Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 138

Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive_4
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

There has been a long running debate as to whether electronic harassment is real or delusional. The definitive cited source on the subject would seem to be "Mind Games" by the Washington Post (ref 1) which describes both sides of the controversy and, in my opinion, leaves it an open question. That is how the Wikipedia article should also be, surely? Yet, there are always editors in abundance who want to negate the controversy and define electronic harassment as evidence of a delusion. This has come to a focus recently for me in an attempt to correct this one-sided editing. I attempted to change the statement in the lead "Individuals suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders[1] or other mental illness ...." as that statement assumes that to be a fact rather than psychiatric opinion, which has already been stated in the previous sentence. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_harassment&action=edit. My edit was quickly reverted and I am outnumbered, but sure that they are in the wrong. We have discussed the issue in the Talk page for many months now and still neither side is giving way.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

This is my first attempt to do other than the Talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Moderated discussion could be helpful.

Summary of dispute by LuckyLouie
In good faith, I seriously question the wisdom of participating in this Dispute Resolution since (a) we're not going to negotiate changes to an article that would violate WP editorial policies by saying the government "may be" surreptitiously inserting thoughts into people's heads against their will, and (b) WP:DR/N isn't the proper venue for such a clear case of fringe WP:ADVOCACY.

Jed Stuart (talk) is a single-purpose account whose sole focus on Wikipedia is lobbying for the idea that Electronic harassment - i.e. covert electronic mental torture of individuals by the government - is potentially real, rather than psychotic or delusional. The article includes multiple reliable sources that clearly show psychiatrists and mental health professionals are in agreement about the psychotic nature of such delusions, and so WP policy (specifically WP:FRINGE) requires the article to state this as fact. This is also the overwhelming consensus of seasoned editors participating on the Talk page of the article, which Jed Stuart is exceedingly aware of. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants
Louie has accurately summarized the situation. The main source identified by Jed is a work of investigative journalism for a popular news outlet. Considerations of readership and sensationalism are (as is normally the case) a part of the process of writing such a piece, and as such, it was best for the author not to clearly state that this purported phenomenon is not really happening. Indeed, when we look through the wider variety of sources, two facts becomes clear: The consensus among psychiatrists is that this is a psychiatric phenomenon, and there has never been any good evidence that so-called Targeted Individuals are actually being targeted by mind-controlling weaponry. As a matter of fact, one wonders how one could have one's mind controlled, yet still be able to rebel against it, or indeed, even recognize it.

As already pointed out, Jed is a single-purpose account. This discussion has been going on for quite some time, and while Jed has remained quite civil and engaging, he has not budged at all from his position that this may be a real phenomenon and WP should not reflect the expert consensus on this. This is, in fact, a policy issue (it could be argued that arbitration enforcement could be requested against him, but I for one, believe that this process might work, given Jed's apparent character throughout this. That, to me, is a preferable alternative to requesting sanctions. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just finished (re)reading the primary article Jed mentioned. I disagree with his conclusions about it. The author directly compares TI's to Alien abduction claimants, quotes a number of experts who attribute the phenomenon to mental illness, and admits plainly that there is zero evidence that this is a real phenomenon. These elements contradict the claim that the article "...leaves it an open question." In addition, the credibility of the supporting statements in the article are suspect. The author references a "Project Pandora" in credulous tones, describing it as having been made public in declassified DOD documents, but twenty minutes of google searching (by a guy who, not to toot my own horn, knows how to squeeze results out of google) returns nothing but conspiracy theory websites and references to pandora.com's efforts, which are better known as the Music Genome Project. More references are made to more verifiable programs, but the fact that TIs started springing up in the 40's and 50's, while technology that could actually produce those effects could only possibly date back to the 90's is glossed over. In all, it looks like the author was trying a bit too hard to be generous to his subjects' beliefs. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic harassment/Archive_4 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note The filing party has not contacted the other party in this case. I have contacted the opposing party on his talk page. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 13:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note If there are no objections, I will accept the role of moderator for this case. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 13:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Moderator Statement
I have changed my mind about closing this case, and am now opening discussion. , please discuss in a civil manner.ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Second Moderator Statement
I am opening the discussion. Please post Below this text, and discuss. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment I got involved at the talk page and was going to write the following over there, if I hadn't just noticed Jed Stuart rightfully opened this DRN. I'm on his/her side, you can tell even by the talk page. I'm going to be quoting a british psychoanalyst which I'm sure will help frame the whole debate Jed Stuart refers to, specifically the long running caustic denial of the seasoned editors involved. However, firstly I care to say that neither me, nor I believe Jed Stuart and most of the tens of past opposing editors, is trying to negate the simple chance that a lot of people could be delusional about mind control experiences (aka MCEs). We are just suggesting it does look so very reasonable to agree on the fact a lot of real TI's exist, even if often mixed in online communities along with either mentally disturbed individuals and/or exagerrated conspirationists.

Verfiable and reliable sources confirm the following points that come to mind:

1) the existence of technologies able to impact and degrade human health the way it's claimed by TI's ✅

2) the infamous historical relation between psychiatry and government (which spans from the very inception of psychiatry, rolling over the well known Soviet dissidents abusively drugged in a coercive fashion, to the extensive involvment of psychiatrists in the MKULTRA program, up to the cruel history of madhouses) proving that psychiatry has been too often deeply clung to social, rather than to medical issues ✅

3) Jed Stuart rightfully suggesting that since the Washington Post article seems the most reliable, accurate, comprehensive and neutral source should be given more weight than it is, specifically over the fact it is unaligned, if not aligned towards the chance TI's could be right but they are unable to prove it for evident reasons ✅

4) the sources used as the ground on which the bias of the page is built on, refer mostly to diagnoses made via websites - there's no mention of a face-to-face evaluation, no interview, no psychiatric consultation ✅

So in conclusion, bias of Electronic harassment is unjustifiably too much against the claims of it. The only.... "justification" I can think of, is a very sad one: the editors acting as "wiki-censors" are doing it in the interest of securing wikipedia's government-alignment bias towards such unsettling, indigestible claims. 82.59.58.103 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a very WP:FRINGE argument, as it is not a mainstream belief. Really not a very convincing argument. Wikipedia does not have a "Government-aligned" bias, but they do prefer mainstream arguments. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, you are probably Jed Stuart editing under an IP, as your only 3 contribs were to this case. My current feeling is that The Washington Post article is far too WP:PROFRINGE for my liking. ThePlatypusofDoom  (Talk) 21:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you really telling me you never heard of Dynamic_Host_Configuration_Protocol? Check Electronic harassment' talk page last week's contributions and you will notice there's only one editor editing under an IP rather than under a username. Well, that's me, believe it or not. It's very simple. 82.59.58.103 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not like I can check Jed's IP, I'm not a Checkuser. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I would advise you both to read WP:FRINGE, a Wikipedia policy,WP:TRUTH, a Wikipedia essay with some good points, and WP:THETRUTH, another Wikipedia essay, more focused on humor but a message that applies to this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the points brought up by the IP:
 * I have already pointed out that medicine as a whole, as well as a number of different 'varieties' of medicine, ranging in specificity from specific procedures to specific fields has a whole host of protestors. The claim that psychiatry is unique in this is categorically false. It's worth noting that the IP's response to this when I pointed it out previously was a red herring: rather than attempting to refute anything I said, they simply claimed that no-one was talking about other fields of medicine and that it was irrational of me to bring them up.
 * The implication that psychiatry is an invalid field (caused by the above-referenced claim) is also categorically false. There is ample evidence of psychiatry's effectiveness, as well as the effectiveness of psychology in general.
 * As I have already pointed out, while there are some technologies which seem capable of (or might one day be capable of) producing such effects, not one of those technologies is as old as this phenomenon. The existence of self-described TI's goes back to the early 20th century.
 * The 'evidence' offered in the news article is, as I have already pointed out, very flimsy. There is the demonstrably false claim of one individual that "Nobody can become psychotic in their late 40s," there is the unverifiable claim about "Project Pandora", and there is the observation that these people seem otherwise normal. That's it (there was also a claim about EM radiation measured at the US's Moscow Embassy, but that has already been thoroughly explained and this is acknowledged in the article). On the other hand, the author provides a well-established, mundane explanation from experts near the end of the article.
 * The argument based around the quote from the work about denial is straight up circular reasoning: Since they believe skeptics are in denial, the IP looks at how denial works. Since some elements of skeptics arguments align with some of the observations in that work, the skeptics must be in denial. Note that this is a common tactic of fringe arguments; seeking out evidence that confirms their preconceptions, rather than seeking out all evidence and weighing it.
 * The news report itself provides a number of skeptical RSs which could be used to refute the reality of this claim. Contrast that with the the claim for reality, whose best evidence is that this very same news article failed to engage in out-and-out debunking; another easily, more simply explainable fact, but their best evidence nonetheless.
 * So yeah, the argument for the pro-fringe position is pretty weak. It rests upon circumstantial evidence, false claims and logical fallacies. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this evidence is extraordinary only in how useless it is. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  22:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your response? I agree with MjolnirPants, this does seem very WP:FRINGE, and the argument isn't convincing. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add that "The Journal of Psycho-Social Studies" (the publication cited in the above "denial" quote) is a publication that openly solicits fringe views; see their publication policy . Their stated intent is to be "inclusive rather than exclusive", and solicit "work which pushes back - even crosses - the edges of traditional academic and practice boundaries is particularly welcome". This effectively means any sort of fringe nonsense can be published in it. So for Wikipedia's purpose, it's not a reliable source (see WP:RS) and it gives undue weight to a fringe view (WP:NPOV). - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is all about Government and authority, no doubt, as already stated. There really is not much that can be done. Generally speaking, nobody is willing to oppose the Government, and actually to be in a position of "working" in the Government's interests is often a no-brainer decision. I guess an arguable solution would be to level up this sordid situation with a new template to be set at the top of a page that involves substantial suggestions of a Government misconduct unacknowledged by the Government itself. Something like the following (you are probably going to see this formatted weirdly depending on the resolution of your screen):
 * I think that would be a fair template. But sounds a lot.. much more than a lot, like utopia. 82.59.58.103 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a WP:FRINGE argument that falls under WP:BOLLOCKS. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you even read WP:FRINGE? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @82.59.58.103: you're welcome to submit that template to the Wikipedia community for review, but I am extremely doubtful of its chances for implementation. Do you have any suggestions for article content (other than "disclaimer" templates)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 82.59.58.103, please request to be a a party. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I never created a template. I merely contribute to wikipedia from time to time on articles and their talk pages. What's the procedure to submit a new template? And also I would like to know if anyone here agrees with my template? Would you LuckyLouie, for example, support it? Do you think this could be a solution for this dispute and improve wikipedia? Does anyone think the "template-stub" itself could be improved? You need to be more clear about your position for this to procede. Are we still moving on different sides in this dispute, or has anything changed? If you have any skills in templates creation you could do it yourself: I don't reclaim ownership of it (I'm not interested to, admitting I could reclaim it which I doubt). 87.6.119.119 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not controlled by "the government". We (editors) are not subject to "government State authority" regarding what goes into the encyclopedia. There's no conspiracy to keep mention of "ongoing or past Government misconduct" from appearing on Wikipedia. In my opinion there's no need for a disclaimer template such as you suggest. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just edited the template-stub to avoid giving the impression of a government conspiracy. I think such a template would be useful in improving wikipedia according to its policies and its calling as an encyclopedia. I really think it could be a great template because you can have all the pro-government bias required by the infamous circumstances, still making the adroit reader aware wikipedia doesn't lack knowledge of the reasonable views Carole Smith brilliantly enunciated, quoted above. 87.6.119.119 (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can try, but no one will support it, as it seems very WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You can try, but no one will support it, as it seems very WP:FRINGE. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion, continued
Adding a break here, I don't want to scroll all the way down. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what a reliable source is, if you still think that journal is reliable. Read WP:RS. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

