Czello(music)09:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
But if every primary source is barred because it's a primary source, and every secondary source is barred because it is biased (it has a POV), then doesn't that make your position unfalsifiable? Bart Terpstra (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not at all true. Firstly we don't prohibit sources that are perceived to have a bias (only in more extreme cases to the point where they're no longer reliable). But, secondly and more importantly, there's still been no demonstration why the sources we have are biased. You seem to have repeatedly assumed they are because they're "western" (and as I've stated earlier in the discussion, not all of them are even Western). — Czello(music)10:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not getting further into the idea that American researchers are neutral and unbiased.
It is also not the central argument I'm making, which is that democracy is subjective and that they use a standard, not the standard, to determine what is a valid democracy.
You're going to have to get into that. Ultimately the sources don't say it's not a liberal democracy, they say it's not a democracy. You seem to have decided that because they're American that must mean they're biased. Again, we go with what the sources say, and they're not saying it's not a particular kind of democracy, they're saying it's not a democracy. Any other arguments about trying to interpret the sources in a way that go beyond what they actually say is WP:OR. — Czello(music)15:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I have decided they are biased because the research comes from one cultural background which has a widespread belief in the superiority of one form of government over others, and that the bias shows up in the works the culture publishes. It's not hating on the USA. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you've exposed your own bias with this comment.
I have decided they are biased You don't get to do this. The community does.
because the research comes from one cultural background Patently not true, as I've explained before. Not all the sources are US (and there wouldn't be a problem if they were)
which has a widespread belief in the superiority of one form of government over others Total opinion, appears to just be anti-US rhetoric.
and that the bias shows up in the works the culture publishes. No evidence of this at all despite multiple requests, and not how WP:RS works.
I'm sorry but at this point I feel you've overplayed your hand and revealed that this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. I was willing to AGF and assume that as newer editor you didn't understand fully how WP:RS worked, but you appear to just dislike US sources talking about non-US governments.
I am part of the community, every member of the community decides for themselves o' Socrates.
And no, it never was an "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", you want it to be so you don't have to consider the arguments, you have been unwilling to engage with this at all, and honestly, i don't think you're worth the time, as you have time and time again begged the question. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I've engaged plenty, but you've not been able to adequately address either mine or Slatersteven's concerns. It all boils down to the fundamental process Wikipedia depends on: we say what the sources say, ideally as closely as they say it. We don't add additional context based on our own opinion. — Czello(music)17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Focusing on the sentence "Cuba is a democracy" moves the goalposts.
The goal isn't "Cuba is democratic", but that democracy is not an objective category, it is a political opinion.
Forms of mass participation are considered democratic by some norms, and not by others and that Cuba meets some, but not others [5][6](as do a lot of other democracies[7]).
These various norms of mass-participation, will of the people, interest of all, 1 person 1 vote, etc each have WP:RS explaining them and the sources cited here are for connecting the dots, avoiding WP:OR.Bart Terpstra (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bart Terpstra: I noticed you made this change to the RfC. Can you clarify how you're proposing it be worded exactly - you've kept it as "democratic" (I assume you'll want to remove the "a" before that) but you've linked to liberal democracy. Is there a reason why you'd pipe the link rather than just have it as "liberal democracy"? Also, does this mean you're no longer proposing the "by western commentators" wording? — Czello(music)12:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
no, I'm still proposing what i proposed initially. either:
I have no problem with Bart Terpstra deciding what the RFC question is, but can we please decide, as this is just going round in circles? Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Holodomor genocide question
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed as badly filed by good-faith error by the filing editor. Please try again to file this request, using the template provided for the purpose. It may be necessary to file in Desktop mode from a mobile device, which can be switched to by clicking the Desktop link at the bottom of the screen. Desktop mode works better on mobile devices than Mobile mode anyway, but that is not the issue. Please check the form of the user ID of the party, which is not the same as their signature. If you continue to have problems filing, please report the problems at Village pump, and request my assistance in filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clearing up what appears to be some editorial bias in regards to word choices as well as some incomplete information about authors cited. Examples being authors that changed views post Soviet Archives being opened, who agree with Ukrainian cultural genocide taking place but not an engineered plauge being included etc. Others users and I have been in pretty civil and productive engagements but myself and User Michael Z are having dispute over what information should be included, Michael Z has asked me to reach out for mediation and so I have.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think having a neutral party present would be very useful for directing conversion back to a focus on the facts and resources and how to best have Neutral POB in the article.
