Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 129

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias
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

Editors are divided on whether or not content relating to Elizabeth II at List of the oldest living state leaders is both biased and inaccurate. Now at the level of revert warring.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion at the article talk page and User talk:Neve-selbert.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a mediating service, part of which may involve reminding dispute participants of policies and guidelines.

Summary of dispute by Neve-selbert
I concur with GoodDay; in her positions as Queen, she is predominately referred to as being Queen of the United Kingdom (rather Queen of England, a popular misconception) rather than as Queen of Jamaica, Queen of the Bahamas or even Queen of Pakistan. Instead of over-complicating the article with the inclusion of every single sovereign state and entity she has ever reigned over in her entire lifetime (derived originally from the British throne), we can simply add a link to the Commonwealth realms, and readers can click this link and understand why, exactly she is the monarch—and has been the monarch—of almost a quarter of a hundred states. To follow the argument of Miesianiacal would be to remove the link within the table pertaining to the other Commonwealth realms, as he would make this collective group redundant by naming tirelessly and individually every single sovereign throne she has ever sat on. Neve-selbert (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GoodDay
IMHO, there shouldn't be any disagreement at the article-in-question. Verifable sources will easily proove that Elizabeth II is associated mostly with the United Kingdom. She was born there, got married there, was crowned there, will likely be buried there. Because she resides predominantly there, the UK is the only Commonwealth realm which doesn't have or require a governor general. Let's be honest, aswell. Do we often see headlines like Queen of Tuvalu, visits.... or howabout Queen of Antigua and Barbados, visited....? we must consider WP:WEIGHT here. Furthermore, having the United Kingdom and the other realms spread out into the article-in-question, in such a manner (instead of just having United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwelath realms), is un-necessary. For the article's structure, we should go with the consice & compact version. So again, there really shouldn't be a dispute at all. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Miesianaical
In the row for Elizabeth II, in the 'state' column, there is currently depicted a British flag preceding the words "United Kingdom and 15 other states". In the 'position' column is "Queen (1952-present)". The problems with the aforementioned are: a) Elizabeth II has been queen of only four of the 16 realms since 1952. She became queen of the 12 others at various later dates. b) The Commonwealth realms (what the "United Kingdom and 15 other states" is indirectly referring to) are not collectively represented by the British flag. Even if the flag is intended to be associated only with the words "United Kingdom", it is still possible for readers unfamiliar with the topic of the Commonwealth realms to interpret it as being associated with the whole bloc of countries. c) The UK holds no special status apart from, let alone "above", the other realms. Some editors claim it does by virtue of not having a governor-general and the monarch will die and be buried there. However, those are differences and "different" doesn't necessarily equate to "superior" or justify special treatment. This fact is recognised in the row for Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, who was both President of France and Co-Prince of Andorra; it does not say in the list "President of France and head of one other state", though Giscard is (some editors would likely say) "known mostly" as President of France, will be buried there, had a representative in Andorra, etc. And d) not only are the not-UK realms relegated to second class status relative to the UK, but to every other country in the list, as well. The list consistently provides the flag and name of every country except when it comes to the "15 other states". Again, Andorra and France are both given full display and flags next to Giscard.

The edit I first made on 18 November seemed, to me, to resolve all those issues in a way that at least provided no reason to object. It still "favoured" the UK by way of keeping it at the top of the sub-list (though, that also follows the established protocol for listing the reams), yet made the other realms no different to the UK or every other country in the larger list by way of showing their names and corresponding national flags; it is more consistent with the list as a whole. Additionally, it corrected the misinformation on the length of Elizabeth II's reign as queen of 12 of the realms.

One editor stated my change did not recognise the countries Elizabeth II formerly reigned as queen of. However, the present iteration of the list doesn't, either. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Killuminator
The cause of this dispute is the perceived bias in favor of the United Kingdom. Queen Elizabeth II is head of state not only in the UK, but also for many other countries. These countries (Canada, Jamaica, Australia etc.) were completely omitted. Since the numbers of countries is over a dozen, some contributors are in favor of simply stating that she rules the UK + these other countries and some contributors wish to enumerate them claiming bias. Many users agree that the Queen is mostly associated with the UK (she lives in the UK, she's British etc.) and claim that giving same weight to other countries is not necessary and that this bias does not exist. I took a look at the UN website to see how they address the Queen. She is mainly referred to as the the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other UN Member States which prompts me to believe that this is an adopted norm in international relations. In many ways, my stance is similar to that of user GoodDay so I will avoid redundancy. --Killuminator (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders#Bias discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Recusing myself as a volunteer on this request as I have had interactions with at least one participant.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ There has been sufficient prior discussion on the article talk page. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Not all participants have been notified on their talk pages of this request. I will do so shortly if filing party does not. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Please keep discussion to a minimum before the case is opened by a volunteer. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC) ✅ All parties have been notified. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Are the involved parties inclined to wait for DerbyCountyinNZ before we begin, or should we start without him/her? Also, will Killuminator be joining us? JQTriple7 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Question: Is DerbyCountyinNZ included as a participant? Killuminator only rejoined the dispute at the list talk page after GoodDay pinged him today and he made his first comment after I placed this request. There is a general notice about this request at the list talk page, but I will leave a note at Killuminator's talk page, as well. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  20:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've invited DerbyCountyinNZ. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have manually added DerbyCountyinNZ to the users involved list. JQTriple7 (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps give it 24 hours from time of posting this request? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * He will be joining us, shortly. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I will accept this case either a) when all dispute summaries are complete, or b) 24 hours from posting of the case. JQTriple7 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Thank you for your summaries. It doesn't seem like we will be hearing from DerbyCountyinNZ, and since participation here is voluntary, the silence of one party does not prevent this case from beginning. The final party may join at any stage if he/she so pleases. I am JQTriple7, and I will be moderating this case for the duration. I would like to begin by laying some ground rules. Failure to follow these rules may result in the case being closed as 'Failed'. First of all, I expect you all to participate every 24-48 hours. If this doesn't happen, the case may be closed as stale. I also expect you to focus on content, not conduct, any personal remarks will not be tolerated. Please be clear and concise in your responses. Failure to follow these rules may result in comments being collapsed or deleted. Finally, please avoid editing the article while this dispute is taking place. Hopefully we can resolve this dispute successfully. Thanks, JQTriple7 (talk) 05:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by volunteer moderator
Greetings everyone. I've looked extensively at all the summaries and evidence provided and it isn't clear to me how to proceed at this stage. I've done a little bit of research, and I am aware one user raised a concern about only the British flag being displayed if we go with 'United Kingdom and 15 other states'. There is in fact a Commonwealth Flag, and it seems to me that another possible solution would be to place the Commonwealth Flag there and state that she is the queen of the Commonwealth of Nations or the British Commonwealth, as it is more commonly know, and to link to the Commonwealth of Nations page where a user can view all member states. I just thought I would add that to the list of possible solutions. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Miesianiacal
Thanks for taking this on. (You may deserve a bravery commendation at the end of this.)

As others have noted already, Elizabeth II is monarch of only 16 of the 53 member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. So, neither the Commonwealth Flag nor Elizabeth's personal flag would apply in the context we're focused on.

The problem of the British flag also is one that stems from the existence of another problem: the UK being named and the remaining Commonwealth realms being lumped into "15 other states". Even if there were a solution to the flag issue, the pro-UK bias in that row and the inconsistency in the overall list (which itself includes a double-standard; see the entry for Giscard) would remain if the wording "United Kingdom and 15 other states" were unaltered. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  22:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to list them all, would you be inclined to list the 16 former States, not mention them, or simply state that there are 16 former States? JQTriple7 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no real problem with listing the states formerly headed by Elizabeth II. It would show readers which countries she is the incumbent leader of and which she is no longer leader of and for how long she was leader of those states, as is consistently done for all the other former leaders in the list. The only other way I can conceive of dealing with this is to somehow link directly to the "Titles and succession" table at Elizabeth II, which already covers such information. But, the whole line for Elizabeth II in List of the oldest living state leaders would have to be changed, a note explaining the inconsistency included, and biased wordings like "United Kingdom and 15 other" still avoided. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  19:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue of removing all the flags is a red herring; it's drawing focus away from the other problems with Elizabeth II line of the list as is. As I noted above, the flag problem is really just the result of the existence of another problem: the random highlighting of the UK (which itself leads to inaccuracy and inconsistency in the list). Keeping in or taking away the flags won't resolve the latter issues.

Additionally, the drop-down idea, as executed, did not resolve those problems, either. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  20:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by GoodDay
The Commonwealth of Nations proposal, is unacceptable. Most of the 53 member states are republics & so don't have Elizabeth II as a monarch or as their head of state. There's also monarchy members (example:Swaziland) which don't have Elizabeth II as their monarch or head of state. Per WP:WEIGHT (via international recognition) it would be best to go with Queen of the United Kingdom and the 15 other Commonwealth realms or Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other states. We can also add the 16 former states. Also, because of the above, the Commonwealth of Nations flag, would also be unadvisable. The Union Jack would suffice at that article. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out my oversight. Yes, that certainly would not do. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Removal of all flags from the article, would solve part of the dispute. They're decorative, but I believe un-necessary if they're going to cause such commotion. This shouldn't be a huge move, as the flags were only added earlier this month. PS- Besides, country flags are better suited for sports articles, like the Olympics. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Neve-selbert
I have just attempted another effort at resolving this dispute—to some extent, at least. Neve-selbert (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Killuminator
The Commonwealth of Nations is an intergovernmental organization, not a state. The article in question deals with leaders of states (even defunct states). I think our first step should be to establish whether the discrimination exists at all before we approach proposing alternative models. The current and disputed formulation goes along this line United Kingdom and 15 other states. Is this a discriminatory formulation ? --Killuminator (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by (involved topic editor)
May I intervene with the comment made at "In my opinion, listing all the realms of which Elizabeth is queen is correct, in the way Mies. proposed. It is not undue. It is true to the uniqueness of her position. If there are others in a similar  position in respect of one or more states, they too should have multiple entries. There is no established criteria for selecting one out of the many, and there is no need for Wikipedia to make some up. Its only a list! There is no good reason for leaving out the sublist for naming the other independent realms whose monarch is Elizabeth.  Compare with the Timetable at Perth Agreement, which contains  a sublist for all six states of Australia." Qexigator (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

- Moved from 's comment section, unless there is a discrepancy here? Qexigator, are you planning on remaining in this discussion? I ask so that may be aware of your involvement. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment : Please note that the word states can mean a) countries and b)federal units. The article in question deals with the first kind of states or countries if you will. --Killuminator (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Perth Agreement Table is an example for including a sublist, not an illustration of sovereign states comparable with the 16 realms having the queen as reigning monarch. Qexigator (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that the revision is not within the scope of this DRN. which is about listing all 15 "other" realms. Qexigator (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see there could possibly an issue with the wording '16 former states' if that is the end result, as that could imply that they are no longer states, rather than that they are now republics. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note further edit and Talk. Qexigator (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

+ The hidden flag lists  well illustrate the point that the flags as such have no informative value whatever for the article. They appear to have been introduced recently to make an otherwise dull list have some eye appeal for those who like colourful flags for their own sake. It would be better to have no flags hidden or not. Further, if the flags are retained, there is no point in naming the 16 former states (again recently introduced), whether flagged or not. The words and links in the second column of the previous version suffice : United Kingdom and 15 other independent states, each with its own national flag. Qexigator (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Juan Riley (uninvolved topic editor)
I know this will be viewed as unhelpfull, but how about two lists: one actual heads of state the other symbolic heads of state? Juan Riley (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley, will you be remaining in this discussion until the end? I ask for administrative purposes. JQTriple7 (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am paying attention. And still question whether this article need exist. Seems like it belongs in Guinness World Records not on WP. Only my thoughts. For what they are worth Juan Riley (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * After reading the replies to date, I am still of the opinion that this article should just be deleted. Juan Riley (talk) 02:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by volunteer moderator
So at this point we have two main avenues which we can go down, with some smaller details to work out along the way. The first is to say 'United Kingdom and 15 other states' or something along those lines, and that could be seen as sensible, and listing all 15 and possibly all 16 former would get very long and possibly unnecessary. As for selection of the United Kingdom for the mention, perhaps it could be seen as biased, but not really as 'random'. In all honesty, if anyone thinks Queen Elizabeth they think Queen of England (incorrect, I know) or Queen of the UK. She predominately resides there and everything. If we were to randomly select one of her countries and it weren't the UK, casual readers may get confused. The other option we've discussed would be to list them all. That is consistent with the others, yes, but also very long. It may not look too ridiculous but in my honest opinion its a little excessive. I guess it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. Do they just want to know who the oldest living state leaders are, or do they want to know all 16 countries they lead? Perhaps they do want to know that. Undoubtedly many won't. We'd need to work out how we are going to do that. JQTriple7 (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by Miesianiacal
It seems two matters are being forgotten: 1) Having "Queen (1952-present)" adjacent to "United Kingdom and 15 other countries" communicates a falsehood. 2) Listing the countries one person was simultaneously head of while clumping all but one of the countries another person is simultaneously head of into "other states" below and apart from the one named country is a double standard.