, Regarding your template: I'm not sure why Wikipedia would need to possess "tools to oversee any Government State authority at any level". There is no "Government State authority" affecting Wikipedia. The idea that Wikipedia "cannot have any material suggesting an either ongoing or past Government misconduct that is unacknowledged by the Government itself" is also false. See Category:Corruption by country. We summarize what reliable sources say. "The Government" doesn't enter into the equation. So your suggested "disclaimer template" isn't a realistic proposal, and at this point, it appears to be merely a platform for WP:SOAPBOXing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're not sure why? Probably the answer is that wikipedia may not be able to properly describe the topic without those tools? Ever thought about that? What's so difficult to grasp in that very simple concept? Are you kidding me? And what's that list of Corruption cases? What are we supposed to do do with it? They are all cases acknowledged by the authorities.. are you trying to prove my template without anyone noting it? You better summarize yourself before taking a crap in front of everybody. Now I'm even soapboxing? You really need to read Carole Smith's excerpt once again because you're right into it.

87.6.119.119 (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * we do not need to see the pseudoscience-promoting article in a preadtory journal again. Have you read WP:FRINGE? ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There may very well be some things that we don't know about in the government (classified stuff) but this isn't one of them, this is a fringe theory. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That template does not accurately reflect WP policy or practices. There is, quite simply, nothing more to say about it. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think this discussion should be closed out. We've already moved well past the boundaries of any legitimate content dispute, and into the realm of inter-personal arguing over whether a bunch of conspiracy theories (some about WP) are true. Clearly, there is nothing to be gained here. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If nothing improves in 12 hours, I will close this case. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO it's glaringly obvious the editor requesting this DR and the IP contributor don't (and may never) understand basic Wikipedia core policies and goals. I know we're not supposed to discuss the other editors here, but as a long-term WP:SPA, Jed Stuart once sought advice about how to form a "Task Force" that would exclude editors who don't have "clear thinking" about the topic, and had created a sandbox version POV fork of the topic that included this disturbing bit. Caveat: these examples alone do not necessarily mean they could not eventually become productive editors, but IMO it's not very likely. So perhaps we should wait until Jed Stuart returns and see if the discussion is productive, or if it's a continuation of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. If it is, I suggest a speedy close of this DR for obvious reasons of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer question - Is the unregistered editor stating that Wikipedia, as well as the US Government, is involved in the conspiracy to engage in electronic harassment and to cover up the harassment? If so, continuing the discussion here has a paradoxical futility in that neutral discussion is not feasible if the medium for the discussion, Wikipedia, has been corrupted.  If that is what is being said, this discussion is essentially futile.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with both Louie and Robert. My initial agreement to this process was given with the understanding that Jed (if not the IP) would abide by any decision reached here. However, Jed has not participated in the discussion since opening the case. WP Policy is quite clear on these matters, and I felt that this discussion would be a way of removing an excuse from Jed's repertoire, which might cause them to acknowledge that there is no path forward for a non-skeptical version of the article. However, their lack of participation creates an excuse for not abiding by the decision reached here, in that Jed was not a party to any such decision. At this point, I think it has become clear that the way forward is through the enforcement of WP policy regarding WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE and the discretionary sanctions imposed upon articles addressing psudoscientific subjects. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Podemos (Spanish political party)
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

In the heading of the article, the Spanish political Party Podemos is described as "populist" what is a pejorative term often used by their political rivals and is disputed by some political scholars, while others support it. Since the term is controversial, to respect WP:POV, it should be stated simply that it is a left wing party and, in the body, it should explain the controversy. However, the used Impru20, refuses, mainly stating that, in his opinion, "populist" isn't a pejorative term.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have been discussing in the talk page, but we are going in circles.

How do you think we can help?

I think that the introduction of the article should describe Podemos as a left wing party and, in the body, saying that some people think they are populist, where others disagree.

Summary of dispute by Impru20
The ongoing issue is about the meaning of "left-wing populism". User Fjsalguero insists that such an ideology can't be used to describe Podemos because it has negative connotations. In my view, while it may (depending on its use), it's also true that it's an ideology in itself, and that its encyclopedic value is not negative. This should be independent on whether political opponents use the term to attack Podemos, which they do, but so do they refer to them as "communists", "chavists" or other terms which are obviously not used to describe the party's ideology because it doesn't fit within their scope. There are sources pointing to Podemos being a left-wing populist party, and Podemos itself is listed as an example of such an ideology in the Left-wing populism article. Would be akin to saying that a party can't be described as "neo-nazi", "communist", or even "neoliberal" because those may be used in a pejorative way by political opponents.

Talk:Podemos %28Spanish_political_party%29 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The other party has been notified of this request and has responded.  This thread is ready to be opened for moderated discussion by a volunteer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and is especially important in dispute resolution. Overly long statements are not helpful and do not clarify matters, so be concise. The purpose of content dispute resolution is the improvement of articles, so we should focus on what the articles should say, not on the editors with whom we may disagree. Every editor should check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours, and should respond to any questions that I ask within 48 hours after I ask them. I will check on this case at least every 24 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. (Normally cases come here because back-and-forth discussion has been repetitive rather than productive.) Address any statements and comments to me and to the community, not to each other. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Also, it is advised that you not discuss the article at the article talk page while discussion is in progress here, so that the discussion here can be centralized. (Any discussion at the talk page, while discussion is in progress here, may be ignored.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't claim to know anything about this political party or about Spanish politics. I expect the editors to provide the facts and their interpretations. My role is not to decide anything but to facilitate discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears that there is disagreement about how to characterize this political party's ideology or viewpoint, in the lede paragraph, and possibly also in the article body. Is there any other area of disagreement that should be discussed here? Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, how they think that this party should be characterized? Also, if there is any particular language that an editor thinks should be avoided, please state briefly why they object to any particular characterization. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Will the editors please respond within 24 hours? Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Will the editors please respond within 24 hours? Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors
The issue is one, as I said, of interpretation of the "left-wing populism" concept, and so far the issue revolves around that idea. User Fjsalguero states that, since it is used in a pejorative way by party opponents, it can't be used to describe the party. On the other hand, myself (and others who seem to be joining the original discussion now) argue that, even if the term may be used negatively by opponents, it doesn't disqualify it from having encyclopedic or academic value. In politics, nearly everything may be used in a pejorative way to attack opponents, yet that should not affect how parties are ideologically placed. Impru20 (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

As it can be seen from the references that I provided, the use of "populism" applied to Podemos is controversial, and thus, the article should not take sides and simply state that there isn't consensus on the topic.--Fjsalguero (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Tribes of_Old_Montenegro,_Brda,_Old_Herzegovina_and_Primorje
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

Dispute on the word/term ("origin", "Vlachs") meaning, removal and move of reliable and related information on "Montenegrin" tribes to different sections and articles, article's title dispute (recently moved several times without consensus on talk page), high interference of editor's personal POV (as well that of Serbian scholarship/politics) on "Montenegrin" tribes origin and history, false (?) "valid arguments" and no NPOV principle to support (?). It's a complex Balkan topic with applicable arbitration enforcement sanction.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussion on the talk page

How do you think we can help?

By third opinion, knowledge about the topic and anthropology, indication on neutrality principles (WP:NPOV)

Summary of dispute by Crovata
Cite: Their origin is complex and related to the Vlachs and Albanians ie. Romanized population which is shown from anthropological studies - that their Slavic origin was very limited and not in such a proportion like some scholars (Serbian) wanted to be... [Zoupan] subjectively don't want to accept that Vlachs were an ethnic group, and not social designation... Serbian historiography which intentionally ignored and denied others ethnic identity due to political connotations... The anthropological and genetic studies are highly related to the theories at "Ethnic origin", showing that the previous thesis about small native influence, while strong Slavic population who "anahilated indigenous tribes", became Slavic Serb tribes, is simply an ideological construction not reality... Origin of the tribes, any group of people, is primarily their ethnic origin (which secondarily includes other elements as part of certain identity)... organization and culture have separate section... Brda, Primorje and Old Herzegovina are and were part of historical Montenegro

Summary of dispute by Zoupan
Cite: Origin is about the origin of the phenomenon, tribes, as a social/political organization, not individual ethnic origin... The scope is the tribal society and tribes as a whole, not individual ethnic origin or studies on toponomy and terminology... the clear-cut word "origin" cannot be used in an ethnic sense to determine the phenomenon of these tribes... unconnected biological study... confusing the social class with ethnic identity [Vlachs]... "Vlachs" as a blanket term for these tribes is terribly wrong... confusing these tribes with pre-historic tribal/ethnic groups... Calling them all Montenegrin is wrong and neglects the self-identification of said tribes
 * This above summary is not mine, but a cherry-picked summary by for his POV of this dispute. The above "dispute overview" is also, classically, POV by said user. User move-requested  the article as uncontroversial, against concensus. It was earlier agreed to include all tribal regions in the article name.  forces a false uniform ethnic identity to all tribes, despite the fact that this is nowhere the case. He is synthesizing various references to push this "NPOV" of what these tribes should be described as.  As I've said, these are various "political and social units/socio-political organizations", whose individual cultural markers and identities should not be confused; do not tar with the same brush. The user's report got us both sanctioned, although I think I gave a good short summary of the dispute there. For further information, please see the talk page discussions.--Z oupan  21:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above summary are your cites. There was no agreement on title, yet temporary solution due to yours WP:OWN pushing and behavior.--Crovata (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sideshow Bob
Cite: This article has been titled incorrectly, since no clan organisation has ever been noted in Serbia [previously titled "Serb clans"]... The same article has been titled "Montenegrin clans" in Croatian, and "Clans of Montenegro" in Serbian Wikipedia... Old Montenegro, Brda, Primorje and the majority of "Old Hercegovina" are parts (regions) of present-day Montenegro... [current] title is illogical, unsearchable, too long and confusing

Talk:Tribes of_Old_Montenegro,_Brda,_Old_Herzegovina_and_Primorje discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.


