Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard
 |
|
| Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
| ||||||||||||
| Case | Created | Last volunteer edit | Last modified | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | Status | User | Time | User | Time | User | Time |
| 15.ai | In Progress | Ltbdl (t) | 19 days, 18 hours | Cooldudeseven7 (t) | 10 hours | Cooldudeseven7 (t) | 10 hours |
| Tuner (radio) | In Progress | Andrevan (t) | 15 days, 14 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 4 days, 6 hours | Kvng (t) | 2 days, 8 hours |
| Wolf | In Progress | Nagging Prawn (t) | 11 days, | NotAGenious (t) | 7 days, 19 hours | Moxy (t) | 6 days, 21 hours |
| Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic | New | Randomstaplers (t) | 7 days, 4 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 5 days, 10 hours | Bon courage (t) | 4 hours |
| Instant-runoff voting | Closed | Closed Limelike Curves (t) | 4 days, 9 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 10 hours |
| Sri Lankan Vellalar | Closed | 2409:40F4:200D:7C2B:BCDF:CF94:7E25:E27 (t) | 3 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 3 days, 12 hours |
| NDIS | New | ItsPugle (t) | 2 days, 21 hours | None | n/a | ItsPugle (t) | 2 days, 21 hours |
| Taiwan | Closed | 103.190.179.16 (t) | 2 days, 18 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 16 hours | Robert McClenon (t) | 2 days, 16 hours |
| Talk:2024 United_States_presidential_election# Lead_section_of_2024_United_States_presidential_election | New | Goodtiming8871 (t) | 9 hours | None | n/a | Goodtiming8871 (t) | 9 hours |
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 06:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Current disputes
Talk:Campus sexual_assault/Archive_3#Reverts
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Campus sexual assault
- Archived discussion page
- RFC (inconclusive)
- later discussion
Users involved
- Mattnad (talk · contribs)
- Nblund (talk · contribs)
- Aquillion (talk · contribs)
- Carwil (talk · contribs)
- VQuakr (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
In the Campus sexual assault article a new study on campus sexual assault by the AAU was added. In that study, and picked up by multiple sources, was that the majority of respondents that the study said had been sexually assaulted did not report the event because "they didn't think it was serious enough to report". Nblund takes issue with including this detail and has several times removed it from the article despite it being covered by mainstream news sources such as the Washington Post, The Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, and CNN. Even something that understates the level ("many" instead of "majority") has been removed by Nblund (while leaving in other reasons in the preceding sentence). Nblund has argued that its misleading and cites opinions written years before the AAU study that explain why women might say that, without meaning it the way a plain reading of the question might suggest. He or she wants to separate it from the AAU study section, keep it out of the lede, and will only permit it if there's a rebuttal.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We have discussed this at length, including an RFC (inconclusive), and later discussion
How do you think we can help?
Given that the RFC is inconclusive with few editors being interested in the topic, I'd like others to weigh in, either here or at the RFC to help decide a simple question. Can we include the AAU findings that the majority of respondents who were classified as victims of sexual assault didn't report it because they "didn't think it was serious enough to report."? I think it's fair to include that in the lede and attached to the section on the survey. Mattnad (talk) 16:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Nblund
As I stated in the RfC: I do not think that the finding needs to be left out of the article. I do think that that finding should only be mentioned in the context of the existing academic research on women's reasons for not reporting sexual victimization. There are two things that I think should be made clear to readers:
- This finding is not new or unique. The AAU finding is consistent with several decades of previous research on this topic, and it's misleading and unhelpful to fail to point this out.
- There has been peer reviewed research in to why women choose not to report their victimization to the police. Experts generally view this response as indicative of the difficulties women face in reporting sexual assault, and do not think it should be taken "at face value", as Mattnad suggests. I suggested that we could cite some of Bonnie Fisher's research to present the expert views of that finding.
Mattnad doesn't seem to dispute the veracity of either of these points, but instead has argued that including Fisher's work in relation to the AAU study would constitute "original research coattrack" because Fisher's study did not specifically examine the AAU survey or that it was "fringe" work. However, as Carwil noted in the RfC, Fisher's paper is actually cited in the AAU article in relation to the exact finding we're discussing (page 36), and Fisher is actually a lead author of the AAU study. Nblund (talk) 01:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Aquillion
I've explained my feelings on this on the talk page, so I'll be brief about them here: I don't feel that most sources place the degree of significance on this particular statistic that Mattnad does. While it gets mentioned, it's usually one sentence amid an assortment of different factoids from the study; by comparison, most articles lead with the overarching figure on prevalence of sexual assault (which is, after all, the main conclusion of the study.) Putting it in the lead the way Mattnad is suggesting is artificially forcing an equal weight on two things that are clearly not weighted equally in the sources, and clearly giving WP:UNDUE weight to something that most sources have not treated as so significant. Mattnad says that "it has been covered" by many sources; but the weighting and tone within those sources is also important to pay attention to. As far as I can tell, none of them (aside from one editorial) have given it any significant weight. --Aquillion (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Carwil
My involvement in this dispute began with the RfC posted in October. In my view, a question of policy and guidelines underlies this dispute at all stages, namely how best to identify reliable sources. Mattnad has put forward requests on the basis that multiple reliable sources (newspaper articles covering the 2015 Campus Climate Survey) should frame the article's use of the underlying study, which was produced by academics in a rigorous, fact-checking manner, though perhaps not subject to peer review. In my estimation, "The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Wikipedia shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the … researchers' published findings." This follows from the guidance at WP:NEWSORG.