Using length as a justification appears random: where the list becomes too long has not been made clear, let alone the rationale for why the line between long enough and too long sits there. The list as a whole contains 101 countries. Why is that an okay number, but 16 is too many? Or 32? Or 117 or 133, taking the entire list into consideration? If length is of such concern, why not save space by applying the same logic to Giscard's line and there use "France and one other state" and the list is cut down to 100 countries?

The country column is there to impart what country or countries each person was or is leader of (not to put across some notion of what country a person lived or lives mostly in or even is or was most associated with). Thus, the list is simply as long as its number of relevant entries. In addition to what I've mentioned above, as well as the misleading impression the UK has some special importance above the "15 other states", cutting certain entries the way they have been is a disservice to readers simply because it hides information; any unfamiliar reader won't realise Jamaica is a country that has one of the world's oldest living state leaders as its queen or will see The Gambia has Dawda Jawara as a former president who's among the world's oldest living state leaders, but also had Elizabeth II, as well.

"It's too long" is a subjective statement that doesn't even hold up all that well. Even if it did, it wouldn't outweigh the fact listing the countries is the clearest and most neutral, accurate, and consistent way to present the information the list is intended to present. I initially thought "The Commonwealth realms" adjacent to Elizabeth II was the best solution; it is unbiased and concise. I now see it creates the same inconsistency and hides information pertinent to the list as much as "United Kingdom and 15 other states" does. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If the list were only about ranking the named persons in descending order of longevity, there would be no column for countries. Clearly countries are a key part of the list, whether with flags or not.

WP:UNDUE is not relevant; the list is not about what country the leader is most associated with, nor is Elizabeth II being monarch of Australia, Papua New Guinea, or any other Commonwealth realm a viewpoint, let alone a minority one. It is a fact and, given that, it cannot be argued a full list of realms gives undue prominence to any minority opinion. Regardless, a full list of Commonwealth realms does not make Elizabeth II appear any less associated with the United Kingdom (especially if the UK is first on that list). Those who continue to point to WP:UNDUE and say nothing else either refuse to or cannot contend with the matters of inaccuracy (Elizabeth II did not become queen of all 16 realms in 1952) and the line for Giscard (the international community views Giscard first & foremost as the French president; yet, Andorra's name appears next to his). -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To the first suggestion by Drcrazy102: "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom", aside from the inherent bias, does not fit into the list as currently structured. The leader's name and the country/countries he or she heads or headed are in two separate columns. Additionally, the monarch of the UK is monarch only of the UK, not of 16 countries. One person acts as monarch of each country separately.

To the second suggestion by Drcrazy102 (or possibly a clarification of the first): the words "monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries" in the 'State' column would result in a repetition of "monarch" or essentially its synonym "Queen" in the 'Position' column. Removing the misplaced redundancy would leave "16 Commonwealth countries" in the 'State' column, which technically works and does not contain any bias favouring one country. It is akin to my aforementioned first change at the list to show "Commonwealth realms" in the 'State' column. However, it would still be an anomaly in the list. I may be willing to compromise by letting that particular matter go if this idea gains wide support. But, there still does exist the problem of what date(s) are shown in the 'Position' column. Perhaps simply "Queen" and the dates are in the footnote. I also wonder if there'd need to be some explanation for the inconsistent presentation. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  07:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by Qexigator
Agreed, it all comes down to what the casual reader wants to find out from the page, which is about the oldest living state leaders. This is only a list, with links for further information if any reader is that interested. It is not about a supposed competitive rivalry between countries to get into the list, raising questions of "bias" or "double standard", but simply to rank the named persons in descending order of longevity. There was little problem before the flags appeared, and the list extended to include "former". Qexigator (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

+ Agree with GoodDay, Drcrazy102's proposal is not the way to go. Qexigator (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by GoodDay
We must have the display as "United Kingdom and the 15 other...", per WP:Due and undue weight. The international community views Elizabeth II first & foremost as the British monarch. To display the list as "United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zeland..."? would be attempting to 'right perceived wrongs', which is discouraged by Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

One wonders, how will the next British monarch's coronation oath be worded. Will he (I say 'he', as the next 3 direct-in-line are male) have to mention all the Commonwealth realms by name? GoodDay (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Drcrazy102's proposal is unworkable. Anything less then "United Kingdom and the 15 other..." would (IMHO) go against Wikipedia's Due and undue weight, as we've rarely seen (if at all) news headlines or heard newsreports like "Queen of the Bahamas visits Russia", or "St. Lucian monarch addresses the UN". It's quite obvious, that the international community views/describes Elizabeth II as being mostly associated with the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

2nd statement by Killuminator
The 16 states no longer headed by the Queen are unnecessary. The criteria for including leaders in this articles is their age, not the the duration of their rule, the number of states they headed, both currently existing ones and defunct states. The reader is here to find out who are the oldest living statesmen and will be more familiar with currently existing states. Adding more historical info is excessive for purposes of this article. In regards to the existing states, the average reader will associate the Queen with the UK first. It looks more like a customary thing (Even the UN keeps it short and uses the formulation Queen of the UK etc.), rather than bias. --Killuminator (talk) 04:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the 16 former states headed by the Queen; this revision, I believe, is the best option we have. It notably indicates the year in which she last lost one of her realms—Mauritius, 1992.  Neve -  selbert  · 23:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion by
Making suggestion only Would the line "| Queen Elizabeth II of England/UK | ruling monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries | ..." be a reasonable compromise instead of listing all 16 countries, or relegating 15 countries into an "other" line? This is a neutrally worded line, should satisfy NPOV's Due and Undue weight section, and allows for a Reference Note, i.e., to be placed at the end of the statement which would also satisfy the desire of other editors that wish for a full list to be displayed ... simply move your mouse 2 - 3 cm and you can see the list in a "pop-up" or click and see the reference note. I make this suggestion as a copy-editor that happens to like resolving disputes, not as a mediator or DRN Volunteer. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC); updated to a better formatting per concerns of application. 06:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Drcrazy102. That does sound like a reasonable suggestion to me, although I'm not entirely sure how it would work with the columns. We'll see what the disputants have to say about this suggestion. Any suggestions/feedback/criticism? JQTriple7 (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated the formatting of my suggestion above, the 's represent cell division lines.
 * It would be possible to create a "16-cell" high 'cell' for Elizabeth, then list each country next to that 'cell' in 16 single-cells but I would consider that foolhardy because of the visual spacing Elizabeth would receive when it is possible to simply say "ruling monarch of 16 Commonwealth countries [ref note]List of countries placed here[/ref note]" which saves space and remains completely neutral in all regards, both textual and visual. Alternatively, simply listing each country in the same cell presents the same problem as the "16-cell" solution per visual weighting, though both solutions may be slightly more correct in a technical fashion. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Statement by volunteer moderator
Hello again, everyone. I've left this case idle for a few days as I wasn't entirely sure what to do, and waiting a few days gives the added benefit of everyone involved coming up with new ideas and possibly being able to see it from a different perspective. As the case stands, we haven't reached an accepted compromise at this stage and neither of the original wordings are supported by everyone. I would prefer if we can reach a decision within the next few rounds, otherwise the case may have to be failed. Let's see how things stand. When we finished the last round, we had two entirely different suggestions, both supported by one side and opposed by the other, with one additional suggestion rejected by all parties. At this stage we need to start thinking about reaching a solution. What can we write in the article which will provide sufficient information, is the best for the casual reader, and will generate some support from most sides here? Ultimately that's our goal, and I'm also interested to see what's changed over the past 3 or 4 days. JQ Triple7  talk  20:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

3rd statement by Miesianiacal
I am unable to devise any solution that satisfies more of the expressed concerns than listing all the countries openly (ie. not in a drop-down) and in the order used according to Commonwealth protocol. That:
 * sets the United Kingdom at the top of the sub-list (satisfying the want to "highlight" the UK),
 * allows each country to have its own flag adjacent to its name (eliminating the misuse of the Union Jack to identify all the realms),
 * allows the correct dates for Elizabeth's reign as queen of each country to be shown (eliminating the inaccurate assertion she has been queen of all the current Commonwealth realms since 1952),
 * treats all the Commonwealth realms in the same manner (thus adhering to the legal and conventional equality of the realms to one another),
 * maintains consistency with the other line of the list that is for an individual who simultaneously headed more than one nation,
 * maintains consistency throughout the list as a whole (upping the quality of the list), and
 * orders the countries in an established and official way (eliminating any notion the countries are ordered by other means, including unsourced personal opinion).

The only remaining argument that is undeniable is: showing all the countries makes the list longer. I personally think that satisfying all of the above easily offsets the "drawback" of making the list longer (though, I also hold that isn't a valid drawback, since the list's length is arbitrary and no new figures are being added; it will still end at 100).