 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other parties of this dispute resolution request.  Waiting for statements from the other editors.  (The summaries of disputes listed above appear to have been copied from the talk page by the filing editor.)  The filing part states that they want help by third opinion, knowledge about the topic and anthropology, and indication of neutrality principles.  A moderator here will be neutral, but will not necessarily have a knowledge of the topic or of anthropology, and may expect the parties to provide that background.  The function of the moderator will be to facilitate discussion between the parties.  If that is satisfactory, and the parties are willing to engage in moderated discussion, a moderator can facilitate discussion.  If a prior knowledge of the topic is needed, a request for knowledgeable editors at a WikiProject might be in order instead.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - This case will be closed within 24 hours unless the parties state that they wish to engage in moderated discussion, which is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Southern Levant
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 recently made an edit that I'm confident was an improvement to the lead at Southern Levant. Unfortunately, the edit was reversed with the claim that it was "out of context" with no elaboration provided. This is, in my opinion, a ridiculous rationale as "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan" is a direct statement from a scholarly article which is well supported within the source text. (The exact quote from the source is "Much work continues to be done in these regions, and not surprisingly this work is now of great interest to those studying the southern Levant [i.e. the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan].") The underlying issue is that Oncenawhile, who reverted the text, is openly hostile to the geographic region of the Southern Levant, describing it as "a neologism coined to serve a political purpose" and has, several times over the past few years, made runs throughout wikipedia deleting references to the Southern Levant from any article he could find. All while making constant personal attacks and being uncivil. It is clear that on an article page with few active editors, it's impossible to improve the article when an editor who has been outspoken in his dislike of the subject constantly reverts anything that will make the article stronger, and makes no contributions to the subject unless they are cherry picked quotations intended to make a standard scholarly field of research appear to be controversial.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Attempted discussion for years. Oncenawhile will claim that we have worked together effectively, but it's untrue, and our interactions have consistently lead to personal attacks from him directed towards me and further disputes.

How do you think we can help?

Ruling on policy and standards, providing an independent view of the situation, providing additional insight into the article. The article now mainly only has the two of us editing and additional input is needed.

Summary of dispute by Oncenawhile
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The nominator has not attempted to discuss these recent edits with me, as the talk page will attest. However, we have been bickering over this topic for the last five years, and we appear not to have a constructive working relationship any longer. The heart of the issue is the usage of the recent term "Southern Levant" versus other geographical terms for the same region. The nominator here has opened ANI proceedings against me on 4 or 5 occasions over the years, each time relating to the Southern Levant. A visible proportion of the editor's entire wikipedia editing history has comprised contributions relating to this debate.

Two days ago, Category:Southern Levant was purged following a CFD, which the editor then tried to roll back twice across all the articles. I know I should resist speculating on such matters, but it appears to me that the final outcome may have engendered an emotional response from the nominator, insofar as a major edit was then made to the main page Southern Levant turning back years of slow and steady consensus forming between us. This edit promoted the reference which supports his view as a direct quote in the lead, and deleted the two references which provided critique to his view. He feels very strongly about this edit and is now "putting [his] foot down". Oncenawhile (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Southern Levant discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Being involved in the upmerge and re-categorization of Category:Southern Levant, I feel a bit connected to this post. I just want to say a few general words, that even though the category was deemed unnecessary, that does not mean the article has no meaning. Adding sourced information of a general nature, seems a good idea. However, that same edit also removed other sourced information. The solution seems obvious: keep the information that was there, and the new information, both, side by side. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, my first edit didn't remove any sourced info. It was as follows:


 * The Southern Levant roughly encompasses the lower half of the Levant, resulting in some variance of geographical definition, with the widest definition including Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Lebanon, southern Syria and the Sinai Desert.[1] Archaeologically, it is among the most extensively excavated regions in the world.[2] The southern Levant is "the region formerly identified as Syria-Palestine and including Canaan." [3] Many scholars studying the region's archaeology have adopted the term Levant (including northern and southern halves) as the "term of choice" due to it being a "wider, yet relevant, cultural corpus" that does not have the "political overtones" of Syria-Palestine.[3] The term Southern Levant has been criticized as imprecise[4] and "an awkward name[5] but "at least a strictly geographical" description of the region.[5]


 * Thoughts? Drsmoo (talk) 23:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said, keep both. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other party of the filing of this thread.  I am neither opening nor declining this case, but a moderator can open the case.  I would advise the parties and others to keep remarks here until the case is opened to a minimum, and to confine any comments to content, not contributors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just a note, while I'm eager to only discuss the relevant policies pursuant to this discussion, in contravention of the guidelines laid out in this noticeboard, and in contravention of wiki policy in general "especially egregious" violations of talk page and wikiettiquete policy are currently occurring in the Southern Levant talk page, namely here Drsmoo (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:FORUMSHOP regarding this and your simultaneous ANI post. I believe this is the fifth ANI you have raised against me regarding this Southern Levant debate, with the others linked in the discussion at Archive921. I suggest you also read the advice at WP:ANI advice. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No relevance, please read the guidelines expressed for this discussion, as well as guidelines for talk pages I would love to discuss the content at hand, and hopefully can soon, but obviously can't ignore someone making talk page sections with my username in them in order to personally attack me. Drsmoo (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The current discussion at ANI certainly is relevant, although the archived discussion is not. This noticeboard is only used for disputes that are not pending anywhere else, and this dispute is also pending at ANI.  This thread will be closed.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood
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

There is a dispute regarding which edit should be accepted for the article: this edit (mine) or this edit (opposing editor). I argue in favour of mine for 2 main reasons: 1) It has sub-sections because there are 2 distinct sections to the 'Permissibility' section: one for and one against. This gives the section greater clarity. 2) My edit simply quotes the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya, hence it is uncontroversial and fully self-explanatory. I argue against the other editor's version for 2 main reasons: 1) without sub-sections, the 'Permissibility' section looks very unwieldy. 2) in this version the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya is described as complex, even though plenty of other sources do not make mention of any such "complexity". This description is a matter of dispute, hence such controversy should be avoided--especially when my version easily offers a non-controversial solution.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I tried extensive discussion on the talk page, sought a third opinion (but was rejected because a 3rd editor was nominally involved).

How do you think we can help?

Just to give fair advice about which arguments have merit and to offer a respectable opinion that can lead to a resolution to this ongoing dispute.

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

I'll start with point 2) above because this is the major dispute we are having.

The existing version is based on the work of a respected academic scholar named Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and is peer reviewed and published by Oxford University Press. This clearly passes WP:RS and so I do not understand why it should be removed.

I have also seen other works from reliable sources which also seem to support the current text such as: Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL

The problem with the suggestion made by Mawlidman is that it seems to be a primary source. The source is a direct translation of one of Ibn Taymiyya's works. I do not see the need to refer to a primary source such as this translation when a number of secondary sources exist such as the one above by ukeles. Further, within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular.

For the record, I have no problem incorporating all reliable secondary sources regarding Ibn Taymiyya's views and am happy to expand on the existing version.

Regarding point 1) above, the disagreement regarding subheadings was a minor issue which I assumed had been resolved as Mawlidman stated previously that Regarding the sub-headings, i can live with their removal.

Anyhow, I was somewhat reluctant to have explicit sub headings of "support" and "opposition" as it gives the impression that only 2 views exist - I.e. either one is for the Mawlid or against it. In reality a wide range of opinions exist such as the fact that some historic scholars accepted certain parts of the mawlid but forbade others. Ironically Ibn taymiyya seems to be of those who were neither totally for or totally against the mawlid.

I am on holiday at the moment so may not respond in a timely fashion. apologies for any delays. Saheeh Info 07:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Mawlid#Consensus doesn't exist concerning falsehood discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer comment – I can open this case for moderated discussion once all of the involved editors are properly listed and notified. KSF T C 21:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate talk page discussion. The two listed parties, while the main parties to the discussion, are not the only parties.  Other parties who have commented should be listed.  All of the editors should be notified of this filing.  This case is being left open to allow for addition of other parties and for proper notice to be provided.  (I will not be moderating the discussion if this case is opened.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment – This is a reminder that all involved editors need to be notified on their talk pages before the case can be opened. It is your responsibility as the editor who filed the case to notify them. KSF T C 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment – I am now opening this case for discussion. If you are willing to participate, reply here. KSF T C 15:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you respond below to Saheehinfo's points? KSF T C 11:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if we dealt with point one first of all. 1) When i said i can live without sub-headings this was done as a goodwill gesture, but i never initially intended to remove them for any other reason i.e. i always believed they were appropriate. But since no goodwill was reciprocated i have put the issue back on the table. Anyway, to hold me against a past claim that i now so obviously disavow is a bit insultingly dismissive of my request. 2) Regarding the claim that there is no distinct 'Support' and 'Opposition' and that there is "a wide range of opinions [that] exist", if you read each scholar's ruling then you will see that each one has a general opposition or support towards Mawlid. They only elaborate on this support or opposition by setting conditions to their general rulings eg. some that support it then condition their support on the basis that Mawlid is conducted in a certain manner; some that oppose Mawlid then condition their opposition by saying that the month in which Mawlid is celebrated is special etc. Despite these conditons you will never find a conflict with their general support or opposition i.e. you don't have a 'support' scholar then saying that they oppose Mawlid. There are 2 distinct general views: 'support' or 'opposition'. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you respond to Saheehinfo's second point about your removal of a source that he claims is reliable? Why shoudn't it be included? KSF T C 23:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. In answering his questions, i oppose Saheehinfo's version for several reasons: 1) This current version was first added by an obscure one-off editor called Thehistorian1984 here. This is the version Saheehinfo is defending based upon his claim that this is the consensus version as he states here in the first paragraph, Talk:Mawlid. As you can see the content is identical except that some extra sources have been added. Note that Saheehinfo had no qualms adding sources that supported the initial edit; however, he stubbornly rejected any of my edits that countered this edit—even if my edits were supported by worthy sources. 2) Now, as can be seen, Thehistorian1984's foundational edit cited one source: the pivotal Ukeles-authored work. Of all my searching for this source i have been unable to acquire it or to inspect whether its citation matches the content espoused in the edit. Likewise, even Saheehinfo has admitted that he has never seen the source and whether it matches the edit's content, as he admits here: (to find press 'ctrl' + 'f' and type 'book' and it is the first one highlighted). I find it ridiculous that he has so staunchly defended this foundational 'consensus' edit even though he has admitted he has no proof to defend it. 3) The words "complexity of the issue" in Saheehinfo's version is rather subjective and open to dispute. While there are indeed sources that mention Ibn Taymiyyah's (IT's) views using adjectives like 'complex' (as the source quotes of Saheehinfo's version make clear) there are also sources that present IT's views using no such adjectives (some can be seen here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox). Likewise, the words "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" in Saheehinfo's version are also open to dispute, as my above sandbox link shows. When something is open to dispute and conflicting opinions exist i don't see why one version gets to take precedence over the other. If there is such dispute then the best action to resort to is to add content that is neutral. My edit (shown here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox) offers this solution: it simply quotes IT and presents his view clearly and objectively. 4) Saheehinfo objects to my version because he claims i am using a "primary source". In fact this is untrue. The source is not a book of IT or a translation of a book of IT; it is a book by the scholar Muhammad Umar Memon, published in the scholarly publishing house Walter de Gruyter. This makes it in fact a secondary sources that just happens to include IT's quoted opinion. Quoting IT doesn't make it a primary source. The source quotes IT—which is how i added IT's personal view at length. Note also that Muhammad Umar Memon makes it quite clear what he personally makes of IT's view on Mawlid here: User:Mawlidman/sandbox (last quote); it certainly isn't in agreement with Saheehinfo's version. So once again we have differences of opinions expressed by several authors, hence why i call for only adding IT's own quoted view and let that do the explaining—rather than conflicting authors. I also find it strange that Saheehinfo objects to quoting IT, yet the article has 2 quotes already in the Permissibility section. Why doesn't Saheehinfo count these as primary sources too? If a scholar like Al-Suyuti can be quoted at length, despite authors not being divided about his support for Mawlid, then why can't IT be quoted at length when his views are open to dispute among authors? If anything, Al-Suyuti shouldn't be quoted, but rather authors should quickly summarize his view because it is considered so uncontroversial. Saheehinfo also claims that "within the translation there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject so it is not clear to me why We should only quote one paragraph in particular." Again he is incorrect: i only quoted from IT what was relevant to his views on Mawlid. Everything of IT's words that precede and succeed this quote were not added because they veered of course talking about other issues. If "there are numerous pages dedicated to the subject", as he claims, could Saheehinfo please draw attention to them? This is my reply to Saheehinfo. All i desire is to remove controversy by letting IT speak for himself—instead of others disputing over his views. Memon's source, as the only secondary source i could find that quotes IT at length, offers that solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You need to check this page regularly. If you don't respond soon, I'll have to close this case as failed. KSF T C 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If he doesn't respond soon does that mean that my case is rejected? --Mawlidman (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If I close the case because he doesn't respond, it will mean that you were unable to discuss the issue, so no consensus could be reached. KSF  T C 22:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well wouldn't that be very convenient for him not to respond? So i put in the effort to resolve this issue here most likely for nothing...how does such a system sound fair? If i had known that that's how it works then i wouldn't have bothered because from much experience the other editor is not approaching this dispute in good faith and seeking a fair solution. --Mawlidman (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * and Apologies for the delay - I am genuinely abroad at the moment and the Internet access here is very poor. I would very much appreciate a delay so that we can reconvene when I am back from holiday.