Delving a bit more into the substance of the dispute, there is the question of whether, and how much, to highlight a follow-up question asked to students who did not report their rape or sexual assault to law enforcement. Such students reported a number of reasons, the most frequent of which is the incident was "not serious enough to report." My read on the cause of the dispute is that external writers (including the oft-cited Stuart Taylor, an expert with a different view on the importance of campus sexual assault) have built a point-of-view around the non-serious nature of most assaults reported in survey data, and that this one survey result is intended to back up that POV.
This page is deluged by trench warfare on this point, and editors are thereby sidetracked from their role of fully describing the extent and nature of campus sexual assault, as well as the reasons for non-reporting. There's more material in the 2015 CCS that isn't on the page, and an abundant peer-reviewed research literature (including the much-mentioned but hardly used Fisher 2003 article) on the subject of survivor's reporting decisions that could and should be included on the page.
In my view, the next step should be to flesh out the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section with more of the results from that survey, and to create a section summarizing the literature on non-reporting. Fisher 2003's and Stuart Taylor's positions can be summarized in this new section.
The "not serious enough to report" survey response simply isn't so important as to need to be in the lead right now.--Carwil (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by VQuakr
Talk:Campus sexual_assault discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been considerable recent discussion at the talk page, and proper notice, so that this case can be opened by a volunteer. There was an RFC, which has not been formally closed but has expired, and does not prevent discussion here. The RFC was not concisely worded and attracted little comment. Either discussion here or rewording the RFC neutrally with better publicity might be appropriate. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer note 2: I'm a bit concerned that we do not provide the kind of service expected by the filing party based upon his answer to the "How do you think we can help" question. What we do here is, per the header, "we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy" or, in short, we facilitate discussion between the parties. Volunteers here may, if they choose, close a case by offering an opinion when there is a clear single outcome set by policy but that's just one volunteer's opinion and only applies in the most clear-cut of cases. In short, if all Mattnad is looking for is additional people to weigh in then this isn't the place to obtain that and he should consider withdrawing this request; on the other hand, if he feels that there's still a possibility that he and the responding party might work it out with some additional supervised discussion, then he's in the right place. What do you say, Mattnad? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
- Pinged for comment: I'm up for help with consensus. The RFC stalled, but right now I think the "compromise" offered by Nblund is very limited to his/her editorial vision, and far from what I think is common in Wikipedia around the use of reliable sources. I have no issue with the rebuttal at this point, but his/her approach completely diminishes the scale of what the AAU study found, which quoting the AP, "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough."Mattnad (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good deal. Let's see if the responding editor chooses to participate. (Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and never mandatory.) — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
- Pinged for comment: I'm up for help with consensus. The RFC stalled, but right now I think the "compromise" offered by Nblund is very limited to his/her editorial vision, and far from what I think is common in Wikipedia around the use of reliable sources. I have no issue with the rebuttal at this point, but his/her approach completely diminishes the scale of what the AAU study found, which quoting the AP, "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough."Mattnad (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
As a starting point, I think it would be helpful if Mattnad would remove and stop trying to re-insert the disputed material in to the lead paragraph of the entry until some kind of consensus is reached. It's hard to tell what changes are being discussed when the status quo keeps moving.
I think Robert McClenon's proposal for a new round of RfC's may be a better basis for generating consensus, and I think a lack of eyeballs on the page is part of the root problem. That said: it seems like we have talked past each other on the nature of the dispute, and I think confusion over the nature of the dispute made the previous round of RfCs less productive than they could have been. Is it outside the scope of this process to ask for a mediated discussion simply to clarify the dispute itself, with the goal of creating a more productive round of RfCs? Nblund (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
- We could try another RFC, but I'm fine just adding the reporting on the finding (per AP as a mainstream reliable source) and in the spirit of NPOV the WaPo interpretation (with appropropriate mention of the source). Fisher has made her career around sexual assault, but for the benefit of the other editors here, the DOJs bureau of justice statistic has found 0.61% annual incidence for college students which is lower than the numbers reported in Fisher's research. The gap between the two stems in part from the broader definitions used by Fisher which many students don't think are as serious as Fisher thinks they are. Also, per Nblund's own sources, part of the disagreement in interpretation comes from feminist opinion, which is fine to include, but does not disqualify other views.