However, if length really is that much of an issue to some, I can let go of consistency as a concern and entertain the possibility of a drop-down. However, I could not accept such dividing the Commonwealth realms into "classes" again. For me, either all countries would be in this hypothetical drop-down or none. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  01:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Inflexibility will not help us toward a resolution. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  02:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * A list consisting randomly of an unsourced claim, a cherry-picked fact, a constitutional difference between one country and others, some historical points, and a hypothetical future scenario doesn't appear to be relevant to the question of what makes for the best list of oldest leaders. In fact, it is simply a robotically repeated (though still inadequate) attempt to justify the wording choice of "United Kingdom and 15 other"—i.e. "highlighting" the UK. But, that particular "issue" has already been rendered moot by the proposition of the UK being set at the top of a full list of Commonwealth realms. Beyond that, the given points, either wittingly or unwittingly, do not address the matters of inaccuracy, inconsistency, and double-standard. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To Tsavage's comments at 21:05, 8 December 2015: A note is a possible alternative; it would be akin to a drop-down. Explanations Elizabeth II being more often directly involved with the UK can also be explained therein. However, it raises (well, both raise, actually) the question of how to implement it. What would the line for EIIR look like? What would be in each column? Would the country and position/dates columns be eliminated for her line?
 * We must remain careful about what's guiding us toward the outcome. The idea Elizabeth II is "commonly associated with the UK" in official documents is incorrect. As well, we should remember Wikipedia is not a media outlet; as a more scholarly resource, it is held to a higher standard. While the mass media may more often associate Elizabeth II with the UK (though that is still uncited personal observation), that bias (unjustified by the media that exercises it) does not, in itself, justify repeating it here and we, as Wikipedia editors, have to consider the cited fact of the equality between all the realms and of Elizabeth's position as queen of each. But, again, the UK being at the top of a list of Commonwealth realms (placed according to their age, as dictated by Commonwealth protocol, which could also be explained in a note) simultaneously eliminates media-fed, UK-centric bias and assuages any concern about readers possibly not knowing which Elizabeth II it is in the list unless the UK is given prominence next to her name.
 * Differentiation between leaders who were actively political and who weren't can be done in the same, or a similar, manner as has been used at List of current heads of state and government. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  23:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To Tsavage's comments at 05:26, 9 December 2015: I am presently neither for nor against a notes column, a footnote, or a drop-down. However, there's more to this than simply format. How the information is presented in any of those options is of greater importance, particularly in regard to bias and accuracy. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  17:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To GoodDay's comment at 17:37, 9 December 2015: Insisting that nothing other than "United Kingdom and 15 other..." will do only takes us back to square one. The problems with that wording have already been explained at length, the equality of the realms to one another is a verifiable fact, and it has been pointed out there are other ways to give the UK prominence, including one I find acceptable and possibly others. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To GoodDay's comment at 18:25, 9 December 2015: That's why this request for dispute resolution is still open. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To Tsavage's comments at 02:35, 10 December 2015: Thanks for taking the time to compose that detailed explanation. I understand your points and appreciate that we're trying to find a middle ground (of sorts) here. However... The source that's central to your reasoning about the presentation of realms is very definitely a British source. The accuracy of the site isn't questionable, but it is the website of the British monarchy and, as such, is going to place the UK at the forefront (just as Canadian sources put Canada or the Queen of Canada first). It may well be the highest quality source for the British monarchy, but not necessarily so for the Australian monarchy, Jamaican monarchy, Canadian monarchy, etc. Ultimately, though, that list of realms you drew from the British monarchy site isn't far off the order of realms used in Commonwealth protocol (see the Flag Institute's information at p.13). Though, I'd suggest sticking with the latter, as its used as the source for the order of the realms in the lede at Elizabeth II and the British monarchy's site doesn't seem to have anything regulating the ordering of the realms.
 * What I find troubling are the words "Notes could include the entire list of 15 additional states". That implies the British flag and "United Kingdom" (I doubt it would be the Australian flag and "Australia") will be adjacent to Elizabeth II's name in the 'state' column and the rest of the realms separated off into a footnote (I can't fathom how they'd all fit in a column and, if they could, why not just include them in the full list?), which is no different to the present situation.
 * If the list is about people and not states (which is a valid point) and if an entry with multiple states possesses "too much" visual weight (not so convincing a point, but, for the sake of argument...), then it should be fine (though it would be inconsistent) to have no country (with flag) named alone or predominantly adjacent to Elizabeth's name and all the realms, past and present, in a footnote, akin to what has been done for her entry in the list at Time Person of the Year (an article also about people, not states). -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  06:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 06:28, 10 December 2015: There seems to be some mistaken (and smelling slightly like bad faith) belief that denial and willful ignorance are part of my motivation. I have worked to put forward resolutions that take your concerns into account. Do you have any proposal for a resolution to this dispute that does the same for me? -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  06:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 21:16, 10 December 2015: Thank you for responding. Of course, I also would like to see what the "notes column" suggestion looks like. However, what I asked was if you have any proposal that takes my concerns into account, as I have tried to do with your concerns. I am seeing from you neither any possible solution that acknowledges my concerns, nor any comprehensible explanation as to how the United Kingdom topping a list of the realms communicates the notion Elizabeth II is more often personally involved with the United Kingdom any less than does the United Kingdom preceding the words "15 other countries". The absence of those two things is what's stalling this process. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  21:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 02:18, 11 December 2015: Firstly, the other parties aren't going to comment further (aside from Killuminator, who has only made the reasonable request the article not be allowed to get bloated). We can take their disappearance as an indication they are no longer interested in the outcome of the dispute. (Our volunteer moderator can confirm that, I hope.)
 * Secondly, the note proposal is not going to be acceptable to me if it highlights the UK and relegates all the other realms to a footnote and it will not be acceptable to you if all the realms are equally in a footnote. The idea, by itself, is therefore very likely dead. As such, I'm trying to work with what we have left: either the status quo, a list, or a combination of a list and a footnote. It has, though, been impossible so far to ascertain whether or not a) you are willing to make any effort to devise a possible solution that takes my concerns into account (as I have done for you) and b) whether or not you have a valid argument against a list with the UK at the top of it (even if the list is hybridized with a footnote). Hence, I will put my questions to you one more time with an attempt to further simplify:
 * 1) Do you have any proposal for a resolution to this dispute that takes my concerns into account? (You should have no difficulty comprehending that question.)
 * 2) When it comes to communicating Elizabeth II is "more associated" with the UK, what is the difference between a) putting the UK before the other realms in a list and b) putting the UK before the words "and 15 other countries"?
 * A third refusal to answer the questions can only mean you are being deliberately obstinate, blocking the path to dispute resolution, and thus being disruptive. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  03:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 04:13, 11 December 2015: I said if you don't respond the refusal can only be taken to mean... And you did not respond.
 * This attempt at resolution is dying because you refuse to cooperate with me. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  04:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To GoodDay's comment at 04:27, 11 December 2015: So, that's a no to any proposal from you that takes my concerns into account and a no to a valid argument from you against the UK topping a list of realms. Understood. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  05:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * To Tsavage's comments at 11:12, 11 December 2015: If it's recognised the realms are equal, how is it at all right to pick one source focused mainly on one realm and use it as though it had primacy over sources from or focusing on other realms? It isn't a matter of what source is incorrect (am I to prove a negative?); the British monarchy site isn't incorrect, but neither are the other sources that either put focus on a realm other than the UK or that speak of all the realms without highlighting any one in particular. If it's supposedly because "the Queen's origins lie in the British monarchy", it's then based on another act of cherry-picking: Whether it's her own person, her position as queen, or the monarchy she heads that "origins" relates to, the Queen's origins lie as much in the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand monarchies as it does in the British one. This line of reasoning for giving primacy to the UK therefore doesn't reach its intended goal.
 * Regardless, giving primacy to the UK hasn't been something I've rejected. I've made proposals that put the UK in the top position (though, for cited reasons, not because of personal observations). That's at the same time as I let go of consistency and double-standards. (I've also said, if the list is about people and not states, having simply "Commonwealth realms" next to Elizabeth II should suffice.) Because of that, I can't fathom where a remark like "it is up to you to make a significant concession" comes from. One could only not really have read what's been written to believe it's me who needs to be told that.
 * I understand what a column is. What I can't picture is how all the country names and, what else? Beginning and end dates of reign? More? Will fit into a column without either being extremely long and narrow or so wide as to compress the other columns into long, narrow ones (which would affect the whole list; and I'd ask: why not then just put those countries into the list the same as the others, instead of adding another odd column?). Or does a notes column simply house the link to a footnote? Either way, I don't see how that will find a resolution between GoodDay and myself. -- ₪   MIESIANIACAL  18:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

3rd statement by GoodDay
Per reasons I've already stated. My position on how to display the United Kingdom and the other 15 Commonwealth realms within the article? remains unchanged. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Miesianiacal has just outline all his reasoning for his argument. It's very clear and certainly helps the debate. I was just wondering if you could do the same? Thanks, JQ Triple7   talk  02:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well
 * Per WP:WEIGHT, Elizabeth II is recognized internationally, first & foremost as Queen of the United Kingdom.
 * The United Kingdom doesn't have a governor-general, where's the other 15 Commonwealth realms do.
 * Elizabeth II resides in the United Kingdom, thus the reason for the UK's lacking of a governor-general.
 * She was born in the UK.
 * She was coronated in the UK
 * She will most likely be buried in the UK

It's for these reasons, that I support using the United Kingdom and the 15 other... version. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's still no consensus at the article for the proposed changes. Sooner or later, WP:STICK must come into play. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To the idea of notes. May I see a visual example of what's being proposed? GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: The notes must adhere to WP:WEIGHT, meaning they must display as United Kingdom and 15 other.... Presenting the realms as 16 are equal, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagreement on how to display the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms in the article-in-question, appears to not have been resolved. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK, there's still no consensus for the proposed changes at the article-in-question. At some point, the stick has to be dropped. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, the notes idea will have to adhere to WP:WEIGHT & thus the "United Kingdom and the 15 other..." will be required. It can't be denied or ignored, how the world views Elizabeth II, nor that the United Kingdom is unique among the Commonwealth realms. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm awaiting a visual example of the notes proposal. If the proposal (in anyway) goes against WP:WEIGHT (Elizabeth II being associated the most with the UK) & the fact that the UK is unique among the realms? Then I shall have to oppose it. PS: That I've agreed to use "United Kingdom and the 15 other...", rather then just the "United Kingdom"? is my olive branch. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

- I prefer to allow the other involved parties to have their say on the notes proposal. I haven't a clue as to what it is you're asking of me. But, I would recommend you concentrate working something out with the other involved parties. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

- I don't appreciate your demanding tone & feel you're bordering on personal attacks by suggesting 'obstinate', 'blocking a path', 'disruption'. I request a retraction, please. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

- I'm waiting to see a visual example of the notes proposal, as are you & the other involved participants. Furthermore, I don't appreciate your focusing on me, when there are other's involved in this case. Attempts to paint me as the 'logjam' here, isn't going to score any points. Indeed, this DRN case came about, because you were unable to get a consensus (at the article-in-question) for your proposed changes & you wouldn't accept that rejection. As I recall, you were a minority of one. It's been over 3 weeks now (since you tried to make those edits) & you're no farther ahead. Perhaps, it's time for you to let go. GoodDay (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for a visual example of the notes proposal. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If the others accept your Rfc proposal? then so will I. GoodDay (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If we are gonna go to Rfc, then DerbyCountyinNZ & Neve-selbert shall be made aware of it, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

3rd statement by Killuminator
I would be willing to accept all of these countries if the editors can procure a solution that doesn't make the article too bloated. --Killuminator (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by an uninvolved editor: Tsavage
As a last ditch DR proposal, if involved editors are actually willing to compromise, please consider that the addition of a Notes column may acceptable to all:
 * "Notes" is a common, familiar feature in tables, intended to bring unique details and exceptions to the top level of prominence;
 * it helps to preserve visual consistency by concisely containing extra information while maintaining a uniform format;
 * it is a dedicated and logical place for explaining inconsistencies, such as the different start dates of QEII's various reigns;
 * as an additional advantage, it provides a ready space for any future value-added info particular to specific entries;
 * a "Notes" column can easily be added, in a few minutes, by text search and replace to tack on the extra few markup characters required.

QEII Notes can thus contain the entire list, perhaps in tiny type, or, possibly more consistent with space-saving conventions, it can simply provide a few words of comprehensive explanation tied to a footnote with the full list (or even to a dedicated section of the page), such as: "QEII is primarily associated with the UK; she is also..." and in this way fully address all of the stated concerns in this DR case.

In addition, two appeals to common sense (which Wikipedia repeatedly advises us to use): (1) QEII's leadership status is mainly ceremonial, whereas a list of "state leaders" may suggest that actual day-to-day working leaders are being considered - presenting QEII's numerous states too prominently, while being factually correct, could in some way overstate the case of her leadership, compared to the majority of others on the list; (2) it is a fact that QEII is primarily commonly associated with the UK (e.g. in official documents, in the media), therefore, her other states are by that definition, secondary, and that is a fact-based delineation that is useful when abbreviation may be required.