FYI - I do now have access to the work by Ukeles. The summary currently in the wiki article is an accurate reflection of her lengthy work so I really do not see why we should remove the existing version of the article. I scanned the pages before going on holiday with a view to provide the relevant quotes but unfortunately the Internet access here is so poor that the scanned documents do not open. You can also buy the book from Amazon if you do not believe me (it is not expensive). Can we therefore put this on hold until I am back? Saheeh Info 14:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer comment – I am putting this case on hold until Saheehinfo can participate. Saheehinfo, let me know here when I should reopen this case. KSF T C 18:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * A time frame on your return to editing action would have been nice. Regarding your acquisition of the book, all i ask, when you return from vacation, is that you show me that the source says something like "although not forbidden (ḥarām)" (which was in the edit). I'm not concerned by whether the cite mentions "complexity" because as i have shown the "complexity" adjective is a matter of dispute between different authors, i.e. plenty of authors don't think the issue is complex. --Mawlidman (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I'll be back on Saturday and will respon then.Saheeh Info 18:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Coordinator's note: I've extended the archive date of this case 9 days until May 15 to allow for the hold. If not resolved by then, then the case will be automatically archived and, in effect, closed if any 24-hour period passes with no edit made to it. If May 15 approaches without resolution or manual closing, KSFT may then extend it beyond May 15 by adjusting the "Do not archive until" date in the case header, but the best practice is not to do so unless there is active ongoing discussion and some hope of resolution. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
 * I will not extend the archive date unless Saheehinfo is back and discussion has begun. KSF  T C 11:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * and Thank you both for your patience. Below is my response to the four points made by Mawlidman:


 * Point 1
 * As I have explained before, I reverted your changes on the contested portion of the article per WP:BRD. When we come to an agreement on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change. I explained this on a number of occasions over the last few weeks (here, here and here) and also made clear that we should work together on this.


 * This is the reason why I reverted your changes - it was not done out of "stubbornly rejecting" your edits.


 * Point 2
 * There is long standing version of Ibn Taymiyya's views from Jan 2015 as follows:
 * The complexity of the issue is best seen in the opinion of the scholar Ibn Taymiyya who wrote that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice, although not forbidden (ḥarām), but since "some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions"
 * Ref: Ahmed, editors, Yossef Rapoport, Shahab (2010). Ibn Taymiyya and his times. Karachi: Oxford University Press. p. 320. ISBN 9780195478341.


 * The book Ibn Taymiyya and his Times consists of a number of articles by academic scholars. The relevant article in this book is by Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and is entitled "The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)".


 * On page 319 of the book, Ukeles states that "This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality."


 * On page 320 she states that "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..."


 * On page 320 she also states that "he recognized that some observe the Prophet's birthday out of a desire to show their love of the Prophet and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions."


 * Given the above, the summary by seems reasonable. However, I could not find an explicit mention to "although not (haram) forbidden" in the article. I would therefore be happy to remove this given that it was not explicitly mentioned in the book and seems to fall under WP:OR and perhaps WP:SYNTHESIS.


 * Question for Mawlidman - are you ok with this source and the summary?


 * Point 3 
 * You stated that: When something is open to dispute and conflicting opinions exist i don't see why one version gets to take precedence over the other.


 * I have mentioned previously that we need to use all sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints. So if conflicting views do exist from reliable sources then we should detail all of these.


 * You also state that: If there is such dispute then the best action to resort to is to add content that is neutral. My edit offers this solution: it simply quotes IT and presents his view clearly and objectively.


 * I completely disagree. Your proposal to "simply quote" Ibn Taymiyya is problematic as it means that we bypass a number of rigorous secondary sources. Wikipedia guidelines state that we should mainly use reliable secondary sources since:
 * A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources


 * Point 4 
 * The book you are quoting from is entitled Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion: With an Annotated Translation of His Kitab Iqtida As-sirat Al-mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Al-jahim (Religion and Society). It consists of three parts. Part three is entitled "Translation of Kitab Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat ashab al-Jahim". It is a direct translation of Ibn Taymiyya's book and is 231 pages long (pages 89 to 320). As I understand it, a direct translation of an authors work would be a primary source with respect to the author himself. Please read WP:PRIMARY.


 * There is absolutely no reason to use a primary source given the number of academic works dedicated to the subject.
 * Examples of reliable works on this subject are:
 * The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
 * Marion Holmes Katz, The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad: Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam (Culture and Civilization in the Middle East) Routledge
 * Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL


 * The above are excellent sources on the subject and certainly pass WP:RS. We should therefore definitely use them. Mawlidman - do you agree that these sources should be used?


 * Conclusion: 
 * 1) Your edits were reverted per WP:BRD not out of "stubbornly rejecting your edits"
 * 2) The current version of the paragraph is a reasonable rendering of Ukeles's work with the exception of "although not (haram) forbidden" which seems to be WP:SYNTHESIS and therefore can be removed.
 * 3) We should use all reliable secondary sources to come up with something that reflects all opinions.
 * 4) Directly quoting from a translation of Ibn Taymiyya's work seems to fall under WP:PRIMARY which is unnecessary when so many reliable secondary sources exist. Saheeh Info 11:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * and Firstly, i'm glad you agree in removing although not (haram) forbidden from the article. I think this removal also, more than ever, reinforces my request to have the section divided into sub-sections since we have 2 clear views of general support and opposition--each including their own conditions. Now, to respond to your questions: are you ok with this source and the summary? No i am not ok with this source and summary for several reasons: 1) You said On page 319 of the book, Ukeles states that "This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality." The key words you quoted are "This paper argues". That makes it quite clear that this is the author's personal view and hints that they acknowledge that authors hold conflicting views of IT's opinion; this is precisely what i have been arguing. I have shown some authors think his opinions are complex while others do not. So i don't see why the complex view should exclusively prevail in this conflict. 2) You say On page 320 she states that "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..." Thanks for finding this, but could you please quote the entire sentence? I don't understand why you cut it so short and i'd like to know the full content of this sentence because it could add further illumination to IT's views. I'd like to respond to your Point 3. You said we should mainly use reliable secondary sources, so do you consider my source, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, to be a primary source? I have already shown  Memon's book is not a primary source. The book quotes IT but i already showed that Memon mentions his view of IT's mawlid opinion and there is nothing wrong with adding IT's quote in the article when other pro-Mawlid scholars' opinions are already included in it. I have already covered this above. Now to respond to Point 4. The book i used, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, is 444 pages long; you said IT's quote in the book is 231 pages long. So about half the book is his quote and half the book is the scholar Memon's words. In what world does that make Memon's work a primary source? We have IT's quote regarding Mawlid, but we also have Memon's view of IT's mawlid opinion. Therefore, we have a primary and secondary source regarding IT's views on Mawlid. That brings me to answer your last question: do you agree that these sources should be used? No i don't agree. Let's be clear hear: your extra sources are all simply accessories to the foundational Ukeles edit by Thehistorian1984, i.e. they reinforce the initial edit's insistence that IT's view is complex. These sources add nothing new; they could readily be removed, to leave the foundational edit by the Thehistorian1984, and the initial edit will have gained or lost nothing. However, the problem that you keep ignoring is that your sources present one side of the coin: the "complexity" of IT's views. I have shown with my excellent sources that others view IT's opinion as not being complex at all. So why do you keep insisting that your version has the sole right to take precedence? My version takes the middle ground simply by quoting IT from a scholarly secondary source that provides us with the greatest amount of his own quoted opinion. I am not calling for an edit that says "IT was against Mawlid--period"; nor am i calling for an edit that presents his views as being universally accepted as being "complex"--as you are. I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * - there is too much going on here, so I would prefer it if we could try and agree on the fundamentals first.
 * You stated that:
 * I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions.
 * I could not disagree more with this. Please review WP:SECONDARY which states that:


 * A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.