Summary of dispute by Michael Z
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
State of Palestine
Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments9 people in discussion
Closed. The filing party has been blocked as a sockpuppet. If other editors want an RFC, an RFC can be posted, but this might not be necessary. If there is disruptive editing from new editors, a sockpuppet investigation may be filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dispute is over whether saying that Palestine is a state as absolute fact in the lead is a violation of NPOV.
This may be biased but I believe I have successfully argued against and the other side is using past consensus in order
to avoid making the change. Selfstudier than accused me (RomanHannibal) of incivility, which I then denied and accused
him of the same incivility. Because I made changes on several pages, anyone who participated, whether through discussing,
reverting, or thanking, is included as a party.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This dispute has devolved into personal attacks and lost civility between participants. I believe a mediator
could help restore civility so we can productively resolve our dispute.
Summary of dispute by Erp
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The back and forth started on the Talk:Jordan page before expanding and migrating over to Talk:State of Palestine. The initial question was whether "Palestinian" (with a link to State of Palestine) should modify West Bank in the intro to the Jordan article. This became a question of whether the State of Palestine exists (or in what sense does the State of Palestine exist). --Erp (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Tombah
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The current wording used in our article Jordan ("PalestinianWest Bank") is problematic for two main reasons: (1) While it is true that the majority of the world community sees the West Bank as part of the "Palestinian territories," describing the area as "Palestinian" is not a true reflection of the West Bank's far more complex current situation. The Jordan Valley is part of Area C, which is governed by Israel in accordance with the Oslo Accords, which acknowledged Israel as the entity in charge of the West Bank and Jordan borders, both de facto and de jure, until final agreement is reached. The present wording completely ignores the current state of affairs. (2) Using the term "Palestinian" to refer to the "State of Palestine" rather than the "Palestinian Territories" implies that Wikipedia has endorsed a political entity that is largely unrecognized in English-speaking countries (and this is English Wikipedia after all). Moreover, those that recognize Palestine could or might not agree on its boundaries (For instance, the Palestinian embassy in Tunisia portrays Palestine as entirely replacing Israel, with President Mahmoud Abbas himself participating in the inaguration ceremony). The "State of Palestine", as opposed to the Palestinian Authority that governs areas A and B of the West Bank is an entity with no clearly defined borders. The current wording suggests that English Wikipedia has chosen sides and even established the boundaries of the "State of Palestine" on its own. Since last year, based on what is obvious WP:ACTIVISM — For such, one only needs to look at the opinions of some editors here who make overtly political assertions while making no effort to comprehend the complexities of this situation— every article relating to a geographical location in the West Bank (apart from the Israeli settlements) has been edited to state that those sites (urban, archaeological, natural, even historical regions such as Judea) are a part of the State of Palestine, making the issue even worse. I believe the best course of action in most cases is to simply leave it as "West Bank" without any additional qualifiers. To understand more about its complicated and contentious position, readers can jump to the relevant article. Tombah (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems that some editors here appear to totally ignore the complexities of the political status of the West Bank, and even worse, to blatantly attribute all evil to Israel, which raises concerns about their ability to edit ARBPIA-related articles. That, in my opinion, just serves to highlight the serious neutrality issue the subject suffers from on English Wikipedia. Tombah (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Selfstudier
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Said edit is in direct contradiction of a recent RFC (Archive 17 and Archive 18) finding to the contrary.
A scan of the discussion reveals a newly minted editor exhibiting WP:IDHT and attempting to WP:BLUDGEON an obvious POV. Invited to seek a new consensus via RFC, editor first assented then chose instead to waste time with this. Editor has no consensus or proper sourcing for any proposed changes, there is thus no "dispute" except in the sense that the editor simply disagrees with everyone else. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I am unsure they have "successfully" argued their case, as (as I have said on the talk page) they have said nothing that is new. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Makeandtoss
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Seems like “RomanHannibal” is trying to solve two disputes at once: one involving the very core of the State of Palestine article (which I was not involved in) and the other regarding Jordan’s western border (Israel + West Bank vs Palestinian West Bank vs Palestinian territory of West Bank). So I will only comment on the latter.