- So, what I've been seeking is NPOV balance, where it belongs per the sources - with the AAU study section.Mattnad (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Volunteer note 3: After an inquiry on my user talk page, I've taken a look at the discussion and added and notified three parties who have been involved in the recent discussion. I don't think that they're absolutely necessary parties to this case going forward, but they ought to be given a chance to participate if they care to do so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Update: VQuakr has indicated at her/his user talk page that s/he does not care to participate here, which should not affect whether or not a volunteer opens the case. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Participant Comment: I'm fine with this finding not being in the lede, but in the particular section related to the AAU study from where it came. However, Nblund has argued against this, saying it's common to most studies, so it would be undue to put in that section. She and Carwil refer heavily to Bonnie Fisher whom they have cited as an expert and one of the AAU study designers to support this argument. However, a direct quote from Fisher says otherwise. Per a Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” [1]. I would seem the Fisher sees this finding as new, important, and worthy of "discussion". However Nblund has taken the position that Fisher's plain English quote in the Washinton post is "unverified" and contradicted by Nblund's interpretation of a general statement from the study. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I'm not sure that Nblund is interpreting Wikipedia guidelines correctly and perhaps not discussing this in good faith.Mattnad (talk) 19:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer moderator
I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I expect every editor to check this page at least every 48 hours and to comment if requested. I will check this page at least every 24 hours. Be civil and concise. There is a widespread belief in Wikipedia that civility is encouraged but optional. It is not. It is mandatory, especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify anything. Comment on content, not contributors. Will every participant please provide a short summary within the next 48 hours of what they think the issues are? If you think that RFCs, rather than moderated discussion, are in order, put that in your statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Also, do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. It is recommended that you not discuss the article at its talk page while this discussion is in progress, because comments at the talk page may not be seen here. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
First statements by editors
Mattnad, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've more or less reached agreement on most of the issues here. From where I sit, it seems like the primary sticking point is over whether to present this finding in the AAU section. I think presenting it in that section is misleading, because, as I explained in this edit, this finding isn't unique to the AAU study. You cited the quote from Fisher in the Washington Post as evidence that this finding is new, but I don't think that quote is especially persuasive. EDIT: an RfC would be ideal, but I think we're fairly close to consensus here and I'm ready to see this get resolved.
First, I think that quote is actually fairly ambiguous. Fisher doesn't specify what part of the finding in question hasn't been measured in the past.
Second, it seems like it may have been a misquote or quoted out of context. Other sources that covered the AAU report include a very similar quote in reference to different portions of the survey. From a Minnesota paper
The survey found that 11 percent of undergraduate women experienced vaginal penetration or oral sex without their "active, ongoing voluntary agreement." This rate ranged from 5 percent to 21 percent among the 27 schools. "That will stimulate a lot of discussion," said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. "We as researchers don't know a lot about this -- it hasn't been measured in the past."
And here is a nearly identical quote in a story from the HuffingtonPost
The AAU survey found 11.4 percent of undergraduate women and 14.8 percent of undergrad LGBTQ students at these campuses experienced sexual assault involving penetration or oral sex due to a lack of affirmative consent. "That in itself is going to stimulate a lot of discussion," said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at University of Cincinnati, and consultant at Westat, the firm that conducted the survey. "We don't, as researchers, know much about this phenomenon because it hasn't been measured in the past."
The fact that other sources reproduced this quote in reference to a different survey finding suggests, to me at least, that Fisher said this, but may have said it in relation to another portion of this survey. I'm particularly skeptical that the WaPo version is accurate because Fisher herself has produced this same finding in her past work, and has written on it extensively.
Third, even if Fisher was accurately quoted, we have numerous reliable sources that show that this finding is consistent with past research, and where there is conflict between sources, I think we should favor the more numerous and more reliable version. The AAU report itself says fairly explicitly that this finding is consistent with past research: "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003). (p. 36)" And other academic sources also note that the "not serious enough to report" finding is fairly common. Nblund (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nblund, the question is common, but in the AAU study the rate that people responded in the affirmative to "not serious enough" at 50% to 75% (depending on the type of assault or misconduct) is unheard of. By comparison the Federal Government's Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010 report found only 10.6% of respondents who had been sexually assaulted indicated they didn't report it due to " Not important enough to respondent" but it was still dominant among the other choices. This enormous gap between the AAU (50% to 75%) and for instance the Federal survey (10.6%) is why it became news and why Bonnie Fisher (your preferred expert) said they've never seen this before per the Washington Post (which is a bit more rigorous than the volunteer Huffington Post reporters).
- It's also why commentators have pointed it out as a sign that the AAU study is flawed in it's definitions and categorization of sexual assault. You don't want those comments in there at all and have taken them out in the past despite being in reliable sources.
- I will add that you want us to focus on what the AAU report's ambiguous statement "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003). (p. 36)". However WP:RS states "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." It's not clear exactly what they are referring to from the 2003 text. At any rate Wikipedia explicitly prefers reliable secondary sources on topics rather than primary for good reason.Mattnad (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator
I had instructed the parties to be civil and concise. They have been civil but not concise. (I would rather have this than have them be concise but not civil, because that, which is too common, is a brief exchange of insults. I am satisfied that the parties are being civil.) Before we can discuss the details, we need to identify any areas of disagreement. (If we don't identify any areas of disagreement, then we can close the case.) What does each editor think needs to be changed in the article? What does each editor think needs to be kept the same in the article that the other editor wants to change? Do any of the three silent editors want to participate? It appears that there is scholarly consensus that sexual assault on campus is under-reported. So is there a question about which sources to quote, or is there a detailed disagreement about how to state the underreporting, or is it something else altogether?
Second statements by editors
I think the status quo is okay (first paragraph of this section), and I think Carwil's suggestion of including expanding in to a short section on non-reporting that includes criticisms like the one Mattnad cites is also reasonable -- I removed those previously because they weren't attributed in-text and weren't presented as minority viewpoints. I think the sticking point is over whether or not the stat should be included in the AAU section. This seems unhelpful to me, and I think Mattnad and I are actually in agreement that the Prevalence and Incidence section needs to be trimmed in a way that doesn't emphasize individual surveys so much. EDIT to answer the last question: 2015 AAU report found that most who don't report an assault do so because they did not think it was serious enough to report. Mattnad's view, as I understand it, is that this finding is unique and new to this report and wants to present them that way, my view is that these are consistent with previous research and should be presented as such.