 * So we ARE absolutely meant to make use of scholarly works such as those by Ukeles who have thoroughly analysed Ibn Taymiyya's works and provided an interpretation based on this. Her work has been peer reviewed and published by a respected academic institute. All of this makes it completely acceptable to use as a source for a Wikipedia article. As I mentioned before, if there are conflicting views amongst academics then all these views should be represented. To simply quote directly from one of Ibn Taymiyya's own books is problematic since it bypasses the specialist knowledge and analysis made by scholars who have spent much time to come up with there conclusions.


 * You also stated that: so do you consider my source, Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion, to be a primary source? I have already shown Memon's book is not a primary source.


 * As I mentioned above, the book you are quoting from is entitled Ibn Taimiya's Struggle Against Popular Religion: With an Annotated Translation of His Kitab Iqtida As-sirat Al-mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab Al-jahim (Religion and Society). It consists of three parts. Part three is entitled "Translation of Kitab Iqtida as-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat ashab al-Jahim". It is a direct translation of Ibn Taymiyya's book and is 231 pages long (pages 89 to 320). As I understand it, a direct translation of an authors book would be a primary source with respect to the author himself. Please read WP:PRIMARY.
 * Parts one and two of the book are Memon's interpretation. Both of these parts would be acceptable as a secondary source. However, the long quote that you have suggested is from the third part.


 * I haven't touched on your other points as we need to agree on the fundamentals first (although please note that I disagree with your view that there is a major conflict amongst academics or that some academics claim that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex").


 * So can we first agree on the following:
 * a) Reliable secondary sources such as those by Ukeles, Katz, Memon etc... should be used
 * b) *IF* there is a conflict amongst academics then all these all these views should be represented
 * c) The use of Primary sources (e.g. direct quotes from Ibn Taymiyya's own books) are unnecessary given the multitude of reliable secondary sources that are available. Saheeh Info 15:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not in the habit of circular arguing and repetition. You have my answers to all your questions above. I answered all your questions in detail; the least you could do is to answer my one real question: could you please quote the entire sentence? If you want the context of this question then re-read my response above (the question is also in bold). could you please give us your input because this argument between me and Saheehinfo is going nowhere and we are running out of time. --Mawlidman (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * - A simple yes or no would suffice and then we can discuss content. So do you agree on the following:
 * a) Reliable secondary sources such as those by Ukeles, Katz, Memon etc... should be used
 * b) *IF* there is a conflict amongst academics then all these all these views should be represented
 * c) The use of Primary sources (e.g. direct quotes from Ibn Taymiyya's own books) are unnecessary given the multitude of reliable secondary sources that are available.
 * If we cannot even agree on the fundamentals there is no point discussing content. So please answer YES or NO and then I would be happy to go through content with you. Saheeh Info 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what the dispute is about, and it seems like you might not either. It looks like one disagreement is that Mawlidman wants to split a section into two subsections, one with information about who agrees with the subject of the article and one about people who disagree, and Saheehinfo doesn't want the subsections. Is that correct? If so, Saheehinfo, can you explain why it shouldn't be split? Per WP:PSTS, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources can all be used on Wikipedia. Translation is not "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis", so a translation of a primary source is a primary source. That shouldn't be relevant for citing facts or quotes, though, as long as the article has other independent sources. Can one or both of you summarize the other points you disagree about? KSF T C 21:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, one of my requests is for sub-sections. My second request is that we simply add Ibn Taymiyya's opinion as a quote of his own words regarding Mawlid. --Mawlidman (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The major disagreement we have is about how best to summarise the views of the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyyah on the Mawlid. I believe that we should base his views on reliable secondary sources such as:


 * Raquel M. Ukeles, Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL
 * The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319-337. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.
 * Marion Holmes Katz (2007). The Birth of The Prophet Muhammad: Devotional Piety in Sunni Islam. Routledge.


 * The above individuals are recognised scholars and their words are easily verifiable by the reader.


 * Mawlidman believes that "we simply add Ibn Taymiyya's opinion as a quote of his own words regarding Mawlid". I consider this problematic and unnecessary for a number of reasons:


 * We have a number of excellent reliable secondary sources on the subject published by Oxford University Press, BRILL etc... which summarises Ibn Taymiyyah's views well. I do not understand why we should bypass these. According to WP:SECONDARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources."
 * Ibn Taymiyya wrote a lot of material on the subject. To try and add all of the material from his books would take up a lot of space. Per WP:LONGQUOTE this would be undesirable. On the other hand if we selectively quote from his works this would lead to POV pushing one way or another.
 * Quoting directly from a translation of Ibn Taymiyya's work is making use of a primary source. WP:PRIMARY states that "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is not the case here. The subject matter is complex - academics have spent months analysing Ibn Taymiyya's views and have published lengthy material about the subject.


 * The second (minor issue) is regarding subheadings. I do not believe that we should add subheadings as this would give the impression that there are only 2 possible views on the subject ("for" and "against"). In reality, there are diverse opinions on the subject. e.g. Some scholars permitted certain types of celebration and prohibited other types. Saheeh Info 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you concisely respond to the three points Saheehinfo mentioned above? KSF  T C 13:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late response; i've been busy. Of course i can respond to his 3 points above, but i don't know how i can be anymore illuminating than my explanations above: 1) Saheehinfo's "excellent reliable secondary sources" are subjective in a controversial, disputed manner. They are fixated on proving IT's views are complex when plenty of other "excellent reliable secondary sources" don't consider his views complex, e.g. see here. 2) My quote does not "selectively quote from his works". The quote is IT's full opinion of Mawlid—period. Saheehinfo has provided zero proof that "Ibn Taymiyya wrote a lot of material on the subject." If such material exists then the burden is upon Saheehinfo to provide such other Mawlid opinions of IT, i.e. material that adds something that wasn't included in my quote. 3) Using the definition provided by Saheehinfo regarding WP:PRIMARY, I would actually argue that my quote does in fact "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Anyone who reads my quote, i believe, would easily be able to indentify IT's views on Mawlid because it's thorough. To portray his views as complex would be to favour the views of one group of academics while discounting the views of another group that doesn't share their conclusions. --Mawlidman (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to explain what specifically about the sources is bad and cite policy. Also, I don't see the quote you mentioned on this page. Can you copy it here?
 * You claim that that author has written multiple books on the subject, but Mawlidman claims that a quote in the article covers the author's "full opinion of Mawlid". That should be easy to disprove, if it's false, by showing examples of other writing on the subject by that author. Can you do that here, just below this comment? KSF  T C 13:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * - Ibn Taymiyyah wrote about the Mawlid in the following books:


 * Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqlm li-mukhalafat ashab al-jahim, 2 vols, Riyadh: Dar al-'Asima, 1419 ah/1998 ce. Ibn Tulun al-Salihl, Muhammad ibn 'All, al-Fulk al-mashhun ft ahwal Muhammad ibn Tulun, ed. Muhammad Khayr Ramadan Yusuf, Beirut: Dar ibn Hazm, 1416 ah/ 1996 CE. Mufakahat al-khillan ft hawadith al-zaman, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Tlmlya, 1418 ah/1998 ce.
 * Majmu ' fatawa shaykh al-islam Ahmad ibn Taymiya, 37 vols, collected and arranged by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qasim al-'Asiml al-Najdl, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963.
 * Fatwa Fi'l Qiyam wa'l alqab in Rasa 'il wa-nusus, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln al-Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963, pp. 9-12.


 * The above books have been quoted from extensively by both Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and Marion Holmes Katz within there works outlined above. I have provided some example quotes from the above books here and here. The main point I am alluding to is that if "we simply add Ibn Taymiyya's opinion as a quote of his own words regarding Mawlid" we will necessarily either end up adding all his quotes (which would be problematic per WP:LONGQUOTE AND WP:QUOTEFARM) or adding only some of his quotes (which would be problematic per WP:NPOV).


 * Further, we should be cautious about adding lengthy quotes per WP:PRIMARY which states that: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Finally, there are questions regarding copyright violations given the amount of material potentially copied from these sources per WP:COPYPASTE.


 * I have also provided reasons that explain why the sources I am suggesting are reliable per Wikipedia policies here. Also, I am not suggesting that we restrict ourselves to the sources I am supporting (though they seem to be the most thorough). I am suggesting that we use ALL sources that fulfill WP:RS to come up with something that represents ALL academic viewpoints. Again this is in line with Wikipedia policies such as WP:YESPOV which states that:


 * Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Saheeh Info 17:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * My quote is this (as taken from here): "...It is rather the Christians and Jews who turn the eventful days in the lives of prophets into festivals, in particular the former who commemorate events in the life of Jesus. A shar'i festival means only one thing: whatever God has laid down must be followed and that which is not of the original faith must not be innovated. Under this heading come also the practices of some Muslims undertaken in imitation of the Christian observances of Christmas or out of love and reverence for the Prophet of Islam. God may reward them for this love and effort (ijtihad), not for innovations such as celebrating the Prophet's birthday (Maulid) as a festival, while people are not even sure of the actual date of his birth. The Salaf would have none of that, though it may have been expected and though there could have been no objection. If such a practice had been good, entirely or preponderantly, it would have been natural to expect the Salaf to have instituted such a celebration, what with their greater love and reverence for the Prophet and their zeal for the good. Indeed the most complete expression of one's love and reverence of him lies in following and obeying him, in carrying out his command, upholding his Sunna both in inner as well as external life, and in advancing the cause of Islam with heart, hand and tongue. Such was indeed the way of the earliest Muslims, whether Muhajirun or Ansar, and of those who followed them in piety. Notwithstanding their good intent and rewardable effort, most of those people who are eager for these novelties are found rather lukewarm in complying with the Prophet's expressed command...." To answer your request You need to explain what specifically about the sources is bad and cite policy: What's bad about the sources is that they purvey only one side (WP:UNDUE) i.e. they portray IT's opinion as complex when the other side portrays his opinion as very straightforward. Hence, this does not meet Neutral point of view. Quoting IT, however, is as neutral as one can get—unless Saheehinfo can prove that i am somehow selectively quoting IT. I asked you to provide me with quotes of IT that add info that is not already included in my quote; you have not done that with your response above. You simply rattled off a list of secondary sources with zero mention of any new IT opinion quotes. Please quote IT saying something other than what is mentioned in my quote. --Mawlidman (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at in your sandbox. Where, specifically, do those secondary sources explicitly claim that IT's views are not complex? Also, can you point out where, specifically, WP:UNDUE says supports your view, which seems to be that sources that contradict other sources should never be used? Unless I'm misunderstanding Saheehinfo's comment above, he gave a list of other books written by IT about Mawlid. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's what you claimed didn't exist.  KSF  T C 13:57, 15 May 2016 (UThoww
 * All the sandbox sources simply mention that IT considered mawlid a heretical innovation—not the more mild sounding "reprehensible (makrūh) innovative practice" in the wiki article. They don't mention complexity precisely because many view his opinion as being strongly against mawlid. Do my sources need to explicitly claim that IT's views are not complex for them to be considered so? That sounds odd to me. Regarding WP:UNDUE: i can add more sources which make no mention of IT's views as complex; with these extra sources included i am pretty sure that it will be shown that a minority of sources make the complex claim. About Saheehinfo's books: sorry, what i meant was that Saheehinfo has to show that within these books there is new info that hasn't been included in my IT quote. I am confident that the quote i provided covers all of IT's arguments against mawlid; these other primary sources will elucidate no new IT arguments. Sorry if i wasn't clear previously. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Your sources don't "need to" claim that; I thought your point was that they did. I'm just trying to clarify your argument. I'm not sure why your point that "a minority of sources make the complex claim" is relevant. To be clear, are you claiming that those books that Saheehinfo listed above make no mention of Mawlid? If not, you'll need to be more clear about what you are claiming. If so, Saheehinfo, can you find a quote that does mention Mawlid? KSF  T C 16:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No my sources do not say specifically that "IT's views on mawlid are uncomplex." What i am saying is that they all bluntly state his opinion was that it is a heretical innovation; by this way, they didn't see his views as complex. My point with my minority argument is that Saheehinfo has included complex in the wiki article even though this is not the consensus view, hence he is giving WP:UNDUE. Regarding Saheehinfo's books: What i am saying is that his books may contain mention of Mawlid—still unproven though—however, what he has to prove is that these books contain new info, of IT's mawlid views, other than that provided in my quote. Saheehinfo argued that my quote couldn't be included because it doesn't elucidate all of IT's views regarding Mawlid, i.e. that it lacked all of the views of IT. I am saying that my quote covers all of IT's arguments against Mawlid, hence this is a worthy quote to include. In fact, my quote pretty much covers every argument used by opponents of mawlid—as the opposition section of the wiki article makes quite clear. --Mawlidman (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I have explained here as to why the sources I am suggesting we use are reliable and pass WP:RS. Mawlidman hasn't provided any policy reasons for rejecting these secondary sources. He simply stated that "What's bad about the sources is that they purvey only one side" This isn't Wikipedia policy, this is simply his POV.