The international community regards the West Bank as part of the Palestinian territories, including all western countries that do not recognize a Palestinian state. Since a discussion of Jordan’s borders involves geopolitical entities, the West Bank is only a region or territory. And what does this region belong to geopolitically? It’s certainly not the Israeli apartheid state which has militarily occupied it since 1967. The State of Palestine is a widely-recognized state with non-observer status at the UN. Pretending that it does not exist by refusing to connect it with the West Bank is a stretch. Currently the Jordan article refers to it as the Palestinian West Bank. But now I’m in favor of Palestinian territory of the West Bank to better reflect the complexities of the region, a compromise and a middle ground which has been rejected, and instead a complete omission of the word “Palestine” seems to be promoted. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Trilletrollet
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Vif12vf
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Supreme Deliciousness
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Nishidani
I think this a pointless exercise in 'mediation' when the plaintiff bludgeons his way past several editors who objected to this latest attempt, by a apparent newbie, to overthrow a consensus, in stating
I don't negotiate with people who are convinced they have the truth, and that everyone who disagrees, has to be brought round to accepting their opinion, which, in any case, are deeply uninformed about the concept of 'statehood' in general terms. I don't even know why I was listed here. I could think of a dozen historic editors who have more to say on this than I and who have not been included.Nishidani (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
State of Palestine discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (State of Palestine)
This is a preliminary effort to determine whether moderated discussion will be useful. Please read the rules for discussion of contentious topics, and state whether you agree to the rules. If you agree to the rules, you have been properly notified that Palestine is a contentious topic. It appears that some of the editors are declining to take part in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. We will have moderated discussion if at least two editors with differing views agree that they want moderated discussion. So that we can determine whether at least two editors have differing views, each editor should also state exactly what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that other editors want changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I have a question and a statement for the filing editor. First, there seemed briefly to be agreement that there should be an RFC. Then you stated that you want moderated discussion instead. What do you expect to gain from moderated discussion rather than an RFC? Also, some of the listed editors have been notified, but some of them have not been notified. The other editors must also be notified.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I wanted a moderated discussion because I don't want a vote yet. There are many editors which disagree with my viewpoint without a full debate. In my view, I refuted all their arguments, yet they don't want to accept this. I was also, in my view, falsely and incivilly accused of incivility be @Selfstudier who is attempting to stonewall progress by treating previous formal no consensus as a divine decree. A moderated discussion will ensure civility.
I look forward to a productive moderated discussion here. I am willing to compromise but I will maintain my right of reply and always grant my opponents the right of reply. Once again, thanks @Robert McClenon for your moderation. RomanHannibal (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments4 people in discussion
Closed as overtaken by a block. The filing editor and one of the other editors have been blocked for a week for edit-warring a different article. When the editors come off block, they should resume discussion at the article talk page. If the new discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The statement by the FBI in its official website claims the LTTE as "amongst the most dangerous and deadly extremist outfits in the world", further stating that "LTTE's ruthless tactics have inspired terrorist networks worldwide, including Al-Qaeda in Iraq" which had been in the page for some time had been removed by an editor and its readdition has been blocked by two editors who refuse to allow it to be added in another section of the page. Now it appears there is an impasse.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Comment if the FBI statement which as been quoted by news media can be included in this page.
Summary of dispute by Petextrodon
Enough viewpoints of U.S. state agencies have been highlighted and I don't see how adding FBI's sensationalist claims meant to support the Sri Lankan government's war efforts help to enhance the article as it would only reinforce the viewpoints of a biased party to the conflict (U.S. government) in breach of WP:NPOV. The factual accuracy of the FBI notice in question has also been disputed multiple times and was once removed from another article lead section with the support of an admin. - Petextrodon (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Oz346
Currently this is listed on the third opinion request page, should we not wait for that before opening another laborious discussion?
Summary of dispute by Pharaoh of the Wizards
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by SinhalaLion
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - The Third Opinion request has been closed because there are more than two editors involved. Sometimes in that case the three, four, or five editors are advised to go to DRN, but you are already here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (LTTE)
Five editors were listed by the filing party. Two of them have made statements. We need to know whether there is any content disagreement. Please read the usual rules. By continuing to take part in this moderated discussion, you are agreeing to follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; address your statements to the moderator (me) and the community. My first question is to define the scope of the content dispute. Please state briefly what part of the article you want to change, or what part of the article you want left as it is that another editor wants to change. If the editors who are participating agree with each other, then we can close this discussion. If there is disagreement, we will try to resolve it by discussion. Editors who have not yet commented are also welcome to participate.
Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by Cossde
Current dispute came up after one of the editors mentioned here removed cited content (from the human rights violations section) attributed to a statement published by FBI on the website on the LTTE, without concent. Attempts to move it to a different section has been heavily apposed. I do agree that its not suitable in the lead, however given that its cited content from a RS and have been referred to by several mainstream media, I feel that there is no basis to exclude this content of the LTTE page. Therefore I want to see it been re-included to the page in a section it is most appropriate. Cossde (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I would like the following added to the sub section Suicide attacks or another part of the article that is agreeable as suitable. "The FBI has described the LTTE as "amongst the most dangerous and deadly extremist outfits in the world", further stating that "LTTE's ruthless tactics have inspired terrorist networks worldwide, including Al-Qaeda in Iraq".[1][2][3][4] " Cossde (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by Petextrodon
Zeroth statements by other editors (LTTE)
The FBI notice in question is far from a RS. It has proven poor fact checking, and propagates lies, namely a wildly exaggerated civilian death toll figure of 4000 in 2 years falsely attributed to the LTTE. The 4000 figure is actually derived from the Sri Lanka Monitoring Mission which referred to all civilian deaths attributed to all armed groups in that period (the vast majority of which were Tamil civilians killed by government forces). This fabricated FBI figure even contradicts the figures from the FBI's own yearly reports:
The notice's sensationalist statements are therefore based on erroneous facts and figures.
Wikipedia own policies clearly indicate that it is unsuitable to be used to make contentious claims against 3rd parties:
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities."Oz346 (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
First statement by moderator (LTTE)
It appears that one of the content issues has to do with whether to include a statement by the US FBI that characterized the LTTE as one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations. Is that one of the issues? Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It is not obvious to me either where in the article the disputed portion is or has been, and it is not obvious to me which editors support its inclusion and which editors oppose its inclusion. So I will repeat my question. State exactly what portions of the article you either want changed, or want left the same that another editor wants changed. I am not at this time asking you to explain why you want a particular version of the article. That can be discussed later. At this time I want to know exactly where in the article the dispute is, and what your viewpoint is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
First statement by Cossde
First statement by Petextrodon
Initially the user Cossde wanted to include the FBI's claims in the lead section but now they have deemed it unsuitable. Instead, they suggest adding them to the “sub section Suicide attacks” but suicide attack tactic is not explicitly connected as the influence on Al-Qaeda nor is the statement “amongst the most dangerous and deadly extremist outfits in the world” explicitly connected to suicide attacks, considering that most of the LTTE’s civilian casualties resulted from other methods. Hence, it’s original research to make these connections not explicit in the cited source and should not be included under that subsection. -- Petextrodon (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
First statement by Oz346
I oppose the adding of the FBI statement to the section on suicide attacks, on the grounds of it being a sensationalist unreliable source with proven evidence of poor fact checking, and on the basis that other more reliable sources have already been used to same similar things namely the quote by scholar Riaz Hassan, who states that the LTTE is responsible for "developing suicide bombings as a terrorist weapon" which was mimicked by "terrorist groups" in other countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq. Oz346 (talk) 07:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
First statements by other editors (LTTE)
Second statement by moderator (LTTE)
This discussion does not seem to be going anywhere. I am not sure whether there is disagreement. It appears that we have two editors opposing the inclusion of the FBI statement about the LTTE being particularly dangerous. Do we have an editor supporting inclusion? If so, where in the article? If there isn't a content dispute, I will close this case as fizzled out. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Closed as fizzled out. There doesn't seem to be a content dispute between editors who are presenting different views as to what should or should not be in the article. If there is a content dispute, discuss on the article talk page.