Nblund (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The status quo as Nblund puts it reflects her making changes, well after the dispute started, that suit her position. I didn't stop her, but I didn't agree with the approach either. It should be noted that Fisher qualifies the "not serious enough" response as Feminist opinion, "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." Fisher is not referring mainstream research here, but opinions. It's certainly not "established research" as Nblund suggested.
As a compromise, I'd say we can leave Nblund's preamble in so long as we can also include the specific findings in the AAU section. I think those should be there per reliable secondary sources, including analysis of its implications by the Washington Post (with author attribution).
We have multiple reliable sources commenting directly on the AAU study, noting the majority (sometimes "vast majority") of respondents "didn't think it was serious enough." These rates are very high (up to 75%) which is why so many sources picked up on it. Here are a few samples: [2],[3], [4],[5],[6],[7], [8], [9], [10]
It's established practice in Wikipedia to refer to reliable sources, preferably secondary sources. In this case, I think it's fair and acceptable to include what's been said about this particular study. Nblund refers to a single author, Bonnie Fisher's general opinions from 1999 and 2003 as a justification for suppressing the details. Those dated opinions should not disqualify what's been specifically reported and discussed around the current 2015 AAU study. In my view, Nblund's desire to suppress the AAU findings is out of line with Wikipedia practice and is founded in WP:SYN. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- Can you clarify whether you are disputing the facts or just disputing the rules? In other words: do you believe that this is actually a new or unique finding and wish to present it that way or do you agree with my view that this is a not new or unique finding, but you are concerned that it is novel synthesis if we note that?
- Also, I think we all agree that the AAU found that the overwhelming majority of non-reporting victims gave this response, and that other news outlets reported it. But do any of those sources support the argument that this is a new finding? There's a quote from Fisher, but are there any others? Nblund (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting either of your options above. This is an editorial debate. The facts are not in dispute and I have no idea what you mean by "disputing the rules." My point is that we should include the facts as presented by reliable sources.
- Here's what I think you're doing: since the "not important enough" question has been part of past surveys, so you are arguing there's nothing new here, and we should not include it in the AAU section. However, I recall you are doing this because you don't want anything "that it makes the findings appear less impactful" [11] which is grounded in your opinion and not reliable sources. You also ignore the detail about the magnitude of the finding, which Fisher as originally quoted states is new ground. The Minnesota paper indicates it drew from the WP article, but then changed the context. Even if Fisher hadn't said that, multiple reliable sources have cited the stats - They are notable and well supported.
- I've offered a compromise - letting you include hypothetical opinions on why women might say this in the preceding section (which should be appropriate qualified). So. Are you up for it?Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- It seems like there might be a factual dispute: you said that the 50-75% finding is "very high" and "unprecedented", and argued that Fisher's quote indicates that the magnitude of the finding is new. I find this assertion puzzling, because I already pointed to three previous surveys where 50-80% of women gave this same response. If this is your reasoning, can you provide any additional reliable sources that specifically bolster the view that this is new finding? Or is the quote from Fisher the only basis you have? If you agree that this is not a new finding, can you suggest how you would avoid obscuring that fact if you cite this in the AAU subsection? Why not mention it in the subsection for the CSA or NCWSV, which found similar rates of this response?
- It sounds like your proposed compromise is that, in exchange for getting the thing I identified as the nub of the dispute, you will refrain from excising reliably sourced materials from a prominent expert. I don't think that's really a compromise at all since you haven't made a tenable case for removing those statements. It could make for awkward wording, but I don't see much of a problem with noting that AAU study was one of a number of surveys that found that most non-reporting victims give this response, as long as it comes in the context of a discussion of scholarly interpretations of that result. Nblund (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your "scholarly source" refers to feminist opinion as the counterpoint and interpretation. That is one one view, and allowable with attribution, but not the only one. By restricting the sources to the only ones you approve of violates NPOV. There is no reason to exclude what newspapers say about the AAU study. If you refuse to move on this, perhaps this forum is not going to work. To the moderators, it would seem that Nblund is not interested in compromise here at all.Mattnad (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've offered a compromise - letting you include hypothetical opinions on why women might say this in the preceding section (which should be appropriate qualified). So. Are you up for it?Mattnad (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Criticism_of_religion_sidebar#Non-religion_critics_entries
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Futile. Other disputants have not responded or have indicated that they are not interested in participating. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is never mandatory. Filing party should consider a WP:RFC carefully-and-clearly-worded request for comments, if that's not already been tried. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Panagiotis Kone
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- DevilWearsBrioni (talk · contribs)
- Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
- Zoupan (talk · contribs)
- MorenaReka (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
I don't believe the following: "Kone was born in Tirana, Albania, to an ethnic Greek family" is supported by the source, in which the subject is being quoted as having said: "I still have relatives in Albania, they're all Greek." This, I argue is a conjectural interpretation of the subjects declaration. I also argue that the quote is a mistranslation of the original source in Italian (see contradicting sources on the talk page). Further, I propose removing "in Albania" from "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania", because it's again a conjectural interpretation of the source; it implies he meant that he hasn't faced any discrimination because he was born in Albania, but according to the source, he declared "I have never denied my origin, but in Greece I haven't been discriminated". It's not up to us to put a meaning to Kone's words, thus "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin" would be more in line with what he actually said.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Asked User:SilkTork for assistance who confirmed that the entry was troublesome. I've also posted my concerns on noticeboards.
How do you think we can help?
Determine whether the entry in question contains original research, and if the explanation I've provided regarding the conflicting sources is valid.