 * He also mentioned WP:UNDUE as a reason for rejecting these sources. This is a misreading of WP:UNDUE as it actually states the opposite of what Mawlidman is claiming:
 * "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
 * If an 18 page article on the subject produced by Oxford University Press isn't a "significant viewpoint" then what is?
 *  - please provide actual policy reasons for rejecting these secondary sources.


 * Secondly, none of Mawlidman's sources state that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex". This seems to be a case of inference on his part. WP:STICKTOSOURCE states that:
 * Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.
 * Mawlidman - can you please provide an explicit statement that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex"?


 * Thirdly, I have mentioned previously that we need to use all sources to come up with something that is accurate and reflects all viewpoints. So *IF* conflicting views do exist from reliable sources then we should detail all of these. WP:YESPOV states that:
 * Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.


 * Therefore, even if academics differ there is absolutely no reason to reject sources that contradict other sources.
 * Mawlidman, do you agree with this? If so, then do you agree that we should be using all sources? If not, then can you explain why not.


 * Fourthly, Ibn Taymiyya discussed the Mawlid in a number of his books such as:
 * Iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqlm li-mukhalafat ashab al-jahim, 2 vols, Riyadh: Dar al-'Asima, 1419 ah/1998 ce. Ibn Tulun al-Salihl, Muhammad ibn 'All, al-Fulk al-mashhun ft ahwal Muhammad ibn Tulun, ed. Muhammad Khayr Ramadan Yusuf, Beirut: Dar ibn Hazm, 1416 ah/ 1996 CE. Mufakahat al-khillan ft hawadith al-zaman, Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Tlmlya, 1418 ah/1998 ce.
 * Majmu ' fatawa shaykh al-islam Ahmad ibn Taymiya, 37 vols, collected and arranged by 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Qasim al-'Asiml al-Najdl, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963.
 * Fatwa Fi'l Qiyam wa'l alqab in Rasa 'il wa-nusus, vol. 3, ed. Salah al-Dln al-Munajjid, Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Jadld, 1963, pp. 9-12.


 * The above books have been quoted from extensively by both Dr. Raquel M. Ukeles and Marion Holmes Katz within there works outlined above. I have provided some example quotes from the above books here and here. Please check my sandbox for the explicit quotes. If you want me to copy and paste them here I would be happy to do so.


 * Fifthly, I mentioned above that one of the main problems with adding large quotes directly from Primary sources is that this would be problematic per WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:QUOTEFARM. If we only selectively quote it would be problematic per WP:NPOV.
 * Mawlidman - what is your response to this?


 * Sixthly, Mawlidman stated that Saheehinfo argued that my quote couldn't be included because it doesn't elucidate all of IT's views regarding Mawlid, i.e. that it lacked all of the views of IT. I am saying that my quote covers all of IT's arguments against Mawlid, hence this is a worthy quote to include.


 * What I actually stated was that "To try and add all of the material from his books would take up a lot of space. Per WP:LONGQUOTE this would be undesirable. On the other hand if we selectively quote from his works this would lead to POV pushing one way or another."


 * For example, Ibn Taymiyya states that:
 * If you see someone observing the Mawlid and you know that he would only abandon it for worse do not summon him to abandon it for an even more detestable act, nor should you enjoin him to abandon something obligatory or recommended which [its abandonment] would be worse than observing their (makruh) reprehensible deed. But if there was a good element in the innovated practice, substitute it with a lawful good to the best of your ability. Since people do not relinquish something without something to replace it, and it is not necessary to abandon something good except for something equally good or better.
 * (Iqtida 2:125, Taken from Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, Oxford University Press, p 326.)


 * The above is not apparent in the quote that Mawlidman supplied. So what do we do? Do we start adding even more quotes directly from Ibn Taymiyya (there are plenty more).


 * Further, we should be cautious about adding lengthy quotes per WP:PRIMARY which states that: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
 * Mawlidman - what is your policy response to this? Saheeh Info 08:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have answers to your questions, but i think you have deviated from KSFT's plan to control this discussion by keeping questions and answers focused and dealt with one at a time. You have added new questions and hence inconveniently expanded the scope and focus of this discussion. I will wait to see what KSFT desires me to answer. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is fine. You can definitely answer the questions. KSF  T C 23:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

to answer your questions: please provide actual policy reasons for rejecting these secondary sources. I gave WP:NPOV and UNDUE. By stating that the issue is definitively complex (based upon a few sources) you have breached UNDUE because you did not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints". What would be fairer, and a minimum requirement, is to say something like "IT's views on Mawlid have been described as complex by several authors/scholars, such as Ukeles..." But it is not being fair when you present his views as being universally and indisputably accepted as being complex. can you please provide an explicit statement that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex"? No i don't have an explicit statement saying his views are considered uncomplex. But does that matter? I take the sources i have provided, and their succinct views, to definitely not imply that they considered his views complex. Even if you disagree with me, neither can you argue that they agree IT's view is complex. Therefore, you can't word the sentence to imply that IT's views are unanimously accepted as complex. '''Mawlidman, do you agree with this? If so, then do you agree that we should be using all sources? If not, then can you explain why not.' Yes i do agree we should use all sources; however, what i completely disagree with is presenting the complex'' view as being universally accpeted. This is where you have extended the coverage of the source beyond what is fair. If you insist on keeping complex then you need to narrow its scope by re-writing the section as something like what i suggested above: "IT's views on Mawlid have been described as complex by several authors/scholars, such as Ukeles..." This would meet the criteria of fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. To respond to your 2 questions regarding the quotations: 1) All the quotes you provided (except Iqtida 2:125, Taken from Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, Oxford University Press, p 326) add nothing new to my quote. Your Iqtida 2:125 quote is actually secondary to the primary issue of permissability of Mawlid. The primary issue is whether Mawlid is considered Haraam or Halaal. My quote shows that IT considers Mawlid generally Haraam; however, he conditions this upon a person's intention. Your quote goes beyond this initial permissibility issue to the secondary issue of how to deal with those still performing Mawlid. Hence your quote doesn't belong in the article anyway; perhaps it could warrant a one sentence summary. Therefore, there is no issue of LONGQUOTE and QUOTEFARM. Regarding PRIMARY (Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.), my one quote is nowhere near meeting this accusation. Since i answered your questions could you answer a question of mine: can you provide me with the rest of the Ukeles quote, on page 320: "Ibn Taymiyya rules that the Mawlid is a reprehensible (makruh) devotional innovation..."? --Mawlidman (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered the fundamental question that Saheehinfo and I have asked a few times now: Why does not being in other sources mean that including a claim made in one source shouldn't be included in an article? That is, what policy supports that? You've cited WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE repeatedly, but you haven't shown which parts of those policies support your view. As a neutral mediator, I'm phrasing this as a question, because I have not read every policy. I do not believe that there is one that supports this view, but I'm asking you to prove me wrong. I think this because a policy like that would prevent anything from being written in any article on Wikipedia; for any given claim, there are sources that do not make that claim. I normally wouldn't be this involved in the content of the dispute, but you will not get anywhere by making this claim without citing specific policies that support you. KSF  T C 02:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Before i respond to your question—which i will—it's important to draw your attention to the fact that the words you are defending are not even in the quoted sources. You said "Why does not being in other sources mean that including a claim made in one source shouldn't be included in an article?" However, no source even says the words in the wiki article "The complexity of the issue [Mawlid]..." The sources draw attention to the complexity of IT's view—not to the complexity of Mawlid in general. So you are accusing me of not backing my uncomplex claims with the sources, while the current wiki version you defend isn't even backed by the sources. If anything, the sentence should first be re-worded to reflect the sources e.g. "IT's views are described as complex..." --Mawlidman (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been over twelve hours. I hope you will answer the question soon. This discussion hasn't gotten very far, and I don't plan to extend the archive date if that continues. KSF  T C 00:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * That's ok, i'll just re-submit another DR request. So are you or Saheehinfo going to tell me how you can allow "The complexity of the issue [Mawlid]..." to be included in the wiki article when not a single source says the issue of Mawlid is complex? Every source used actually says only IT's views regarding Mawlid are complex. We should first deal with OR in the article before dealing with my proposed edits. --Mawlidman (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * - nobody here has suggested that the existing version is set in stone and cannot change. In fact, I mentioned on a number of occasions (as early as the 6th April - over 6 weeks ago) that "when we come to an agreement here on the talk page on a new version we can update it since Consensus can change." So I am absolutely open to changing the current version.


 * The problem I am having is that you seem to hold views that oppose fundamental Wikipedia policies.


 * For example, you initially stated that the secondary sources I listed were "bad" and "purvey one-sided" and therefore could not be used. This was despite the fact that they clearly passed WP:RS.


 * Likewise, you also held the view that when reliable sources contradict one another they should not be used. This was not backed up with any policy reasons.


 * You also seemed to suggest that we should ignore secondary sources altogether and use only primary sources when you stated that: I am saying that when such controversy swirls it is best to just let IT speak for himself and let the readers make their own opinions, rather than having people like Ukeles and Memon offering their own disputed opinions.