As a final point to consider, this is a "list of 100 oldest state leaders," and not a "list of X number of states with the oldest leaders," therefore, if all leaders are present, even as, somehow, not all associated states are listed, the list would still be valid (while the list of states with the oldest leaders would not be). --Tsavage (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal: Thanks for the reply. I think in this case, you might want to accept a Notes column and see if other parties will as well, because as far as compromises, it is probably as far as things will go. --Tsavage (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, GoodDay: Concern over the listing order is central to this dispute, and at this point, it also seems to be where a pivotal concession must be made. We have no ultimate content authority to make determinations in disputes, what we have is our consensus process, which ultimately relies on evaluating reliable sources. Miesianiacal, your criteria listed at 01:48, 8 December 2015 are all reasonable, as are the points listed by GoodDay at 03:09, 8 December 2015. The lists contain verifiable facts, and common sense reasoning, unfortunately, they are overall mutually exclusive. To break this deadlock, ideally, we would turn to a definitive source that actually illustrates listing language and order. IMO, I find such a source at the official site of the British Monarchy, where the Queen's realms are described as follows:


 * "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tuvalu, Barbados, Grenada, Solomon Islands, St Lucia and The Bahamas."

This I think we can agree is a highest quality source for the British Monarchy, and the wording is clear and unambiguous. Regardless of additional and valid arguments that may be made for other forms of listing, based on our policy of verifiability, we can verify this to be a correct and accurate form. To counter this finding, we would need an equally reliable source to argue that it is incorrect, and from what I've observed here, I don't believe such a source can be found. Therefore, we should settle on a listing derived from this, as it can be directly adapted for abbreviation.

A Notes column is superior to a drop-down list (which is usually a bad design choices, for accessiblity reasons, across devices, browsers, printings, and for hiding information). Notes content is presented in a uniform, upfront, easily accessible way. The appearance would simply be that of an additional column, at reasonable width. As I suggested, Notes could include the entire list of 15 additional states, in smaller type, or there could be explanatory text and a link to a footnoted state list (the footnote could be manually placed at the bottom of the table, as opposed to in References, so that it would appear as part of the table). These are suggestions. A Notes column gives options to better address exceptions such as QEII (and it would make sense that d'Estaing should be treated this way as well).

Miesianiacal, your concern for equal display of all of QEII's realms has merit in general, however, in this particular application, the subject is state leaders, not states, and when the challenge is made that each leader should (essentially) be given equal weight, rather than giving greater (visual) weight to leaders with multiple states, equal leader space should take precedence for this article about leaders.

I believe this is as far as DRN can go, in helping to work out a compromise. If editors agree to a resolution such as this, good suggestions from all positions will be incorporated, and the article should therefore be net improved. :) --Tsavage (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal, GoodDay, Drcrazy102: The Notes suggestion, for a new column, is simply that, a new column. It is not hard to visualize: look at a column on the table, say, the "Living as of" column, and imagine the header reads "Notes" instead, and the column is a little wider. To create a working example, just copy and paste some of the code - header and a few lines of entry - the new column could go last, or just before Living as of, that's up to the group! I think this is a good alternative, and interested editors should explore it (technically, it's quite trivial to implement). --Tsavage (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal: There is no question with your points of fact about the Queen and her realms, and in this light, your argument for equal presentation of all 16 realms is reasonable. Your position therefore is not wrong, however, in the context of the article in question, your argument is less right than other, opposing arguments. This is not hard to demonstrate, and has been done already:
 * We are operating by Wikipedia standards, where we strive to be accurate and unbiased, and above all, based on reliable sources (verifiability is of primary importance).
 * We are considering an article about a subset of 100 state leaders, where the single criterion for inclusion is "oldest living"
 * In presenting this list, we should not create any confusion about the relative stature of any of these leaders other than by age (this is the WP:UNDUE argument that has been raised, presenting one leader with, for example, 16 lines of entry, could reasonably create confusion and a predominance of the leader with 16 entries, when 98 others have one (and one has two).
 * It is verifiable that the Queen's origins lie in the British monarchy, which predates the Commonwealth, therefore, an authoritative source on the British monarchy should be a suitable reference for determining how to list these 16 realms. In fact (as noted above) we do have that: "A Commonwealth Realm is a country which has The Queen as its Monarch. There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK: [list of 15 countries]." The "in addition" establishes a basis for separating the UK and the 15 other realms - this is verifiable, from a hiqhest quality source, our gold standard.
 * As this is a list of leaders, while the states they lead is inarguably of great interest, they are not essential to list for the list to be complete, therefore, in an exceptional situation where there are a large number of states instead of the usual single state, some form of abbreviation is reasonable and routine practice (including linking to a complete list elsewhere).

This I believe is a fair and definitive summary of the situation, and unless you can produce an equally authoritative source to indicate that a statement of the general form, "Queen of UK and 15 other states" is definitively incorrect or broadly offensive or otherwise problematic, then your position, while not incorrect, is also not an absolute, and does not have any particular policy support over abbreviation.

IMO, it is up to you to make a significant concession for DRN to progress, and in order for you to do that, you must accept the overall context in addition to your scholarly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&action=edit&section=29view of the content alone. The Notes column (perhaps combined with a local footnote at the bottom of the table) will present all of the realms explicitly listed on the table. That, I think, is a compromise that improves the value of the table. (I'll reply to any comments, otherwise, this for me is extent of my reasonable moderation effort. Thank you. :) --Tsavage (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Miesianiacal: Please remember, arguing with me and arguing against the common ground points I am proposing, in the role of a moderating/mediating party, are two different things, and they are not mutually compatible (if there is no confidence in the moderation effort in a volunteer participation situation, there is no value). In any case, I will reply to your last comment, however, you don't appear to be engaging with the points I'm making.

Essentially, to restate in another way, you are conflating being right in a scholarly sense, and what is right (required) by Wikipedia in order to publish content. Standards have been adequately met to present an abbreviated form of the list of realms, mentioning the UK, while not specifically mentioning the others. This is so because, by our sourcing guidelines and the ultimate policy requirement for verifiability, we can support this approach with evidence. You have not presented evidence - equally reliable sources - to argue anything contrary, such as that mentioning all or none is the only acceptable way to present this information (regardless of whether QEII is equally the monarch of all realms).

This has already been argued. Your last comment brings up one additional point, however, that I will address, as it argues against the common ground I have been trying to establish. You say:
 * " the Queen's origins lie as much in the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand monarchies as it does in the British one. This line of reasoning for giving primacy to the UK therefore doesn't reach its intended goal." to counter my proposition, that the official site of the British monarchy should be considered a gold-standard source for non-controversial information about QEII. I don't follow the Canada, etc part, but one easily accessed fact is QEII's ancestry: "She is the 32nd great-granddaughter of King Alfred the Great who was the first effective King of England 871-899." So it is clear that her royal lineage in the UK seriously predates any involvement with the Commonwealth countries. This doesn't establish "primacy" in any sense other than that the UK is where origins of this monarchy lie.

The central point here remains: this article is about state leaders, not states, and when looking for information, we should turn to reputable sources about those leaders. For QEII, we can turn to the official site of the British monarchy, because that is where her origins lie. So we go to a reputable source for that subject, and find a clear presentation of an acceptable listing form - "There are 15 Commonwealth Realms in addition to the UK: [list of 15 countries]" - and, absent of countering evidence, that is all we need to add that information about the subject in this context.

Although everything around here can be argued endlessly (almost literally), as far as trying to resolve this dispute at DRN, we appear to have clearly met Wikipedia's core policy standards for a particular content presentation format. Whether the 15 other realms are listed somewhere in the table, or at the far end of a link, seems to be the compromise open here. (Giving 16 lines to one leader has already been discussed.)

If you agree to the Notes proposal, should it meet tentative approval all around, I will help create an example if needed (I suggest the content is more important than the format, and should be worked out). Otherwise, unless other parties have replies, my input as far as the relative merits of both main positions is complete. --Tsavage (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments to Tsavage
 * Thanks very much, Tsavage. Your reasoning and extra opinion here seems to be an excellent addition to the case. I would be interested to hear what the other participants in the dispute would think of it. JQ Triple7   talk  05:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you be able to provide a "working example" of the Notes column for the involved parties to see? They seem to be confused as to how it works and/or whether it will be appropriate. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Closing statement by Tsavage (uninvolved/volunteer moderator)
There has been no activity for nearly 48 hours in a long-running case, so I will offer this case summary from my view:
 * There has been an ongoing exchange among parties, sufficient to say that the case has been discussed.
 * Two opposing positions were clearly presented, supported by factual and common sense arguments.
 * A moderator-proposed compromise ("Notes") was presented and discussed by parties.
 * Ultimately, there was no real move from either position.
 * A policy- and guideline-based reasoning was presented by third party that supported one position over the challenging position, while indicating that the suggested "Notes" compromise would alleviate some of the concern in the challenge.
 * Editor Miesianiacal, arguing alone for the challenging side, did not present a policy-based counterargument, leaving that side unsupported by Wikipedia rules.

At this point, thanking everyone, I would consider this case Failed and suggest that parties either create an RfC (perhaps with the assistance offered here), or simply do no more, keeping in mind that there is what appears to be a straightforward, evidence- and policy-based argument to support reversion of unsupported changes along these lines, should they be made at the article. --Tsavage (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Misc. Case notes
DRN coordinator's note: Cases at DRN generally have a 2-week life span and this case is now a couple of days beyond that. If any 24-hour period passes in which there is no edit to this section, our archiving bot will archive and, in effect, auto-close this case. The DRN volunteer in charge may extend the life of this case by advancing the do-not-archive-until date in the case header (visible only in edit mode), but should not do so unless substantial and continuous progress is being made towards resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, TransporterMan. I would at this stage push it forward two or three days and see if we get any closer, except I'm not aware of the format used in the do not archive until template and 1449513227 is not a meaningful time to me. JQ Triple7   talk  20:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ for you a few hours ago . Hope this does get resolved swiftly here, but if not ... well, see my comment below. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Concerns were raised on the talk page about conduct remarks being dropped. Please focus on content and not on conduct, otherwise there may be collapsing in order. JQ Triple7  talk  20:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The dispute at this point is beginning to focus primarily on conduct. If we wish to continue and hopefully see a resolution, this behaviour should cease immediately. This case is seemingly drawing to a close and whether it fails or is successful remains to be seen, but it will fail if this perpetuates. JQ Triple7  talk  05:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an RfC is in order if a consensus cannot be reached among the involved editors? Not necessarily a fail, but a deferment if you would. The result would be binding if there is a clear, and/or majority, consensus formed by the editors responding. I would be happy to help draft the RfC with input, either on the DRN page (here) or on the talk page of the list. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree that a deferment to an RfC is in order, as we have two opposed sides and no obvious compromise. JQ Triple7   talk  06:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: As suggested, try deferment to RfC, but not fail (as yet).Qexigator (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not a party to this dispute, but acting as an additional DRN moderator. I assumed that all parties are aware of RfC, and are attempting DRN as an alternative, where there is an attempt to facilitate collaboration, rather than what would likely be more of a vote in this situation at RfC. I'm not sure how suggesting RfC as part of the DRN process is helpful, I'd see it more as an alternative. If things don't work out here, then on to other approaches. Consensus in a well-formed RfC would decisively determine an outcome, for the next little while at least, and DRN would no longer be relevant. --Tsavage (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk: David Lisak
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The article is not controversial, but it includes a report of a significant controversy about the subject of the article. I added a concise description of the controversy. Another editor (Rosceles) deleted this description without prior notice or talk and also removed anything else that could be negative toward the subject of the article.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made various changes responding to that editor's objections, but he repeatedly deleted/reverted. There has been much discussion among editors on the Talk page, via 3O, the Reliable Sources noticeboard, etc. Probably ten editors have weighed in, but no resolution is in sight.

How do you think we can help?