Summary of dispute by Alexikoua
The part in question can be traslanted in English: I've migrated from Tirana to Athens with my family at the age of two years. I still have some members of my family in Albania, but they are all Greeks. This doesn't leave any doubt that he originates from the Greek-Albanian community (i.e. ethnic Greek community in Albania), since even his relatives that are still in Albania are Greeks. Anything else is simply OR in this case. Alexikoua (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Zoupan
The subject calls himself ethnic Greek. The issue is that some users try to downplay this ethnic identification by using OR (see the talk page), and now by using vagueness, such as changing "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin in Albania" to "he has never faced discrimination in Greece because of his origin". That's all I have to say about this.--Zoupan 14:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by MorenaReka
Summary of dispute by Resnjari
I have been observing this matter now for some time now. Points of dispute are over whether Kone meant "origin" (in Greek) as in heritage or ethnic background or whether origin meant as in he just is from Albania in a geographical and citizenship sense. Regarding the sources, we need Greek translations from editors who have not been involved in the dispute and who have a very good record of being impartial. This is the only way around this to clear up the matter. The news article do attribute these statements to Kone. Its the meaning or meanings that need elaboration. Thoughts from the administrators adjudicating the case on this proposal, of seeking out translations from other editors having a long record of impartiality to determine the matter and establish whether the proposed changes are relevant to the article?Resnjari (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Additional comment:Ok, i probably jumped the gun there. Nonetheless in the end some proper impartial translations are going to be needed of Kone's more recent statements regarding himself and his heritage. The issue of Kone's statements regarding his identity reflect the wider identity issues(and fluidity) surrounding some of Albania's Orthodox community (Albanian speakers, Aromanian speakers etc) and their migration to Greece. Regarding this part of the Kone matter at the moment, the sentence in the article needs to be altered as the source quoting Kone makes reference to him saying he has Greek relatives in Albania, not to being of Greek origin. The article itself however has a sentence which purports to interpret that as Kone stating he has an outright Greek origin. Apart from it being wp:original research, it is also distorting Kone's words. Some change is this warranted so the article reflects Kone's words.Resnjari (talk) 07:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Panagiotis Kone discussion
- Volunteer note - First, this case is properly filed, and there has been adequate discussion on the talk page. Second, User:Resnjari has commented. Do they want to be added as a party, or are they making a neutral comment? At this point, we are waiting for statements from the other parties as to whether they want to participate in voluntary moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - For what it's worth, I believe User:Resnjari's summary adds confusion to the discussion, because he seems to have misunderstood the points I put forth. The interpretation of Kone's press release from 2015 is -- although related to the issue at hand -- a separate point that I haven't made here, yet. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#College campuses section has too much of a newspaper quality to it (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Dan Eisenberg (talk · contribs)
- ScottyNolan (talk · contribs)
- N.F.B.R (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is disagreement about whether several recent anti-semitic incidents should be included in the college section of this article. Some feel it helps to make the points of the article, while I believe this is unenyclopedic (wikipedia is not a newspaper) and contrary to general wikipedia standards.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on talk page and citing wikipedia policies--but resolution does not seem to be forthcoming after almost a month and I don't feel discussions are proving the most productive.
How do you think we can help?
It would be helpful for an experienced editor familiar with wikipedia policies and norms to weigh in on this.
Summary of dispute by ScottyNolan
For my opinion, examples of certain incidents (some have been already erased) are important to brighten and point on several trends in the issue of antisemitism in US campuses.
Summary of dispute by N.F.B.R
Talk:Antisemitism in_the_United_States#College_campuses_section_has_too_much_of_a_newspaper_quality_to_it discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the talk page. One of the other editors was notified; I have notified the other editor. Waiting for statements from the other editors since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScottyNolan Poeticbent talk 02:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
24-hour closing notice: If the other primary editor involved, ScottyNolan, does not respond by this time tomorrow by providing a Summary of Dispute, above, this case will be closed by a volunteer as futile. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)
- @TransporterMan: I'm a little confused? ScottyNolan has provided a summary of the dispute, albeit rather short. N.F.B.R has not responded, but that account seems to be not very active (only 2 edits ever made on it) and I would think we could proceed without N.F.B.R? Thanks. - Dan Eisenberg (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- You're right on both counts, my apologies, but if N.F.B.R. is eliminated then we have a discussion which only has one edit by one of the participants. That would seem not to satisfy that there have been extensive discussion on the article talk page, as required by this noticeboard. Having said that, I'm going to withdraw the closing notice and leave this open to see if a volunteer cares to take it. If none does, it will be closed as stale in two or three dates. Should that occur, you might want to consider a request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source
– Discussion in progress.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
I've had an edit I made removed multiple times by another editor. I'd like to know how to proceed. The other editor is simply removing the text rather than altering it in any meaningful way.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I've requested for him to make sense of the standard he's applying and how it differs from simply whitewashing. I've also proposed that the text get altered rather than simply removed. He just removes it
How do you think we can help?
Please weigh in, let us know how to proceed, and protect the page if necessary. If I'm doing something wrong, please let me know how I can improve my behavior. Thanks!