Second statement by Cossde
Second statement by Petextrodon
Second statement by Oz346
Second statements by other editors (LTTE)
Third statement by moderator (LTTE)
The filing party has requested that I reopen this case. I am agreeing to do this, but they will have to notify the other editors on their talk pages again. I am also asking the filing party to state exactly where they want the contentious statement included. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Holodomor genocide question
Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments4 people in discussion
Closed as failed. After several interactions, it has not been possible to determine exactly what the filing party wants to change in the article. The filing party has complained about "vitriol", probably from the other editor, which is a conduct issue, but I have not seen anything that I would characterize as "vitriol". The filing party has now responded to the other editor's statement, which is a back-and-forth exchange that is not permitted, but at least indicates that they may be able to resume discussion on the article talk page. The editors may resume discussing article content at the article talk page. Discuss editor conduct at WP:ANI, but read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I am opening this dispute at the request of User:AevumNova, who wrote: "Clearing up what appears to be some editorial bias in regards to word choices as well as some incomplete information about authors cited. Examples being authors that changed views post Soviet Archives being opened, who agree with Ukrainian cultural genocide taking place but not an engineered plauge being included etc. Others users and I have been in pretty civil and productive engagements but myself and User Michael Z are having dispute over what information should be included, Michael Z has asked me to reach out for mediation and so I have."
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
AevumNova writes: "I think having a neutral party present would be very useful for directing conversion back to a focus on the facts and resources and how to best have Neutral POB in the article. "
Summary of dispute by AevumNova
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
In the page I was speaking with other users about the possibility of clearing up some of the leading language in the article as well as some of the quotes. For example, some of the quotes from authors are chosen about their views pre-soviet archives being opened and doesn't include their amended views after that event occured.
While my proposed changes were bold, most of the other users in the talk page were extremely productive in offering good counter arguments and middle grounds in this regard and i was happy where the talk page was going.
This user began to reply on all my suggestions questioning myself and other users about changing any of this. When asked why we shouldn't include the newer views of some of these authors or why we shouldn't look for consistency with articles such as the one on the Great Famine in Ireland, they said "because Ireland isn't at war with Russia." Which was very confusing to me about how it is relevant.
After a lot of back and forth he recommended I tried mediation and I attempted to file a request but confused his username with his signature. I asked for his help and he refused and said maybe meditation would change my mind but he seemed to imply it wouldn't change his.
I honestly am just very frustrated because I really enjoyed the conversations and debates with the other users and felt the talk pages were very productive up until this point.
NOTE: Despite Mzajac's claims to the contract I also have proposed edits on several pages regarding the Navajo people and have been at the Teahouse asking for help on locating less controversial articles as well as for guides on wiki policy.
here for the purpose of making a major, potentially controversial overhaul of the articles Holodomor and Holodomor genocide question. I am willing to respond to their specific proposals for changes to the text of the articles, but it is difficult because they do not express themselves clearly and specifically. Perhaps a volunteer can help generate one or more clear concrete proposals to consider. I have little confidence that expending energy on this is likely to bring any beneficial changes, and I would recommend that the editor spend some time in less controversial, more productive editing first.
Holodomor genocide question discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer question - Robert McClenon, you are listed as an involved user but judging by the general close immediately preceding I assume you are not. I am open to moderating this dispute if you are involved or do not wish to moderate it, let me know. I just assume you were planning to moderate it if not for the filing issue and thought I should ask just in case. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator (Holodomor)
User:Ixtal – I am only listed as a party because the case-creation template automatically adds the originator as a party.
I am ready to moderate this dispute if two parties request moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A. Please state briefly what you want changed in the article, or what you want left the same that the other party wants changed. Be civil and concise.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Holodomor)
First statement by moderator (Holodomor)
Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss edits, not editors. Those two statements are the same, and are repeated because they need repeating. Read the usual rules again.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. If you want any specific changes made to the article, please state where in the article the issue is, and what the change is. If another editor wants changes made, and you want it left alone, please state where in the article the issue is, and what you don't want changed. If you want to discuss generalities about the article, we can close this thread and discussion can resume on the article talk page.
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I wished to talk about the edits on the talk page as have others but Michael Z has argued against everything everyone is proposing and not engaging in discussion.
I am worried that any changes made by people other than him reaching consensus will be reversed.
I am uncertain what steps to take if mediation is not what we should be looking for?
As far as specific edits this has been occuring on 3 instances of proposed edits. Should they all be detailed? AevumNova (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Holodomor)
Second statement by moderator (Holodomor)
Comment on content, not contributors.
User:AevumNova – You write: As far as specific edits this has been occuring on 3 instances of proposed edits. Should they all be detailed? I have read the discussion on the article talk page more than once. It is not obvious to me what changes you want to make to the article. So, yes, you are being asked to detail the edits that you wish to make. I can see that there is disagreement about article content. Read Be Specific at DRN.