If sufficient consensus builds for not censoring the article, then mediation might not be necessary. If it is necessary, a consensus or lack thereof could be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Jvpwiki
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The article "David Lisak" is not controversial in itself, but it includes a report of a significant controversy about the subject of the article, originating from academic and scholarly sources. I added a concise description of the controversy, citing those sources. Another editor (Rosceles) deleted this description without prior notice or talk and also removed anything else that could be considered negative toward the subject of the article. I have no POV other than to present a full account of the subject of the article. The controversy section I added necessarily repeats some material from the Research sections; I placed the controversy after all of the research information to give it less weight, hoping to mollify Rosceles. The first complaint from Rosceles was that the controversy should not be mentioned, and accordingly Rosceles deleted the entire controversy section, which included material from the original article prior to my addition. The next complaint was that nothing significant can be added without first developing a broad consensus. The next was that the sources cited are insufficient and the controversy concerning the subject's work is given undue weight. He then accused me of fraudulently convincing the editor responding to the 3O request to endorse my position. Throughout the interchange I made adjustments hoping to mollify Rosceles, who has been uniformly condescending, contemptuous, and accusatory in response. After the first deletion, I restored the deleted section, which led to a minor edit war; when it was clear no resolution was in sight, I referred to 3O and then to this noticeboard. Rosceles referred to the noticeboard about sources, and I responded to that. Along the way several editors have commented on the controversy, first in the article's talk page well before my addition, and subsequently there and in response to the 3O request and on the noticeboard. I can notify the other editors who have expressed opinions so far to let them know that this dispute is under DR review, although I think only Rosceles and I are really involved as disputants (as opposed to mediators or third-party commentators). I would like to restore the deleted material while this is resolved but I want to avoid the appearance of edit warring. I would appreciate any suggestions to resolve this without censoring the article. JCvP 07:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvpwiki (talk • contribs)

Summary of dispute by Roscelese
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Jvpwiki has repeatedly attempted to add a large section claiming "controversy" about the subject of a biographical article. This section comes to over one quarter of the total article length and relies on a single, unreliable source. Jvpwiki also declined to seek consensus for his new additions when asked to do so. I explained to him that without reliable sources, it is impossible to document the existence of a "controversy", and that either way it violated due weight, but he evidently views this as "censoring". I'll also note that Jvpwiki only filed this DR request after consensus started to build against his edits at the RSN discussion, which seems like some subtle forum-shopping. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ricky81682
The issue is a matter of WP:UNDUE weight more than anything. Jvpwiki's version here includes an entire "Controversy Over Research Methods" based entirely on two pieces from Reason foundation. The vast majority of the text cites nothing actually (other than vague allegation that Reason has articles quoting someone about Lisak), making it a giant dual BLP problem. Roscelese's description at RSN of Reason as "opposed to anti-rape activism" wasn't helpful to me. As I noted at RSN, the main sourcing is related to this piece more over how Lisak personally responded to a request for an interview than anything approaching actual an academic dispute. I revised the page to put in the reporter's name and moved that language down. Otherwise I noted that quoting Mary P. Koss would be appropriate (even if the quote is via Reason) but currently vague hand-waving allegations that there exists Reason articles quoting Koss attacking Lisak is inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk: David Lisak
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello. Please provide a clear and specific description for this dispute. For example, the description for another dispute at the top of this page simply reads "Editors are divided on whether or not content relating to Elizabeth II at List of the oldest living state leaders is both biased and inaccurate." Please also provide your own account of the dispute under the 'summary' heading. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ✅ There has been significant prior discussion on the article talk page. JQ Triple7  talk  05:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC) ✅ All listed parties have been notified on their talk pages, although there are more seemingly involved in the dispute. You may like to list some more. JQ Triple7  talk  05:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Please avoid editing the article in relation to the dispute until the resolution has concluded. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer question - Who is the moderator? This thread is listed as open, implying that there is a moderator.  I see statements by two volunteers besides myself.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't me. I did not open this case. JQ Triple7   talk  00:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Found 'em! Yes, that is a large link, but it is a diff link to the "file opening"., could you please clarify if you are accepting this case for moderation, or if the case is still open for case-acceptance by other moderators? Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

- I have added due to involvement on talk page and WP:RSN beyond placing a single comment - or I could add another two or three editors - and I have not closed the case but simply placed it as "new" until there is explicit confirmation of case-acceptance or denial. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC) As all parties listed have given their summaries, I'll be taking the case. I expect timely responses within 48 hours and civil tone of discourse (no name calling, personal attacks). Let's try to keep on topic and not introduce many more subsets of discussion. Excessive setbacks, determinable by this moderator, in these areas will result in the case being closed and failed. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by volunteer moderator
I've been looking over the articles where the dispute is located for the last few days, and it's certainly a lot of material to cover and I may not still understand all the issues here. I have looked at the contributions of JCvP and Roscelese and would like to remind everyone that you are both users in good standing with considerable activities on Wikipedia, and I thank you both for your dedication. Considering this, there should be no reason to quickly jump to conclusions on motives or interpreting the background of each other. As regular Wikipedia users, we should all be familiar with WP: Goodfaith. The motives for edits are not important. We focus on the edits themselves, on community building, and finding consensus between each other. There was definitely room to mention a snippet of controversy, but the size of the mention in the edit was definitely excessive, taking up about a quarter of the page, even if it was at the bottom of the page. We have to be very careful about biographies of living persons. See: WP:BLP. That takes us to the fact that the singular source is from a minority political magazine with a relatively small readership. The news article therein is not written by and does not contain quotes from peers of David Lisak, but college officials. That doesn't discount inclusion in the article, but should certainly be stated when wording any such mention. I would like to point out to JCvP, you must be the one to establish consensus for including disputed sources in the article. See: WP: Onus. All of this considered, I'd like us to discuss whether there should be awareness in the article of the contention between these college professionals and David Lisak, or if there is any peer mention of these views. It would be very helpful if alternate sources could be found on this topic, instead of being so hard-set on including the disputed information with just one source. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

1st statement by Ricky81682
I'll agree with the moderator's remarks (I'm not sure I'm really an proponent or opponent of including the text) but I do note that the page has been revised yet again by another editor. I don't see the evidence for a criticism section, namely that his work has "generated a number of criticism" based on a single study in response about a single paper of Lisak's and again the vague "Reason has printed a number of article criticizing Lisak" now based on a New York Magazine article which itself links to two Reason blog pieces. All the sources (even the HP) are discussing a single paper of Lisak's and it would be more prudent to first identify that paper as the concern and to note more than "Lisak stands by his work" and instead to note the academic dispute over the study itself is at issue here. It seems like the people who want to add criticism aren't really quoting the actual specific issue and instead are blowing particular criticisms into a totality dispute against Lisak which may just be a completely WP:FRINGE idea without more context. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Misc. Case notes
I'll give it until monday night for responses, in case the weekend has kept Jvpwiki and Ricky81682 busy. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC) Thank you all for your time, but I'm afraid I'll have to close the dispute for time restraints. I hope editors involved can come back and look at this archive for advice on dealing with such conflict. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#.22extraordinary.22
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 removed the term "extraordinary" from the lead "Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records..."

Later in the article there are two more paragraphs (in a five paragraph article) entirely on skepticism about the top speed claims, so removing that term will not affect the readers' ability to make up their own minds regarding the validity of the top speed claim, nor the media reception to that claim.

My opinion is that it is original research to call the claim extraordinary, it isn't based on the sources given, it gives undue weight to the lead (of an already biased article) and the term is a peacock term.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I removed the term This was reverted. I discussed on the article talk page, and was met with original research, not sources or facts. I requested a third opinion and the third opinion was the the term was not supported by sources, was original research, and should be removed as per WP:NPOV and WP:OR, so I removed it, this was reverted and the other editor has rejected the 3rd opinion.

How do you think we can help?

Clarification regarding the suitability of the term "extraordinary" in the lead of this article. Specifically regarding NPOV, OR, UNDUE, PEACOCK.

Summary of dispute by Dennis Bratland
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Dodge Tomahawk#.22extraordinary.22 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Dennis Bratland notified and there has been sufficient discussion on talk page.  Ete ethan  (talk)  13:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I will be opening this case for discussion. Here are a few ground rules. I will check on the case at least every 24 hours. Each editor is expected to check on the case at least every 48 hours, or I may close it due to lack of participation. Comment on content only, not on contributors, and be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory everywhere in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution, and excessively lengthy posts do not help. Please do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Please discuss the article here rather than at the talk page to keep things centralized. Will each editor please state concisely what the issue is? Does the issue have to do with the word "extraordinary"? If so, why should or should not that word be used in the voice of Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Does User:Dennis Bratland have a reply, supporting the retention of the language? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with other words like "outlandish" in place of extraordinary. The Dodge Tomahawk is notable primarily because of the outlandish, extraordinary, unheard-of, totally implausible claim that it could go 300+ mph. The article, especially the lead, must make clear that it is famous for this public big lie (peace be upon you, Godwin, but Dodge did this for publicity, and it worked beautifully), and that every known reliable, expert source, who has given any serious thought to this has scoffed at this bizarre claim. If we could cite even one expert source who says that this speed is "theoretically" or "hypothetically" plausible without resorting to relying on magic fairies or re-engineering the Tomahawk, then we could have two sides to balance, and could take a neutral position between them. But there is only one side in our sources, and it violates WP:FALSEBALANCE to even hint otherwise. The lead must be phrased in some why that communicates reality, the same way that Lord Voldemort says the Dark Lord is fictional in the first sentence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

First statements by editors
I am the editor trying to remove the word "extraordinary" from the lead of the article. The article is about a vehicle that was announced with a very high top speed claim. This claim has never been verified and sources have stated that the claim is unrealistic. I have stated that the top speed claim and the claims of it being unrealistic are notable and should be included. I have also stated that the following sentence (in the lead) is in violation of NPOV, OR and UNDUE - "Dodge's extraordinary claims of a top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) were derided by experts in land speed records, and the Tomahawk never demonstrated a speed above 100 mph (160 km/h)." "extraordinary" and (possibly) "derided" are not neutral terms, neither are they supported by sources. The use of them is OR by the other editor involved and they certainly do not belong in the lead.

The other editor involved seems to think that this is an attempt to state that the top speed claim is accurate. This is not correct, every editor commenting on this dispute is aware that the top speed claim is unrealistic and is not trying to hide this fact. It's just a desire to have a neutral article, using neutral terms and in particular a neutral lead for the article. At the moment about 80% of the article is devoted to the fact that the top speed claims are disputed.

A third part opinion was requested, and supported the claim that the term "extraordinary" should be removed due to NPOV and OR - this suggestion was ignored by the other editor.

A replacement sentence for the lead - "The Dodge Tomahawk is a non–street legal concept vehicle, introduced by Dodge at the 2003 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan. The four-wheel motorcycle, built around a 500hp Viper sports car engine, was described by Dodge as a "rolling sculpture." The original claim of a theoretical top speed of 420 mph (680 km/h) has not been tested." has been suggested by an uninvolved third party, and rejected.