Summary of dispute by CFredkin
The edit in question is not supported by the source provided, and it is blatantly POV. The article is a WP:BLP, and "contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
Since KBAeigs is presenting himself as new to Wikipedia, he/she may not be aware of policies regarding verifiability and neutrality, particularly with regards to BLP's (although I've provided links to the relevant articles in the Talk discussion). Perhaps he/she will be more amenable to coaching from other editors.CFredkin (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I'll also note that I've suggested possible alternative language based on the source in Talk.CFredkin (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Cory Gardner#Edit_not_supported_by_source discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The filing party did not notify the other editor, but I have notified the other editor. Waiting for response from the other editor, since moderated dispute resolution is voluntary. Both parties are cautioned that they are close to 3RR, and so are advised that any form of dispute resolution, including here, is to be preferred over edit-warring. I am neither opening nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Note to participants: I am willing to moderate this case, pending a response from the second party. /wia /tlk 15:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)- Note to participants: I have opened the case and will provide an opening statement shortly. /wiae /tlk 18:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
First round of statements
First statement by volunteer moderator
Good day, I will be moderating the discussion. I'll ask that each party (myself included) make a point of checking in every 48 hours, that discussion here be centred on the content at issue, and that no party (myself included) edit the article in question while the discussion is underway. There appear to be two issues at play:
- Should CISA-related content appear in the article?
- If so, how should it be worded? The proposed wording was
In 2015, after being elected as a senator for Colorado, he hid the previously rejected CISA legislation in an omnibus spending bill along with Sens. Jim Inhofe and Thom Tillis.
This raises two subissues:- Is "hid" the appropriate word for CISA's inclusion in the Consolidated Appropriations Act? The extent of The Intercept's discussion of this is a reference to "omnibus spending bill that included a version of CISA".
- Can Gardner, Inhofe and Tillis be said to be responsible for including CISA within the spending bill? The Intercept article refers to Gardner, Inhofe and Tillis in three ways: as "lawmakers", "legislators" and "senators".
@KBAegis: you are concerned that failure to mention the CISA content constitutes whitewashing. Given Wikipedia's original research policy prohibiting content that "reach[es] or impl[ies] a conclusion not stated by the sources", would your concerns be allayed if a sentence (or sentences) were included, phrased to describe exactly what reliable sources have said? @CFredkin: you state that the sentence is not supported by The Intercept article and runs afoul of verifiability, neutrality and biographies of living persons policies. If you're okay with some CISA-related content in the article, could you suggest a phrasing that you think would comply with these policies? /wiae /tlk 19:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
First statement by KBAegis
First statement by CFredkin
As I stated previously, based on the source, I think we can reasonably say that Gardner voted for the omnibus budget bill, which contained the CISA provision.CFredkin (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Coordinator's note
I rather suspect that KBAegis may have left the encyclopedia, having only 16 edits. I'd recommend that if s/he has not responded to the ping I've given here by 19:00 UTC on January 6 that this case be closed as abandoned, subject to being refiled (not reopened) only on a commitment to respond within 48 hours to every inquiry posted here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN coordinator)
User talk:NatGertler#Jack_London_entry
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Close as a request that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The filing party appears to be requesting article ownership and use this board to enforce article ownership, and has a conflict of interest. The filing party is cautioned to read Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia is not a directory because it is an encyclopedia. Any neutral discussion of article content by neutral editors may take place at the talk page, or at biographies of living persons noticeboard, or via Requests for Comments. If conduct issues such as article ownership or conflict of interest editing resume, they should be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:White savior narrative in film#12 Years a Slave (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
Users involved
- Dschslava (talk · contribs)
- Erik (talk · contribs)
- 70.190.188.48 (talk · contribs)
- Betty Logan (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
There is currently a dispute on whether the film 'Twelve Years a Slave' should be included amongst the list of examples of the white savior narrative in film.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Discussion on talk page of article.
How do you think we can help?
Extra opinions would be nice.
Summary of dispute by Erik
12 Years a Slave was added to white savior narrative in film because there were reliable sources discussing how the film had a white savior. The IP editor personally believes that the sources are wrong and that there can only be a white savior throughout the film, not at the end. While the film may be different from others in this regard, the list's film entry actually specifically discusses the scope in which the white savior appears: "While 12 Years a Slave focused mainly on Northup's resilience, and a Canadian did in reality rescue Northup, the film was identified as a cinematic representation of slavery that depicted a white savior." Where applicable, some other films on the list have similar clarifying language, such as The Man Who Would Be King being ironic but still portraying the natives as in need of a white savior, or the McFarland, USA director's attempted counter-argument. It was also argued that 12 Years a Slave was much more about slavery than about a white savior. This is absolutely true, but the elements are not mutually exclusive. The film article itself should not devote a higher word count to discussing the white savior over discussing slavery. That's why the white savior narrative in film is only linked in the "See also" section as a tangentially related topic. Within the white savior article, though, 12 Years a Slave is worth listing as part of the filmography. It is by no means the strongest example, but it is an example nonetheless, and appropriate to include since it is verifiable through reliable sources. (And it is only at the top of the list because the films are listed alphabetically.) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- McCoy, Dorian L.; Rodricks, Dirk J. (2015). "Critical Race Theory in Higher Education: 20 Years of Theoretical and Research Innovations". ASHE Higher Education Report. 41 (3). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-119-11203-7.