User:Mzajac – Do you wish to take part in moderated discussion? If so, what parts of the article do you want changed, or what parts of the article do you want left the same (if you know what the other editor wants)?
Robert McClenon (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia and was directed here by the other user in question. I am very confused about what I am being asked for and about the consistency of rulings here. As such I do not want to continue with mediation until some things are clarified.
1) Casting Aspersions: I do not understand how saying someone is a Single Purpose Account despite objective evidence to the contrary and claiming their low edit count is a sign of them being wrong is not under this.
2) Desired Edits: Mzajac asked me to open a thread here after he opposed discussion of several possible edits myself and other users were productively discussing as possibilities. With only 1 possible exception I am not ready to edit anything in that page. The issues came from the vitriol in the discussions that became present involving the user in question.
2) Desired Edits: Mzajac asked me to open a thread here after he opposed discussion of several possible edits myself and other users were productively discussing as possibilities. With only 1 possible exception I am not ready to edit anything in that page. The issues came from the vitriol in the discussions that became present involving the user in question.
If this is not the process for the issue of vitriol, accusations, and attempting to, according to their own comments, get certain people to not engage in a topic they focus on, then I apologize.
This is where I was told to go by the user in question. I am new to Wikipedia and find it difficult to locate policies or to find proper channels to deal with this behavior. AevumNova (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Holodomor)
Third statement by moderator (Holodomor)
Comment on content, not contributors.
It appears that I will have to close this moderated discussion as failed, because User:AevumNova seems to be mostly complaining about User:Mzajac, and User:Mzajac does not seem to be interested in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. Both editors have discussed each other at least as much as they have discussed article content.
User:AevumNova – DRN is a noticeboard to resolve content disputes by moderated discussion. I have asked what article content you want to change, and have not gotten an answer that I can understand. You have been complaining about "vitriol", and I do not see anything that I would even possibly characterize as "vitriol" except for your claim that another editor was poisoning the well. If you want to discuss a lack of neutrality in the article, and do not want to suggest specific improvements, you can try posting at the neutral point of view noticeboard, but you are probably not being clear enough to get any useful response there. If you really want to complain about User:Mzajac, the place to report administrator abuse is WP:ANI, but you should read the boomerang essay before posting there. If you think that your discussion at the article talk page was productive, you may resume discussion at the article talk page. Maybe someone will be able to understand what you are asking for. Do you really want me to close this discussion as failed because you can't explain to a neutral editor what you are asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
And have tried to explain again and again that I am confused by what you are asking but am just getting thrown jargon at me.
The only reason I haven't quit wikipedia already despite the practical and systemic issues against new editors is because I believe trying to make me quit was the other user's intent.
I am would list this as failed due to a lack of understanding or good explanation for what was desired on my part and lack of willingness to engage on Mzajac's part.
I am also very frustrated that I was asked to come here by that user and then made to feel stupid and humiliated for filing in a place that was inappropriate and suspect this was on purpose given he was unwilling to engage despite requesting it. AevumNova (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I am no longer interested in mediation at this time as I feel like a plaintiff in a lawsuit who has no lawyer to navigate the extremely difficult to navigate the rules of Wikipedia and figure out what is being asked of me. I also question the neutrality of this arbitration given past actions in this thread. I feel like this is nothing more then WP:BITE and I was asked to come here by the other user to take advantage of the fact I'm new and can't lawyer this.
User:Mzajac – I am interpreting your silence as silence, as indicating a lack of interest in moderated discussion with AevumNova (and it does appear that reasoned discussion with AevumNova is not happening).
Third statements by editors (Holodomor)
Second Third statement by Mzajac
I had given up waiting for a statement from the OP to respond to, gave up and began writing my second statement, and received an edit conflict with the moderator’s third. Here’s what I had written:
I will participate in the moderated discussion.
Regarding AevumNova’s initiated discussions:
Talk:Holodomor genocide question#Raphael Lemkin's Section: AevumNova seems to want to delete all or part of the article section Holodomor genocide question#Raphael Lemkin. I don’t agree with their rationale, don’t quite understand it, and don’t believe it is supportable by reliable sources: several RS hold up Lemkin (whose development of the concept of genocide was strongly influenced by genocide in Ukraine, where he was born and educated) as important to the Holodomor genocide question (pretty much anything written on his essay “Soviet Genocide in Ukraine,” in which he considered the famine an integral part of the Soviet genocide against Ukrainians).[6][7][8] So : I am opposed to unjustified removal.