A neutral article that states the facts, without opinions that allows the readers to absorb the facts and come to their own conclusions would be great! Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The accusation of original research is offensive, given the large number of sources I've cited. There is a large quantity of material from numerous sources which explain why the claim that the Tomahawk could go 300+mph is farcical. There is first mathematical evidence based on the simple physics of drag and horsepower, and second, there is evidence that this concept vehicle is too unstable to be ridden at anywhere near such speed, and third, there is the fact that there is no way to keep the rider from being blown off the bike well below 200 mph.I'm in the process of citing and one after another each of these sources, since some editors have decided to cast an extremely skeptical eye on the sources given that say it's impossible. Yet they are totally credulous towards Dodge's reported claim of 300+ mph, even though the same media that tell us Dodge claimed the bike goes 300+ mph are also the ones telling us it's impossible. These editors trust the source when it reports what Dodge says, yet discount the exact same source when it also assures us Dodge is fibbing. How convenient.It is taking me time to provide every single one of these quotes, but I'll get to all of them. The claim that we must be "neural" fails to tell us exactly who is on the other side; that is we are being neutral between all expert motorsport media, and on the other side...? Who? They have cited nobody who believes 300+ mph is plausible. Even if there were someone credulous enough to buy this idea (and they've cited zero sources), it would still violate WP:FALSEBALANCE. Even if somebody can be cited to believe the Earth is flat, we do not give them equal weight to scientists.Besides looking at the sources I provide, I think a useful next step would be to invite an editor from WikiProject Physics or similar field to verify that the mathematical argument in the sources is sound, that this 500 bhp (if that!) vehicle could never go more than 250 mph, even if it didn't kill the rider or go unstable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator
The question isn't whether the claimed top speed of 300+ mph is extraordinary or outlandish. The question is whether that statement can be made in the voice of Wikipedia. Is User:Dennis Bratland willing to remove the word from the lede sentence in the voice of Wikipedia and discuss the speed claims, with quotes, in the article body? Does using such wording in the voice of Wikipedia constitute original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Are the editors willing to agree to using a Request for Comments on whether to keep or remove the word "extraordinary" from the lede? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not original research to say exactly what expert sources say, particularly when zero expert sources dispute the matter. We should, in Wikipedia's voice, echo our sources when they have clearly told us it is extraordinary (or outlandish, or simply bullshit, whatever equivalent we phrasing like). All of our expert sources are saying it with one voice. Removing this from the lead would violate WP:FALSEBALANCE and so is against policy. The only original research going on is those who suggest the 300+ mph claim has significant support anywhere. Even Daimler-Chrysler itself made no effort to defend the assertion; they didn't need to because they got the publicity they needed. There are unreliable, WP:FRINGE believers who think that the Tomahawk's superpowers are real, but fringe is fringe.I would be persuaded to take a neutral position on the question if there were shown to exist any expert sources who thought the claim was plausible. We should have a neutral voice between A and B, but when there is no B then we can't take a neutral position between A and nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
Of course, I am willing to use whatever procedure resolves this issues as easily as possible, and will abide by the conclusion. This should be a simple issue, and I'm surprised that it has gone this far, in the case of something that seems very against general wikipedia consensus.

Do I really have to state this again? I don't wish to put in any content that implies in any way that the top speed claim is accurate. I am in favor of a section within the article that gives reliable, sourced content explaining that the top speed claim has never been proven and reliable sources have stated that it is highly optimistic. These are neutral comments and require no original research. I am however, against the wording of the current article, as it is OR and does not reflect a NPOV, I am also against the amount of content regarding the top speed issue, it deserves two or three neutrally worded lines only and perhaps these should not be in the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Besides getting help from WikiProject Physics, it might also be productive to stop and ask what we would say if Dodge had claimed the Tomahawk could carry the rider to the Moon, and several publications had given detailed explanations for why this impossible: lack of power to leave the Earth, no mechanism of flight, no way for the rider to survive in space. If that were the claim and refutation, would be then be able to say in Wikipedia's voice that Dodge's claim was "extraordinary" or "outlandish" or "absurd", or something to that effect? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
First, is anyone claiming that the Dodge Tomahawk was capable of the speeds that it was advertised as being capable of? If not, then we don't need to discuss that. The issue is the wording of the lede sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Second, are the editors willing to agree to compromise language, such as "controversial" or "questioned", which are more encyclopedic than making a judgment in Wikipedia's voice that the claim was extraordinary or outlandish or absurd? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Third, in articles on subjects that are normally considered pseudoscience, Wikipedia does not state that astrology is pseudo-science. It states that astrology is considered pseudo-science by the scientific community. There is a difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Fourth, if the argument about making a judgment in the voice of Wikipedia, rather than attributing it, continues without resolution, I may have to fail this thread (but will still assist in an RFC if desired). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
How can we call it "controversial"? A controversy is defined as a "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." A controversy requires two parties who disagree. Who is the other party in the controversy? I see a one sided public uproar: Dodge said a stupid thing, and the press responded with a chorus of "Pants on fire" on the Truth-O-Meter, three thousand Pinocchios. That is not a controversy. A false claim was made, and thoroughly refuted.Numerous sources were cited showing that experts did "mock" "deride" "lampoon" "roast" this corporation for making such a silly statement. Saying they "questioned" it is inaccurate; they buried it, so we need language that accurate reflects that. Letting readers think there is some group of reasonable people anywhere in the world who think 300+ mph is possible is what I have a problem with. We need to tell the truth: no reputable, informed source thinks this is remotely possible. I'm not OK with truthiness being given respect by Wikipedia's false pretense of neutrality. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

The Jesus page includes a section on the canonical Gospels. It is the most prominent section, both the longest and the first. Mostly it summaries the Gospels with reference to the Gospels as primary sources. Scholarly opinion on the content is mostly reserved to the introduction. The Gospels section follows the Christian canon rather than focusing on the three Gospels that historians regard as historically informative. RSs do not summarize the Gospels when describing Jesus. RSs also favor the historical view and put it before a description of Christian beliefs about Jesus. Several editors are strongly in favor of the Gospels section even though it doesn't represent the topic the way RSs do. Over the years, several suggestions have been made to bring the page better in line with RSs. The historical section could go first. The Gospels section could be much smaller. But certain editors are vocally in favor of keeping the Gospels section large and first. Since October, I have tried to use policies and RSs to show that we should change the page. Editors opposed to the idea say that RSs don't apply to this issue, and neither do facts or WP policies. It's a matter of preference, they say. Having gotten nowhere by appealing to the current editors on the Talk page, I put a POV tag on the section to draw more attention to the issue, but it was removed. I tried an Undue Weight tag on the section, but it was also removed. The issues are: Is there a dispute underway? What sort of dispute is it (POV, Undue Weight, RS)? Is a dispute tag appropriate? Should we follow WP policies and RSs when deciding what to do with the Gospels section? Does our Gospels section give more predominance to the Gospel view than RSs give to that view? Does our Gospels section give undue weight to the Gospel view of who Jesus was? How can we make the page match RSs better?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

RfC on whether to put the historical section first. NPOV noticeboard. POV & Undue Weight tag (both removed).

How do you think we can help?

Putting an Undue Weight tag on the section would help. That alone would be progress. Someone could tell the editors on the Talk:Jesus page whether we should make our decisions based on our own best judgments or according to WP policies and RSs. If the opinions of editors are meant to override polices and RSs, then I have no case and I can give up. If policies and RSs are to be favored over editor opinions, then ideally the editors who say otherwise will work with me to improve the page.

Summary of dispute by LittleJerry
John Tweet has a problem with the gospel section on the Jesus article. He thinks that a section that details how the gospels portray Jesus is POV and UNDUE. The RS's he keeps citing is a Britannia article by E. P. Sanders which does not prove his point (as Sander's extensively talks about the gospel portrayals) and a "Encyclopedia of World Biography" entry which also recites the gospel accounts. It has been explained to him by several editors why the section is not UNDUE but instead of addressing these points, he simply dismisses them as "opinions" and demands "evidence". The gospels are the primary sources for information on Jesus and critical scholars turn to them to reconstruct a historical Jesus. This is a fact. In addition, even if scholars don't find a text useful for history there is still extensive scholarly attention given to how it portrays Jesus. LittleJerry (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by StAnselm
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is not the appropriate forum to discuss the issue, since it is really a user issue rather than a content one. Jonathan Tweet started an RfC in which the consensus was strongly against him; that he has come here with the same issue constitutes a blatant example of WP:IDHT. There is also the heckling mentioned by another editor, and Tweet's appeal to "reliable sources", which he later admitted to not having read. I for one am not willing to carry out a dispute resolution here. (And I'm sorry that I've commented on editors here, but that is essential background for understanding the case.) StAnselm (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Johnbod
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Tweet made a proposal which was massively rejected by the few editors who can still be bothered to follow the page, which has been dominated by his verbose contributionsfor over a year now - from the history:
 * Jonathan Tweet (talk) 	289 	7 (2.422%) 	2014-11-22T03:38:14+00:00 	2015-12-10T18:12:09+00:00 	1 days, 7 hours, 51 minutes 	67.049 	192240 	-962

Several people explained why his proposal was not a good idea, being relentlessly heckled by Tweet the while, but he took none of this in. That's not to say there isn't a problem over the issue, which there is. I rarely edit the article, except for the images, and try to avoid getting into discussions on the talk page, but this example seems somewhat typical. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bardoligneo
User Jonathan Tweet wanted to move the "Historical views" section before the "Gospel narrative" section in Jesus article. He opened (succesively) four related discussions, including a RFC, on the talk page to try and gain consensus to do that. His motivation to swap the sections is that reliable sources (other online encyclopedias) do that and this is evidence that we should do the same. He also considers having a Gospel narrative section an undue weight given to the Christian viewpoint and wanted to tag the section POV accordingly.

Other editors mostly disagreed, with the RFC too, on various basis, in particular that:

While we have to use RSs for sourcing the content, we're not obliged to follow the same structure or layout of the article (LittleJerry,STAnselm, me) and if anything it's probably better to mantain a layout similar to other WP pages.

The Gospel narrative is functional to the historical discussion and should logically come first. (users Stevestrummer, StAnselm, Mangoe, Johnbod and others. My idea was: think of possible readers that could lack even a basic picture of the events/places/stories that the historians discuss).

It's kind of a standard WP approach to exposition is to convey the most commonly known info on a topic and then move on to more specialized treatment. (SteveStrummer)

It's not clear if other encyclopedias really follow a historical - Gospels account order: in some cases the 2 are quite merged and interweaved or they even seem quite similar in structure to the actual WP article (Johnbod, LittleJerry); so that isn't evidence that we should swap the 2 sections.