 * If we cannot agree on such fundamental issues it makes it nigh on impossible to work together on a new version. This is why you are being asked about these core issues.


 * Now regarding your concern, I think we can improve the wording.


 * Ukeles states that:
 * "This paper argues that contemporary debates over Ahmed Ibn Taymiyya's approach to the Mawlid festival illuminate complexities within Ibn Taymiyya's thinking regarding the relationship between law and spirituality."
 * Ref: The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th-century Debates on the Prophet's Birthday (mawlid al-nabī)." Ibn Taymiyya and His Times, ed. Youssef Rapport and Shahab Ahmed, 319. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2010.


 * In another of her works she uses the phrase "paradoxical":
 * Not only does Ibn Taymiyyah recognize the pious elements within devotional innovations, but he asserts that sincere practitioners of these innovations merit a reward. As I argue elsewhere, Ibn Taymiyyah's paradoxical position stems from a practical awareness of the way that Muslims of his day engaged in devotional practices.
 * Ref: Islamic Law in Theory: Studies on Jurisprudence in Honor of Bernard Weiss, BRILL


 * So we could change the text to something like "Ibn Taymiyya's position on the Mawlid has been described as "paradoxical" and "complex" by some academics...."


 * However, as mentioned above, what I believe is more important than discussing content is that we agree on the fundamentals so please answer the policy questions that you are being asked.


 * Finally, please also review WP:BATTLEGROUND. This isn't about conflict, its about cooperation. Saheeh Info 13:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, if you change the edit to what you stated above ("Ibn Taymiyya's position on the Mawlid has been described as "paradoxical" and "complex" by some academics....") then i can live with that. Unfortunately, it appears that WP trumps commonsense regarding this issue. Youse claim somehow that since my sources don't explicitly mention complex that as result they agree with others like Ukeles who use such terms. Just because they don't use complex doesn't mean they agree with Ukeles et al. What youse are ignoring is that Ukeles et als words are their opinions—not facts—and IT never describes his own opinions as complex. If someone is giving their opinion then this should be noted in the article; this wouldn't, as according to KSFT, "prevent anything from being written in any article on Wikipedia". --Mawlidman (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , You still haven't answered the question that asked you. Can you please do so?
 * You stated that: Youse claim somehow that since my sources don't explicitly mention complex that as result they agree with others like Ukeles who use such terms.


 * That's not true. Neither me or claimed this. Rather it was you who claimed that I have shown with my excellent sources that others view IT's opinion as not complex at all.


 * The point is your sources don't show that Ibn Taymiyya's views were "not complex". There is no statement to that affect. Unless we have a clear statement that directly supports the claim it would fall under original research. WP:OR states that:
 * The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.


 * So we need a direct citation that supports the claim. Further, WP:STICKTOSOURCE states that:
 * Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.


 * If you still disagree with this, then please provide policy reasons for your disagreement. Saheeh Info 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No, i don't have sources that say its uncomplex or a policy to back up my views. But that's ok because my focus is on re-wording the sentence that i mentioned above. Unless it's re-worded, the current version falls under your own words above: "Unless we have a clear statement that directly supports the claim it would fall under original research." So could you please re-write the sentence as you suggested above? --Mawlidman (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask you again. You claimed above that including a statement that is not in a particular source is against policy. I do not believe that such a policy exists, as I explained above. If you don't prove otherwise by referencing it, then this particular issue is resolved as a simple misunderstanding of policy. KSF  T C 03:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have been asked this several times, and you haven't answered. If you are still interested in using this noticeboard to resolve the dispute, you need to answer it. I have to ask you not to make any other comments here before you do. KSF  T C 17:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Throughout you have been fanatically insistent upon my answering questions, yet you have not appled the same standards to yourself or Saheehinfo. I have asked straightforward questions, that have gone unanswered, several times. Thankyou. --Mawlidman (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is your final warning to stop making personal attacks. If there's a question that you think I should ask Saheehinfo that I haven't, then you can ask him yourself. I'm going to take this comment as an agreement that Saheehinfo's source should be included. If that is not what you meant, then you need to support that by referencing policy. Assuming that is what you meant, we can now move on to the next issue, which I think was about the sub-headings. Can you both concisely state your opinions and reasonings about the sub-headings below?  KSF  T C 04:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The section should be divided into sub-sections since we have 2 clear views of general support and opposition—each including their own conditions. (Even IT is generally opposed to Mawlid.) This is per Manual of Style/Layout: "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." Currently, the section in the article is too long and cluttered. --Mawlidman (talk) 04:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , I don't believe that we should add the sub-headings of "support" and "opposition" as it gives the impression that only 2 legal views exist - i.e. either one is for the Mawlid or against it. In reality a wide range of opinions exist such as the fact that some historic scholars accepted certain aspects of the mawlid but forbade other aspects. For example:


 * The medieval scholar Ibn al-Hajj "applauds the desire to venerate the Prophet's birth" (Ukeles, pg 330) and "recognises the potential merit of a day celebrating the Prophet's birth" (Ukeles, pg 329) but considers the festival as "a day of reprehensible, if not sinful, deeds" (Ukeles, pg 330).
 * The medieval scholar Ibn Rajab restricted the commemoration of the Prophet's(s) birth to the practice of fasting but did not acknowledge any other mode of celebration. (Katz, pg 63-64)
 * The views of the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyya have been described as "paradoxical" and "complex". He suggested that those who celebrated the Mawlid for the love of the Prophet (s) would receive a great reward whereas those who celebrated out of imitation of the Christians would be sinning. (Ukeles, pg 324-325)


 * Pigeonholing individuals such as the above into "for" and "against" camps would over-simplify there actual positions which were quite intricate.


 * An alternative might be to have two subsections entitled "Medieval scholars" and "Modern scholars". The former subsection would list the views of scholars in the pre-Modern period and the latter would list opinions in the modern period. Saheeh Info 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In case it wasn't clear, as appears to be the case, you can reply to each other. I only need to get involved to make sure the discussion stays on-topic. KSF  T C 19:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made my argument; i don't have anything else to add. Could you give us your opinion? --Mawlidman (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, again, that isn't my job. Saheehinfo gave examples of people whose views don't fit into either of those categories. Where do you think they should go? KSF  T C 11:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * None of the examples he gave go against my argument. Every scholar he mentioned is clearly generally in support or opposition to mawlid; however, each one has conditions for their support or opposition. Ibn al-Hajj is generally opposed, Ibn Rajab is generally supportive, Ibn Taymiyya is generally opposed. I don't see how any of these scenarios can fall under a new category. --Mawlidman (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you provide sources for each of those? If so,, can you respond to that? If not, Mawlidman, make sure you aren't doing original research. KSF  T C 11:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can i provide sources for each of those?! Seriously?! The sources are those provided by Saheehinfo. Isn't it clear from his quotes that each of these scholars has a general view in support or opposition, but they have conditions to these views? I seriously don't know why i am even bothering. --Mawlidman (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No it isn't "clear". The positions of the above scholars are intricate which is why academics have used terms such as "paradoxical" and "complex". As I mentioned above, pigeonholing individuals into "for" and "against" camps we would be over-simplify there actual positions which were quite intricate.
 * You stated above that you wanted to add new subsections because you felt that "the section in the article is too long and cluttered." If this is your only concern then we can look to add subsections that are not controversial such as "Views of Medieval scholars" and "Views of Modern scholars". What are your thoughts on this? Saheeh Info 10:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I am extending the archive date of this case by one more week until May 22. You can continue the discussion above this comment. KSF T C 19:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Programming idiom
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

Some content changes of Programming idiom were challenged (see edit history and Talk:Programming idiom, but user Ruud Koot wasn't able to provide WP:V at talk page or at his user page. Timeline of editwarring was explained at User_talk:Ushkin_N.

Similar case with [Applicative functor] and talk page User_talk:Ruud_Koot

In short, follow my and his edit history. User where Ruud Koot suppresses requests (according to WP:V).

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Unfortunately, not. Other editors made no claims about this topic.

How do you think we can help?

User:Ruud Koot uses non-guidelines as argument to banwarn/block my account.

Aslo, User:Ruud Koot tend to revert edits without any explanation in the edit comment or talk page more often than should be acceptable.

You can inspect my verbosity in edit statements.

Summary of dispute by Ruud Koot
Ushkin insists on placing an excessive number of citation needed tags in the article Programming idiom and elsewhere. This practice is frowned upon, and widely considered a form of disruptive editing. Uskin needs to stop doing this.

The problems with Ushkin's contributions are more wide-ranging than this, however. The underlying problem is that Ushkin is an inexperienced editor, but refuses to acknowledge this and is unwilling to accept friendly advice from more experienced editors. Dispute resolution would thus be a rather fruitless endeavour. Instead, Ushkin needs to change his attitude and perhaps accept some form of mentorship.

—Ruud 16:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Programming idiom 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 and at the talk page of the filing editor. However, the filing editor has not notified the editor of this request for dispute resolution.  It is the responsibility of the filing editor to notify other editors.  Also, two other editors have, at least briefly, taken part in the discussion, and should be listed as (optional) parties and notified of this filing.  I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but am waiting for all parties to be notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - The filing party has been blocked for a short term by the other named editor, who is an administrator. When the filing party comes off block, if they wish to discuss content here, they should add the other parties and notify all parties.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for a wait, I notified other user as soon I got free time 30.05.2016. Is everything correct?
 * I did it 28.05.2016 but without using template, without any feedback. Ushkin N (talk) 15:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I added 3 sections at Talk:Programming idiom about "sources" of this term. I still have not seen direct definition of "Programming idiom" from other users. The best citation I was able to find can be seen at the article. Ushkin N (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "but refuses to acknowledge this" - 1. that's a lie. 2. My talk page is just filled with his false statements, starting from statements about this conflict 3. irrelevant to the topic. Even I'm "inexperienced editor" at Wikipedia I can quote 2 words from the paper, unlike User:Ruud Koot. He had 4 days consecutively to provide single source for "Programming idiom". WP:PROVEIT. His unsourced changes WP:V changes affect multiple pages 1 2 3 4 5


 * Yes other members were performing similar change, I send a notifications now 2 Ushkin N (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I send an invite to User:Tea2min about this discussion 1, is everything correct? Ushkin N (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy John's
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

Regarding the Wikipedia page about Jimmy John's. I edited the History section of the page to include mention of the calls for boycotting Jimmy John's and I included a cite to the Wall Street Journal documenting this news. Another editor feels that there should be no mention of this incident.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Extensive discussion on the Talk page. I invited Mendaliv to Formal Mediation. He declined my request.

How do you think we can help?

The consensus of a variety of senior editors would be very helpful in this case.