I hope to respond regarding the following two sections within a day or so:
Talk:Holodomor genocide question#James Mace broken source: in this discussion, AevumNova disputes the statement in the article that “after that he was the only U.S. historian working on the Ukrainian famine, and the first to categorically name it as a genocide,” claiming “proof” that that is false, but not citing any, and then asserting something about a 4-year gap that I do not understand the specifics or significance of. I am against the removal of the passage from the article. —MichaelZ.18:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I didn't cite it because it was already brought up elsewhere in the talkpage. But it's okay, you have won. I am leaving wikipedia. Harassing me has been effective and I'm sure you and the others that claim ownership over this article will continue to call each other over whenever someone questions the NPOV of anything you presume to govern AevumNova (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Talk:Holodomor genocide question#Narrowed or Expanded Scope?: in this discussion, AevumNova defines a problem of the article’s scope being defined as famine and not cultural genocide, supposedly revealed by “situations such as authors that do not assert that a famine was made to specifically target the Ukrainian people being cited in the genocide portion because they believe that the Russifaction of the Ukraine was cultural genocide.” I can speculate, but I don’t know what authors and citations they mean specifically. I don’t agree that the enormous genocide that was the Holodomor can be surgically scoped in this encyclopedia article that cites numerous scholars who addres various narrower and broader aspects of it. I haven’t seen any proposed text changes to the lead or to the content that I can really agree or disagree with. I don’t agree that the article’s scope needs to be redefined. —MichaelZ.18:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the article defines the Holodomor as a famine. I proposed a change in the talk page to either narrow the content of the page to that definition or expand the scope of the page to include the entiriry of the Ukrainian genocide to justify the presence of authors and opinions that were important but not relevant to the famine specifically. AevumNova (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lockheed P-38_Lightning
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Closed for two reasons. First, the filing editor has not listed or notified any other editors. Second, the discussion on the article talk page has been inadequate, so that this filing is premature. Extensive discussion is required before opening a case at DRN, and extensive discussion lasts for more than 24 hours, and with at least two posts by at least two editors. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, a new request can be filed if all the editors are listed and notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The article on teh P-38 Lightning contains a reference to an alleged name given to the aircraft by Luftwaffe pilots. The Forked Tailed Devil or der Gabelschwanz Teufel. This is widely known to be allied propaganda.
The source cited in the article is a spurious on from a webpage not a credible wartime source, Baugher, Joe. "P-38 in European Theatre." Joe Baugher's Encyclopedia of American Military Aircraft, 13 June 1999. Retrieved: 4 February 2007.
The following is the source and a piece of plagiarised text easily searched all over the web:
"On April 5, 1943, 26 P-38Fs of the 82nd Fighter Group claimed the destruction of 31 enemy aircraft as against the loss of six Lightnings. In these air battles, mixed success was obtained Because of the tactics of the enemy, the Lightnings were forced to fight at lower altitudes of 15,000 feet, and in battles against fighters it was not entirely successful. The twin engines restricted maneuverability to some extent and the Lightning had a wheel control instead of the conventional stick, which may also have restricted maneuverability. Nevertheless, the Lightning was effective against bombers and had a sensational zoom climb that could rarely be matched.
It wreaked great havoc among Rommel's air transport well out to sea, earning for itself the German nickname "der Gabelschwanz Teufel"--the Fork-Tailed Devil."
This is contradicted in the same article by leading German fighter pilots such as Adolf Galland: General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."
Below I have found the earliest evidence (a primary source) of this phrase in a clearly pro-Allied publication from AUG 1943. I would accept a primary German source to refute it.
The credibility of Wikipedia lies with its sourcing/referencing. If unverified sources are used the credibility of the whole article is in doubt. The source used in this case is invalid. I would accept a primary wartime Luftwaffe source but all available information from leading German pilots notes that they were not in the least likely to give the aircraft a 'scary name' This is a known propaganda tactic the same as Whispering Death' the Japanese allegedly gave to the Bristol Beaufighter'.
Lockheed P-38_Lightning discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.