A user (Pete) agreed with Jonathan Tweet on the basis that we should give a historical analysis without needing to rely on the gospels which are a Christian, partisan account.

edit: I see that the overview given by Jonathan Tweet here regards other points too (Gospel section too large): I agreed with this one on the TP, I think it could be synthesized. For instance, there's no particular need to bullet-point (or cite in other ways) each time each one of the four gospels in the Jesus article and some finer details could be left out. After all, there's a different more specific page (life of Jesus in the New Testament). Bardoligneo (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jeppiz
I don't really have an interest in this, but will comment as I was named. My main view is that the relatively small issue of which topic goes before the other one has seen way too much time spent by several good editors who could contribute in a more useful way. The long discussions at the talk page are already exaggerated, and even more so bringing it here. If other users find it interesting they are welcome to continue debating it, but I won't take part. Wishing you all a nice day. Jeppiz (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the talk page. It does not appear that the filing party has notified the other parties of this filing.  The responsibility is on the filing party to notify the other editors.  It also appears that there may be other editors involved in this dispute.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but am asking the filing party to notify the other editors and to see if further editors should be included.  There is mention of an RFC, but there does not appear to be an open RFC.  It appears that this filing is being used (reasonably) as an alternative to an RFC.  (If there were an open RFC, this filing would be declined.)  When this case is ready for moderated discussion, I will not be moderating it, and am suggesting that this case be moderated by an editor who is not a Christian.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If that objection at the end is mostly for yourself, that's a fine reason to step aside. However, such a wide category should not be grounds for concluding the moderator may be ideologically compromised to handling this dispute. Many secularists are Christians. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it alright for the filing user to post their personal dispute summary in the dispute overview section? I'd prefer if that section remained brief and easy for users new to the discussion to understand what's at issue.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not only alright, that's what it is, in part, there for since the filing party is not given his/her own summary section. To try to break the two out would merely lead to further confusion and we have a hard enough time getting people to fill things out at all. Responding parties are free to state their own interpretation of the dispute and if there's a disagreement over the scope of the dispute, the volunteer who takes the case can easily work it out. Sorting out, narrowing, and coming to an initial agreement on the issues involved is just part of the job. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
 * Thank you. I was confused because the case at the top of the page is done differently, with the filing party having their own section. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

- Added involved editors based on sections Talk:Jesus, Talk:Jesus and finally, Talk:Jesus which should be pointed out as having a clear snowball consensus of keeping the Gospel accounts before the Historical accounts of Jesus, as was also recommended on the NPOVN discussion.
 * I have had prior dealings with on a similar topic (James, brother of Jesus) and will recuse myself from moderating this case. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Update - Notifications have been sent to all editors by yours truly; Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I've also edited the article and participated on its talk page before. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) - Recusing myself. Interactions with at least three participating editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Catherine of_Siena#Foreskin_claims
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The main biography of Catherine of Siena from her own time period, the "Legenda maior" of Raymond of Capua, claims that the wedding ring Christ gave her during their "mystical marriage" was invisible. However, in one of her letters (#221), she writes, discussing the Circumcision of Christ, "Look at that tender little child who on the eight day, when he was circumcised, gave up just so much flesh as to make a tiny circlet of a ring." Contemporary historians have looked on that and other references to foreskins and wedding rings in her letters and made the argument that for some of Catherine's followers, and perhaps for Catherine herself, the wedding ring she received from Christ was made of His foreskin. One editor had very vigorous objections to the inclusion of any of this language in the main article. I tried rewriting it several times to be more accurate, more neutral, acknowledge the controversy, and so on. I also checked some sources to make sure that this wasn't a modern invention; all the major scholars of Catherine of Siena today discuss some aspect of this: it is notable, and it is sourced. My edits are summarily deleted, time and again, by one user. On the talk page, other editors seemed to think that the issue is real, is notable, and is sourced.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've contributed to the discussion on the talk page, and linked to various sources that contain information relevant to this. In order to remove the idea that these authors have Anti-Catholic bias of some sort, I've linked to the personal pages of two of the main scholars of Catherine of Siena -- one a Dominican friar (McDermott) and one a Dominican nun (Noffke). The counterarguments have not, to my mind, been persuasive.

How do you think we can help?

Examine the relevant section of the article, my edits to it, and the discussion surrounding it, as well as the sources themselves as needed, in order to prevent the repeated removal of sourced, notable content.

Summary of dispute by Sharbel23
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Catherine of_Siena#Foreskin_claims discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been sufficient discussion at the article talk page. The other party has been notified.  Waiting for a statement from the other editor.  After the other editor makes a statement, this case is ready to be opened for moderated discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 24-hour closing notice: The responding editor has not edited Wikipedia since this request was filed. Having only 15 edits to Wikipedia, none of which spent any substantial amount of time talking about the kinds of issues which are actually relevant to resolution of inclusion issues on Wikipedia (such as verifiability, reliable sources, NPOV, undue weight, and the like), I suspect that he or she may either be such an intermittent editor that dispute resolution processes (which require daily or near-daily responsiveness) are not practical or may be gone for good. If she or he does not respond by this time tomorrow, a volunteer may close this request without prejudice to it being refiled if the responding editor shows back up soon afterwards. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Talk:Nancy Kominsky
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A user has made a number of edits, Kozmick: The biggest problem being the user keeps on taking out the

If you look at the page your clearly see why the page has those tags added One ref is not really good enough. I did ask can you explain why the tags should be removed.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

WE ask can you at least explain why the tags should not be need, but no reply was forthcoming.

How do you think we can help?

You can help explain the user what the trouble is. The Tag "This article does not cite any sources." maybe the incorrect one But still the page needs some improvements and just taking off tag with no improvements make the mockery of the page. Im hope some can help explain to the user.

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

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#An_Poblacht_as_reliable_source.3F.3F
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

Question regarding use of PIRA propaganda media outlet (An Poblacht, which, btw, does not have a Wikipedia article) as a reliable source. Discussion at reliable sources site ended with no particular conclusion.

As this diff shows, the issue has not gone away. Some of the more recent issues of the source in question can be viewed as having some connection to actual journalism (bylines, verifiable sourcing, named editors/staffers, etc.) However, for much of the source's history it has been a propaganda outlet which cites no sources and serves as mouthpiece for Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA and/or the IRA Army Council. Many of the things it claims cannot be verified in other, i.e., reliable sources, which is saying a lot as the last installment Troubles have received enormous media attention throughout the English-speaking world. In some cases I attribute the lack of any verifiability to either propaganda or triviality.

Look at the links that certain other editors insist on adding. Again, no bylines, no verifiable sourcing, no named editors/reporters/staffers, etc.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Reliable sources discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#An_Poblacht_as_reliable_source.3F.3F) as well as some talk page discussion and edit summary comments, which have had little impact on any of the parties. They have their biases and I have mine.

How do you think we can help?

Close dispositively the issue of whether or not An Poblacht is a reliable source, at least as far as regards the vast majority of its pre-journalism history, when it was merely a soapbox for the PIRA.

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

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_199#An_Poblacht_as_reliable_source.3F.3F discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Kriyananda
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

We are trying to come up with a word for one sentence only that is neutral and is not POV.

The other editor keeps accusing me of doing things that I am not doing along with pushing his agenda.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have requested a third opinion but the editor never showed up and he is actively editing other places

How do you think we can help?

We need neutral editors to help this tiny section of three sentences and perhaps into the future edits.

Summary of dispute by Dhworld
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Honestly, I'm not sure what this type of resolution is for. I'm new around here. Is it to discuss Red Rose stalking and harassing me or to discuss the actual issue? I'm fine using dispute resolution for either, but I want to know so Red Rose doesn't attack me for talking about the wrong thing again.Dhworld (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Assuming this is about the actual article: Basically my position is that we have evidence that one party in a dispute made a certain claim. We don't have any evidence that the claim is true but we do have reasonable reasons to think it might not be. Since we don't know either way and this is contentious dispute (going for 50 years), it is best if Wikipedia stays neutral about it and just acknowledges that a claim was made without assuming that the actual substance of the claim is true.Dhworld (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Red Rose typed the above accusation. This is a new one to me which I don't think has been brought up before this very post. What evidence do you have of my "agenda"? Just because I keep saying we shouldn't assume things for which there is no evidence? Dhworld (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kriyananda#Third Opinion discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I think what I typed here was actually supposed to go in the summary section, so I moved it there. Dhworld (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator's Note: A request for a Third Opinion was also pending in regard to this case. I removed that request since both 3O and DRN have !rules against filing in more than one dispute resolution process or venue at the same time. Since DRN was the "higher" process, I've left this open and closed the 3O request. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC) PS: Dhworld, the discussion here will be strictly about content, not conduct. DRN does not handle or discuss conduct. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC) PPS: I'm probably not going to "take" this case, but I do want to point out that this dispute is kind of irrelevant because it's putting the horse before the cart: The open letter issued by the SRF cannot be directly used as a reliable source for anything about Kriyananda. It is a self-published source and Wikipedia policy (click on that link) absolutely prohibits using self-published sources for information or claims about third parties. The Nelson's Guide can be used to source that he was dismissed from the SRF and that he always considered his dismissal to be unfair (not "unjustified" but "unfair" since Nelson's says "unjust"), but that's all. To get into the reasons that you are arguing about, you're going to have to find a secondary reliable source that discusses the letter and what was in it. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * TransporterMan, Thank you for your help with this...where do we go to regarding conduct issues just in case we need it? Dhworld who is new, has been constantly personal attacking me with accusations and repeats the same words over and over.  But I honestly think he misunderstands how Wikipedia works and thinks I am doing something sinister. Any ideas?  I cannot be a mentor at this time. Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , you can go to the Admin Incident Noticeboard if the conduct issues are becoming a major problem, or you can recommend reading WP:Assume Good Faith, WP:No personal attacks, WP:Civil and also WP:Talkpage guidelines for how editors should interact in a best-case scenario. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Drcrazy! Not sure why it is not working when I type (2602:30A:2E6E:6220:3955:C4F8:9CF8:AD91 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)) 2602:30A:2E6E:6220:3955:C4F8:9CF8:AD91 (talk) 01:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm ... you're welcome? If you are either or, then you should not be editing as an IP. You should be editing under your username. At any rate, the links work but they aren't going to show your "user" links because you are not logged in (assuming you are one of the above two editors). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - It won't be possible to discuss any content issues unless the parties can state civilly and concisely what the content issues are without commenting on each other's conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, I am good with what @transporter man said. Makes perfect sense. If everyone else is fine with that, then I'm good with it.

I would say, though, that to me that doesn't mean: leave the whole paragraph there and just mark everything as "citation needed," because that defeats the whole point of the conversation which is to not make unsupportable claims (that's what I've been after). Since that would leave just one sentence in the entire section, it's probably best to remove the section since it serves no purpose and is populated almost entirely with unsupported claims as it is on the page right now.

It's pretty easy to mention he was let go in an earlier paragraph and the arguing between them doesn't matter without the section and can be left to be understood through the sections that more specifically deal with the arguments (lawsuit sections, for example.)

If other sources are found down the line and there's a real need to have a section devoted entirely to it, it can always be added back. Dhworld (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I am accepting this thread for moderated dispute resolution. Here are a few ground rules. I will check this talk page at least every 24 hours. I expect other editors to check this talk page at least every 48 hours and to respond to any questions in that time. Be civil and concise. Much of the previous discussion has not been civil and concise, so remember to be civil and concise. Civility is not optional anywhere in Wikipedia, especially in dispute resolution, and overly lengthy posts do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. Any uncivil comments or comments that are not about content may be collapsed or hatted. I don't claim any knowledge of the subject. Will each editor please state concisely what the content issue is? (Provide any needed background on context, but make the basic content issue simple.) That is, what are you saying should be changed or left unchanged in the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be closing this case in about twelve hours due to lack of response. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Trustpilot#Lede
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

Another user has been reverting my edits without cause and first discussing them, sometimes months after they were posted, and then falsely accusing me of violating Wiki's policies. For instance, on Decemeber 20, said user reverted all of my several edits. My lead version properly summarizes the article, as per WP:LEAD, but the other user's version does not.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Reason with the other user, who responds by reverting ALL of my valid edits, some of which he did not give a valid for.

How do you think we can help?

Have another editor edit the lead to include a brief summary of the article, as per WP:LEAD, or simply agree to use my version. Also, explain to the other editor that he cannot just revert every edit made without first discussing it on the talk page.

Summary of dispute by Mdann52
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:London Action_Resource_Centre#2015_edits.2C_improving_the_page
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
 * (edit this is )
 * (edit this is )

Hi, I'd like to request help with resolving long-running vandalism on London Action Resource Centre. As reported here on the talk page, there is a long pattern of destructive edits by Paki.tv (now PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal)and HarryPotter (now Leutha), which stretches over years. It got to the point where in 2009 the page had to be protected, then when it was unprotected there were more destructive edits by the same two editors (here, here). Now, the same information is being added again. Advice would be welcomed! Mujinga (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

At first, simply reverting the edits, then there was a long debate on the talk page, then a RFC, then the page was been protected for a time.

How do you think we can help?

I would propose that the page is again protected and/or users 'PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal' and 'Leutha' are blocked from editing.