Critics contended it was yet another film showcasing a White savior with Pitt (who also produced the film) positioning himself as such.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
Above is a reliable source that retrospectively reports on the criticism at the time. It refers to multiple commentators identifying the white savior in the film. This does not mean it invalidates 12 Years a Slave being a quality film about slavery. Again, the elements of slavery and white savior are not mutually exclusive. Praise is not a reason to exclude a film; several films on the list are well-praised but are also identified as having a white savior. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 70.190.188.48
My problem with having 12 Years a Slave as an example of having a white savior is that it ignores the very criticism that people have with this trope, which is that a piece of work that is essentially about the struggles of people of color against racism is all about some white person helping said people of color. You can't just stretch the definition to just mean "white guy helps non-white guy"; for most people, the white savior has to be a white protagonist, or at the very least the deuteragonist, who helps out the non-white character(s) who are struggling under a system that is either blatantly racist like Jim Crow or Apartheid, or "merely" has the undertones of racism, like the poverty-stricken areas of the inner city or a third-world country. I am not saying that because a work is pointing out the problems of its white savior narrative it should not be an example in this article; I am saying the white savior just doesn't exist! I cannot be the only person that has a problem with 12 Years a Slave, a film that has been praised to death for not only showing the brutality of slavery, but also for showing it from a slave's point-of-view, being included in a list of movies that has a white savior narrative. And I especially don't like how the creator of the article has full control over it and denies having other people have a say in it, and how they think that because they found three people who did not like the movie and for some reason thinks it has a white savior, this automatically cancels out the hundreds of people who praised it for NOT having a white savior. 70.190.188.48 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Betty Logan
We have various policies which govern content. It is irrelevant if an editor disagrees with the existence of such a trope; it has been extensively writen about and satisifes notability, and even gained unanimous support in an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White savior narrative in film. The policies which are applicable here are WP:Verfiability and WP:WEIGHT. Inclusion and exclusion should only be subject to sourced commentary, not to arguments put forward by editors; this is one of Wikipedia's fundamental core policies. I am of the opinion that this article should not take a supportive view of the trope but a balanced one. Twelve Years a Slave is included in the list because reliable sources have identified it as exhibiting the trope per WP:Verfiability. If a reliable source puts forward a challenge then in the interest of taking a balanced view of the trope then I absolutely agree that this challenge should be fully documented in the article. If there are "hundreds of people who praised it for NOT having a white savior" then in principle I agree this cancels out a minority held opinion per WP:WEIGHT. I stipulated on the article talk page that challenges to content must be via reliably sourced counter-arguments, but no sources have been forthcoming. Until there are I don't see how there can be any "resolution". Betty Logan (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:White savior_narrative_in_film#12_Years_a_Slave discussion
- Volunteer comment - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page, and the other parties have been properly notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
What's going on: There are actually two disputes in parallel. The other is on the same talk page, one section up, "Debresser revert of 00:02, 25 December 2015". A direct link may fail, because I put a wikilink in the section title.
I thought I was conducting a reasonable discussion, with a detailed response, but what I get in response from the correspondent is blanket reverts, a feeling that consensus means "his way", and being called a vulgar name. My attempt to work towards a middle ground failed.
What has me particularly bothered was how quickly and extremely the correspondent escalated to vulgarism.
What's the issue: 1] The size of the organization; 2] how to measure the size of the organization; 3] is it the largest; 4] are its outreach efforts "agressive" and "effective"; 5] is it known primarily because of its outreach efforts.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
Backing off, not escalating or responding to personal attacks and the use of vulgarisms. Looking at the article revision history, I see that much of what the correspondent contributes are reverts, and I'm thinking that he's emotional and personal about keeping the article just his way.
How do you think we can help?
1] Calm down the environment 2] Introduce consensus as more than just a one-on-one issue. 3] I think all the issues are straightforward and simple. They could be resolved by people who are not expert in the particular subject. You could introduce your own opinions into the discussion / consensus, or invite others to do so. 4] Not to get dramatic, but I see the correspondent has now been active on edits I made on another, unrelated subject, tractate, and am at doubts if this is the beginning of some minor stalking.
Summary of dispute by Debresser
The discussion on the talkpage is only 2 posts by Boruch Baum and two post by me, each of mine a reply to his. I asked precise questions in my second post, to which Boruch Baum has not replied. I think it is far to early to ask for dispute resolution. Even if the discussion were longer, and Boruch Baum would have answered by questions in defense of his edit, a first good step would be asking editors at WT:JUDAISM for their input.
As far as the behavioral issue goes, WP:BRD says clearly that once reverted, consensus should be established before making another edit, but Boruch Baum thinks that he should edit before establishing consensus. That seems to be his general attitude here on Wikipedia. That is also part of the problem, but if he is now willing to discuss first, which his coming here seems to imply, then that is a step forward.
Robert McClenon, I have no problem with you managing the proceedings here, since I have no problems with how you handled the other conflict between Boruch Baum and me: we were wrong, you reported us, that's the way things should be. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Chabad#Debresser revert of 12:49, 25 December 2015 discussion
- Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editor of the filing. The filing editor appears to have introduced a reference to a non-existent page as well as to the subject page. I will be removing the incorrect reference. The responsibility to notify the other editor belongs to the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
|
I'd like to add that I'm having the same issue with Debresser (talk · contribs) on another page. He is an aggressive and unilateral reverter, assumes his reverts are automatically consensus, and accuses anybody of another opinion as being an edit warrior. He engages in ad hominem attacks easily. Lokshin kugel (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
- Volunteer note - I will be recusing from this case because of a previous involvement with these same editors who don't like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Rocket League#Platform
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
- Talk:Rocket League#Platform (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template talk:Infobox video game
Users involved
Dispute overview
This is a dispute over what content should be included in the platform section of video game's infobox; specifically whether the platform section should list announced and/or released platforms.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
After a couple edits back and forth; there's been some discussion on the talk page but I think both parties agree it's not going anywhere.