Summary of dispute by PsychoActiveKineticInternational TransVersal
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Leutha
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:London Action_Resource_Centre#2015_edits.2C_improving_the_page discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Mudar Zahran
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

Several edit wars were taking place in this article in relation to three 'paragraphs'. The paragraphs are completely sourced from several sources including one of the most reliable news agencies in Jordan; Ammon News. There are the three paragraphs in which some users are protesting against their inclusion (shown in talk page), using BLP guidelines as an excuse. However, it doesn't violate BLP guidelines or any relevant wikipedia guidelines.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Dispute underwent a lengthy discussion at the article's talk page

How do you think we can help?

Check validity of the concerns of involved users

Summary of dispute by Smartse
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

For background see COIN, BLPN and the talk page. The dispute relates to how BLP is interpreted in relation to the quality of sourcing and whether we should repeat rumours and accusations that he is a Mossad agent. My view, and which I feel is supported by both policy and the pervailing consensus within the community is that we should be cautious and insist on only including controversial information if it is solidly sourced and even more so when the subject has raised concerns about content. I have explained at length on the talk page what I feel is problematic with the content that Makeandtoss would like to include and suggested possible wordings that could be used, but they seem unwilling to offer any compromise. My attempts to get other editors to take a look haven't produced a particularly strong consensus against excluding all of the content, but there most certainly wasn't consensus to make this edit yesterday which is why I reverted. I'd welcome more editors examining the content and sourcing. SmartSE (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. There's a lot of material to cover in the talk page, and it all references edits and material which can only be found in the history. I'm sure whoever takes your case, if all parties are notified on time, would appreciate it if the conflict were spelled out in less vague terms and with specific quotation or link to the material in question. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been extended discussion at the article talk page. It appears that three editors have engaged in the discussion.  Only two of them are listed here, and the non-filing editor who is listed here has not been notified.  I am leaving this case open in order to permit the filing editor to add the other editor and to notify them.  If that is not done, this case will be procedurally closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will add the disputed paragraphs here, for convenience: Makeandtoss (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Palestinian activists through Facebook and other media outlets have accused him of being a Mossad agent in Europe.


 * "In 2010, Zahran wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post that described Jordan as an apartheid state which drew huge criticism by Jordanians and Palestinians alike. Shortly after the article was published, Mudar sent a letter of apology to Jordanians and Palestinians through Ammon News after his father Adnan Zahran threatened to cut off relations if the former wrote anything else and considered Mudar's continuation of writing as "ingratitude" on a personal level against his father, and an "ungratefulness" towards the country". The father described Mudar's writings as "far from truth and reality".


 * The same year, after Mudar appeared on Al Jazeera talk show The Opposite Direction, his father Adnan sent out a public letter announcing that he officially cut relations with his son. The father said that his son was in no position to speak on behalf of Palestinians and Jordanians. He went further, calling on Jordanians to be aware of "the advocates of incitement and hatred"., ,


 * In 2013, Zahran wrote on Facebook a letter of support to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, saying that their efforts in the protests are blessed and that they are promised with an upcoming republic.

First statement by volunteer moderator
I will be opening this case as volunteer moderator on a temporary basis, although I am requesting that another volunteer take it over shortly. Here are my ground rules (and a replacement may change them in detail, but most of them are standard). I will check on this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every editor to check on this case every 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Civility is mandatory in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution, and lengthy posts do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not on contributors. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not discuss the article on its talk page, because this is the place for discussion until the case is resolved. Will each editor please summarize briefly what they think the content issues are? What needs to be changed in the article, or what needs to be left alone that other editors want to change? Discuss the article content only. Thank you. Robert McClenon, 19:43 19 December 2015

Makeandtoss
Some editors have been removing completely sourced content on basis of BLP guidelines violations, which doesn't seem to be the case. The content in the form of points, can be seen above...Makeandtoss (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
One editor says that other editors have been removing completely sourced content on the basis of BLP violations. Please be more specific, because occasionally BLP policy really may authorize the removal of sourced content (depending largely on the sources but also the content). Other editors have not commented. Will the other editors explain what their policy reason is for removing content, or otherwise explain what the issue is? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
Is there a reason why editors won't reply to my requests for concise civil summaries of the issue? If so, what is the reason? There are four editors listed in this case, one of whom has made a statement that is concise but not complete, and I requested details. One editor made an initial statement before I opened the case. Two other editors have been silent. If you want dispute resolution, please reply. If you don't want dispute resolution, you may request to withdraw from it. Please try to help me and the community clarify the issues. I don't think that I am asking a lot, compared to being asked to resolve a dispute in which no one wants to say what the dispute is. If no one wants to discuss, it is true that a Request for Comments is possible, and might be a better option, since no one wants to discus. However, if we discuss at least briefly, we can improve the likelihood of the RFC being neutral and therefore likely to succeed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Makeandtoss
Honestly, I don't even know what is the problem with the content. Since is not answering, I will give his view points. When he reverted me he said "There's no consensus to include this" and on his last statement on the talk page said "BLP content is held to a higher standard than other content and we have to get it right." There are 5 days left before the protection on article ends, I hope this gets resolved by then, before disaster strikes AKA edit wars.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Gebel el-Silsila
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

On the Gebel el Silsila entry it lists John Ward as an archaeologist. He is not an archaeologist and holds no degree whatsoever. His wife, Maria Nilsson, is the archaeologist of note on the survey. Ward has been a very controversial figure due to his use of Nazi symbols on his organizational logo, as documented by journalist Jason Colavito. For some reason, Thor seems hell bent on continuing to pass on factually incorrect information and in calling names when I edit the entry to provide correct information.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Posted to Thor's talk page to explain the information, to which Thor responded with personal insults.

How do you think we can help?

Edit the entry to correctly reflect the fact that Ward is not an archaeologist. Anything else I've added can be removed at your discretion, but to refer to Ward as an archaeologist is simply not true.

Summary of dispute by Thor Dockweiler
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Talk:Panagiotis Kone#Contradicting_sources
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
 * No_original_research/Noticeboard
 * No_original_research/Noticeboard

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 dscrimination in Greece because of his origin" would be more in line with what he actually said.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Asked User:SilkTork for assistance who confirmed that the entry was troublesome. I've also posted my concerns on noticeboards.

How do you think we can help?

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

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Zoupan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Panagiotis Kone#Contradicting_sources discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Chai Vang
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

doesn't want to balance the viewpoints of the case and continues to write a misleading, biased, article. Other editors have previously posted on the talk page that they also feel that this article is biased. The conflict includes POV-pushing, edit-warring and a disregard for neutral POV. The issue of conflict is that William seems to not want to include all minority and majority viewpoints in the case. In this case of Chai Vang, William claimed that there was only one confrontation and there was no pursuing or chase.

Truth is, there was 2 confrontations and the victims chased down Vang and confronted him again and also blocked Vang from leaving after being confronted again. Multiple sources, the court transcript, the trial video recording and audio recording of the victim's testimonies all prove my case.

I am aware that the court transcript isn't usable as a source but it still is a PRIMARY source of information which [redacted] hasn't even attempted to refute and just flat out continue his conceived version of events that are backed up by the preponderance of sources. What a blatant disregard of neutrality. Check out this link for the change that i proposed and William's. ll

The article also neglects the significant details of the case by not including threats that were made to Vang by the victims and that one of the victims stepped in Vang's way, blocking Vang from leaving. Plenty of articles states that but it isn't included in the article which just shows you how biased this is. More examples of the bias in the article; Where is the details of the Hmong communities's reaction? Why is there only one thing written in the reaction section which was saying Hmongs aren't aware of trespassing and that they were being educated to understand trespassing. There were plenty of reactions by many communities. Such as a White supremacists group distributing flyers, protesters with signs saying send Vang back to Vietnam, Vang's wife being threatened, and Vang's home being burned down. These are all significant details that wasn't included in the article that happened because of the shooting.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Debated on the talk page and turned to Neutral POV noticeboard.

How do you think we can help?

Take complete control of the edits of the article and edit it and have more opinions about the conflict.

Summary of dispute by WilliamThweatt
This feels a lot like WP:FORUMSHOPping by an WP:SPA with a stated agenda (here, here, here, and especially, here) of victim blaming. There has been copious discussion on the article talk page, and the complainant has recently made two previous appeals (here and here) to WP:NPOV/N that didn't go "his way". The "sources" he wants to include have been evaluated (see the talk page discussion and the NPOV/N links above) and, from the ones deemed reliable and/or usable, I have incorporated the information into the article...that is, from the very sources he provided! It has been explained to him (by users other than myself) at the other forums why the other "sources" aren't suitable or are WP:UNDUE, he just keeps refusing to hear that Wikipedia isn't the place to right perceived wrongs. Everything that needs to be said has already been said, I'm not sure what else there is to discuss or that any further discussion would be productive.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Chai Vang discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - Although there has been extensive discussion at the talk page, none of it has been within the past month. The other editor has not been notified.  Comment on content, not contributors.  This thread will probably be closed procedurally in the near future.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * DRN Coordinator's Note — I've notified the other editor. I agree that this is becoming very close to being too old to accept for lack of recent discussion, but it's close enough that I think it ought to go forward if at the two originally-listed the participants care to do so. If they both do, then we may need to consider whether DreamGuy is also necessary to the mediation due to his participation in the discussion at NPOVN, but I kind of don't think that he is unless he cares to be. I don't think that anyone else — i.e. Drcrazy102 or Hughesdarren — needs to be listed since everyone else participated in either a dispute resolution or procedural-suggestion mode. Those other parties should, however, not participate here as DRN volunteers or neutral parties; they may join as disputants if they care to do so, of course. Regards, Transporter===Man  ( TALK ) 23:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will be recusing as a DRN Volunteer for this case, as suggested by, and will respond to any questions or if it is deemed that my opinion is needed. However, I will admit that I am tired of this dispute between the users and will not join this case of my own volition - I will join only if my viewpoint or commentary is needed or desired. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 06:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
I am opening this case for moderated discussion. I will ask each of the parties to present a new summary of the case, since the previous statements contained too much hostility and commenting on contributors. Here are a few ground rules. I will check this case at least every 24 hours. I expect every editor to comment at least every 48 hours. Comment on content, not on contributors. Comment on contributors will either be collapsed or hatted, or will result in the case being failed. I will have a zero-tolerance attitude toward comments on contributors that are not meant to improve the article. Do not edit the article while this case is being discussed. Do not comment at the talk page, because comments at the talk page may be ignored. Be civil and concise. Civility is not optional in Wikipedia. It is mandatory, especially in content dispute resolution. Excessively long posts may make the poster feel better, but they don't help clarify anything. Please respond with civil and concise summaries of what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please respond by 1600 GMT on 28 December 2015 (72 hours after I opened this case) or I will close the case due to lack of response. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kurds#Flag of_Iraqi_Kurdistan_is_not_the_flag_of_all_Kurdish_groups
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

Multiple groups of Kurds use different flags. In this article some of editors are pushing for representing the flag of autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq as the flag of all Kurds.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

In talk page I asked for Reliable Sources. Zirguezi cited some sources that I find not supporting the claim. Selocan49 used personal attacks, and Zirguezi end up in that I have to bring Reliable Sources to prove that flag is NOT the flag of all Kurds rather than he showing the source to prove it.

How do you think we can help?

1-Make Zirguezi understand that asking for Reliable Sources is permitted, but bringing RS for showing the text is wrong is not necessary in demanding RS.

2-The Sources that Zirguezi is citing, does not says what he claims : so he may not omit the tag "not in the sources " from the Citation Needed template.

Summary of dispute by Zirguezi
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Kurds#Flag of_Iraqi_Kurdistan_is_not_the_flag_of_all_Kurdish_groups discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note: I'm neither taking nor opening this case for discussion at this time. Selocan49 is indefinitely blocked and cannot participate in Wikipedia. I recommend this be closed if there is no response by the other responding editor in 2-3 days since there's been no discussion or edits on this dispute since early December. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)