How do you think we can help?
I think at this point we just need an uninvolved party to catch up with our discussions and give us an idea of what the appropriate policy should be.
Summary of dispute by Lordtobi
Given user, Arwineap, has started removing officially to-be-released announced platforms OS X and Linux from given article, Rocket League. Both platforms have multiply been stated to have ports in development, just like Xbox One, which also has not been released yet but unreleatedly did not come to Arwineap's attention. Fact is that the "platforms=" tag in {{Infobox video game}} serves for platforms on which the game has officially been released or announced, if not canceled. And this is just the case. I have, over a longer discussion over on Rocket League's talk page, tried to explain why it is correct what is said about OS X and Linux (and also Xbox One). But I was yet again presented with another answer dealing with their own opinion about "why it can be but is not yet". I respect that given person is new to Wikipedia, but they should not try to get through their personal thougts or opinions about a certain topic which has been explainedly disproven. Lordtobi (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion went as stated in the dispute above, Arwineap started removing OS X and Linux from the
platforms=tag of {{Infobox video game}}, which was reverted twice by Dissident93 and the last one by myself, warning about the ongoing edit war. It was taken to the discussion on the Rocket League talk page, where I again explained why given user is wrong, which lead to a discussion about "announced platforms not being part of the computing platform article", which is nonsense. I replied with the conventions and guidelines given by the template itself, but all Arwineap did was denying. I was reissuing the same statement all over the discussion, trying to explain how Wikipedia works because he seemed like a new user, but got about the same, ignorant and redundant answer again and again. It was finally taken here nonsensely by Arwineap, until Dissident93 turned up to also regard the same reason of Arwineap's wrongness, which gave nothing but same answer again. As I looked into the template once more, I saw that it was actually not stated clearly, but still was what everyone was using on every page (except for Goat Simulator, which has had the same issue by Arwineap back in 2014, also for OS X and Linux), so I tried to clarify but that was undone by Czar, so I put it up on the template's takl page, where I only got one answer: The same redundant answer, again by Arwineap, why it would be "bad for the Linux gaming community" and personal opinions they try to cover as facts. A later answer by Dissident93 gave the agreement with the statement of the clarification. I had reached out to undo-er Czar for a statement, but received no answer so far. And this is basically where it was left. It saw no further activity by Arwineap except for and excessively unneeded comment again by Arwineap on the Rocket League talk page, but no answer or edit neither on this page, nor on the template talk page, which is why I have to do the write-down right now. I tried to remove this discussion as it was pure nonsense and this is the really wrong place for it (as issued by Czar below), but was reverted as that is "not my job", but then, I wonder, who's job is it to remove pure nonsense? Lordtobi (✉) 16:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Rocket League#Platform discussion
- Volunteer note: I'm neither taking this case or opening it for discussion, but merely noting that discussion and notice are adequate. We're waiting at this point for a volunteer to take the case.
response from the other editor.— TransporterMan (TALK) 20:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)
- There has been additional discussion and additional parties joining in at Template talk:Infobox video game; if a DRN volunteer takes this case, those additional parties may need to be added here, but the issue may be resolved by consensus at that forum. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- We commonly rectify these sorts of questions at the talk pages of either Template talk:Infobox video game or WT:VG czar 21:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Martin McGuinness#.22deputy.22_vs_.22Deputy.22
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Administrative close. No parties listed other than the filing party. Feel free to refile and list all participants in the dispute, but before you do consider that we require recent and extensive talk page discussion on an issue before accepting it. I see only two edits since 2010 on the listed page about the capitalization issue. Unless there is additional discussion elsewhere on that page, or on some other talk page you can point us to, there's no point in refiling until such a recent discussion has taken place. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:List of_notable_former_Orthodox_Jews#Statement_On_Historic_Use_of_the_Word_Orthodoxy
– General close. See comments for reasoning. | Conduct dispute. DRN — see the instructions at the top of this page — does not handle disputes which are conduct disputes. If the article survives the AfD process, the filing editor may consider refiling this case but if he does so he must entirely avoid mentioning other editors' alleged motives, biases, conflicts of interest, skills, habits, competence, POV, POV-pushing, intolerance, incivility, or anything else about their alleged conduct or behavior. Conduct issues are handled strictly by administrators and forums such as ANI. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC) |
| Closed discussion |
|---|
Talk:Madhhab#Zahirism
– New discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
- Misdemenor (talk · contribs)
- Kashmiri (talk · contribs)
- MezzoMezzo (talk · contribs)
Dispute overview
The issue is that the Zahiri School has been added alongside the 4 Sunni Schools on Template:Sunni Islam. Zahiri was considered unorthodox by the traditional Sunni establishment and many reliable sources say its no longer active. The Zahiri school is therefore incorrectly labeled Sunni on two other articles Zahiri, Amman Message.
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
I tried to discuss the issue with the editors involved on the article talk page and even took it to the NPOV noticeboard. See previous discussion here [12]
How do you think we can help?
By more neutral editors opinion perhaps this dispute may be resolved.
Summary of dispute by Kashmiri
Academic sources list the Zahiri among Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence. As to its extinction, the school was indeed extinct for a millennium, however there are sources that say that recently it is being revived. I don't find it convincing to disregard all the academic sources and instead rely only on the Amman Message, a political document that concerns itself with the influential branches of today's Islam. kashmiri TALK 13:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)