Summary of dispute by Mendaliv
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Late in the summer of 2015 there was a call for a boycott of Jimmy John's sandwich shops by animal rights activists because the franchisor's owner and founder, Jimmy John Liataud, went big game hunting in Africa. The peak of the coverage appears to have been an eight-paragraph post to a Wall Street Journal blog (as far as I can tell the story never made it into the newspaper itself). This appears only to have gotten any traction because of the roughly contemporaneous scandal over the killing of Cecil the lion. There was a brief flurry of coverage in that period, but just about anything printed since November 2015 has been about Liataud himself, been extremely cursory, doesn't mention an ongoing boycott, or is printed in an unreliable source.

This story has previously been put in the article as a full paragraph in its own section, which I disputed. To Taquim's credit, he or she has backed down from insisting on the story being in a standalone section, and very slightly shortened it. However, in light of the current length of the article itself, and that it's an article about the franchise business rather than its owner's behavior—which is the real focus of the news story—I stand by my argument that including this ephemeral story about a boycott that never seemed to gain any traction would violate WP:UNDUE, and moreover WP:NOTNEWS.

The dispute itself can barely be called that. Taquim inserted the section about a month ago and it was rapidly removed. The page was full protected a couple times in the ensuing edit war between Taquim and an anonymous editor. I started a talk page section to try and get discussion started. There were some initial posts made setting out the subject of the argument. Taquim requested formal mediation very quickly, which I declined arguing that the issue was not ripe for formal DR. Then nothing happened until just yesterday when Taquim proposed re-adding the section and paragraph. I responded, opposing its addition. Taquim made some changes, and I voiced my continued opposition to including any mention of the boycott. So now we're here.

I'm really not sure if this is a case that's ripe for DRN. There really hasn't been much discussion. I suppose we are deadlocked insofar as Taquim seems unwilling to budge on including a mention of the news story, and I'm pretty set against including it myself. So that's my summary. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Jimmy John's discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. *Note If both parties agree to this discussion, I will accept the role of moderator. Already Started with other moderator. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 00:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. (The filing party should have notified the other editor, but, since the other editor is aware of this thread, I provided the notice.)  Moderated discussion here is voluntary, and will only be started if both parties state that they wish to begin moderated discussion.  If either party does not want to have moderated discussion, then a Request for Comments can be used to decide whether to include a "Boycott" section.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to begin moderated discussion. In addition to the Wall Street Journal, the trophy hunting/boycott issue has been covered in Business Insider, Advertising Age, Chicago Daily Herald, Chicago Tribune, Bloomberg, Salon, Seattle Times, etc... It seems that merely one sentence within the company history section of JJ's would be reasonable since the topic has been so well publicized and because business news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal have considered the topic newsworthy due to the potential impacts of a boycott on the corporation and investors. Taquim 01:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

We can try this, but I don't think it'll accomplish anything. This by and large rests on an application of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS that is, in my view, straightforward. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I am willing to start moderated discussion. Here are the ground rules. Each participant is expected to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions at least every 48 hours. I will enforce that rule strictly. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address all comments during moderated discussion to the moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they are do or do not want in the article, and why this is consistent with Wikipedia policies. In particular, if there are any other issues than a hunting-related boycott, please identify them (and identifying any other issues gets you one extra paragraph for that purpose). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

First statements by editors
I do not want content related to the August/September 2015 news cycle on a boycott of Jimmy John's in response to publicity of Liataud's history of African big game hunting in the wake of the killing of Cecil the lion. Exclusion of this content is appropriate for the following reasons. Inclusion would violate WP:UNDUE: Jimmy John's is a company that has existed since 1983. In the 33 years since then, the news stories pointed to regarding Liataud's big game hunting were printed by and large during a two-month period. Furthermore, the vast majority of the stories appearing in reliable sources are reporting on the same incident, in the same way, which reduces the independence of the stories, and thereby reduces their impact for WP:UNDUE purposes. Moreover, the article as it is has about 6 paragraphs in its "history" section, and 11 overall. The proposed paragraph gives an undue weight to these frankly very minor news stories. Additionally, covering this matter would violate WP:NOTNEWS. From all appearances this boycott never materialized in any significant form: It rose as a flurry of news coverage and died down just as quickly. Wikipedia is not the place to report news stories of this sort, particularly not so far removed from the incident (which gives rise to WP:SOAPBOX concerns). Finally, we should avoid making the Jimmy John's article into a WP:COATRACK by including tangentially related content about its owner. Taken together, I submit that it is inappropriate to include coverage of this Jimmy John's restaurant boycott given the evidence that has been provided thus far. If there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to indicate that there was a boycott, and that it wasn't simply a minor and temporary distaste for Liataud, then there might be grounds for inclusion as a single sentence. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 06:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune had an article in 2013 that referred to the boycott and photos that began circulating "a few years ago.". Calls for a boycott have been present for years, and peaked in the summer of '15. I can rewrite the sentence to reflect that if you'd like. The boycott issue is simply not, as a simple Google News search will reveal, "very minor news stories." "The proposed Paragraph." Please note that what is being proposed is one sentence in the general History section, not a paragraph. WP:NOTNEWS indicates that "breaking news should not be emphasized." The hunting/boycott issue has been ongoing for years. This is not a flash in the pan story that has faded or will fade from the spotlight. In regards to Soapbox concerns, yes hunting for endangered animals is controversial, but this controversial topic has been covered by a huge variety of news sources, including the Wall Street Journal, the original source cited in the sentence that I added to the article. Soapbox refers to using Wikipedia as a "vehicle of propaganda." Please do not suggest that this is the intent of myself and others that would like to see a major event in the company's history covered in the Wikipedia entry. Concerns of Coatrack/tangential information: Wikipedia's entry on Coatracking defines such as "irrelevant and biased material." The Wall Street Journal and many other news services have covered calls for a boycott over the years. The Wall Street Journal published this information because of the potential impacts a boycott would have on the chain and its investors. It would be hard to define this article as being either "irrelevant" or "biased." As for what constitutes a "boycott," that might be difficult to define. If credence might be given to Change.org, one could point to the plethora petitions to boycott Jimmy Johns and voice opposition to the founder's trophy hunting.One petition has gathered over 70,000 signatures. The boycott was viewed as serious enough for a Wall Street Journal reporter to ask an investment group about it: Atlantic Street declined to comment on how the boycott might affect its investment in the franchisee group."  This article references an interview with Liautaud by the Chicago Tribune wherein he reflects on the damage to his repution and possible damage to his business because of the boycott. Mendavil's main issue with the inclusion of one sentence about the boycott in the Wikipedia entry is needing proof "that there was a boycott." It seems that when Liautaud himself refers to the damage of "the boycott" and the Wall Street Journal asks investors about "the boycott" it is in fact real. The size/effectiveness of boycotts are difficult to ascertain, as is the number of customers that Jimmy John's has lost due to the owners trophy hunting. The hunting issue is a part of the Jimmy John's story, and certainly a one-sentence mention of this should not be viewed as excessive. Taquim 06:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)my talk page

Second statement by moderator
It appears that one editor says that at least one sentence is required, and the other editor says that no more than one sentence is needed. Does this mean that there is agreement that including one sentence is a valid compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
I think on the basis of the Chicago Tribune article, which is at least a month removed from the initial burst of coverage, I can compromise on including a sentence. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Is this sentence ok? In the summer of 2015, following the killing of Cecil the lion, pictures of Liautaud posing next to the dead bodies of elephants, rhinos, and other exotic animals became more widespread on social media along with increased calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.[2] Taquim 17:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

Third statement by moderator
There seems to be agreement on the compromise of one sentence. Is there agreement on the proposed sentence? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
Counter-wording: "In the summer of 2015, Liataud's past African big game hunting became more publicized on social media, leading to calls for a boycott." Source should probably be the Chicago Tribune piece. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... with all due respect I prefer my sentence.... predictably huh? As for the source WSJ or Trib is fine, or both. Taquim 07:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

Fourth statement by moderator
We have agreement that one sentence is in order. We have disagreement on what the sentence should be. Are the editors prepared to try a compromise on what the sentence should be, or is a Request for comments needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors
Before proceeding to Request for Comments I’d like to request policy clarification if I may: When an editor makes an addition to a Wikipedia article, other editors can alter the sentences of the original editor to improve grammar, accuracy, etc… But is it appropriate for an editor to alter an original edit based simply on their preference of an alternate, but not necessarily better prose form? The only difference between Mendaliv’s sentence and mine seems to be reference to the photos. While some people might suggest that a Liautaud hunting photo should be placed in the Wikipedia article next to the hunting entry, I am only suggesting that a mention of the photos be made. The photos are a critical element of the story. It was/is the prevalence of the photos online that led to calls for a boycott. Taquim 00:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)my talk page

Suggesting a compromise wording: "In the summer of 2015, images of Liataud posing with his kills during African big game hunts became more publicized on social media, leading to calls for a boycott." —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 14:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned about setting a precedent here, so I'm wondering if the moderator is able to provide input on editing protocol. I very much appreciate Mendaliv's flexibility, but I'm concerned about being in a situation where if I continue to add content to the Jimmy John's page (or any other) other editors may alter my sentences not to improve grammar or correct errors but because they feel their prose style is superior to mine. I'm trying not to be stubborn here but I do feel protective of my right to add my own content to a page to an appropriate extent, and if I'm not mistaken this is standard etiquette on Wikipedia. Taquim 01:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)my talk page

Fifth statement by moderator
Wikipedia is, with exceptions, an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Yes, an editor may edit the contribution of another editor to change their prose style. It would be a good idea to mention that in an edit summary if it is a matter of changing correct prose to different correct prose, and it is encouraged to discuss such changes on the talk page. You do have the right to add content to an article page, and other editors have the right to change that content. If those changes result in disagreement, that is what dispute resolution is for. Does that answer that question about editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Now: Can we agree on a sentence? Will each editor please list TWO wordings that they consider acceptable, and then the moderator can decide whether to pick one that is mutually agreeable, or whether to go with an RFC for the first choice by each editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Fifth statements by editors
Thank you for the clarification. Here are 2 sentences, first choice first: In the summer of 2015, following the killing of Cecil the lion, pictures of Liautaud posing next to the bodies of elephants, rhinos, and other endangered big game he had killed became more widespread on social media along with increased calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.

In the summer of 2015, following the killing of Cecil the lion, pictures of Liautaud posing next to the bodies of endangered big game he had killed became more widespread on social media along with increased calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.Taquim 04:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

My preferred phrasings are: I'm neutral on whether to just settle this here or proceed to an RfC. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) In the summer of 2015, pictures of Laitaud posing with his big game kills became more widespread on social media, and led to an increase in calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.
 * 2) In the summer of 2015, images of Liataud posing next to his kills during African big game hunts became more widespread on social media, leading to an increase in calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.

Sixth statement by moderator
It appears that the difference between the draft statements is not so much the wording as that one editor wants to mention the killing of Cecil the lion and the other doesn't mention it. Are both editors willing to mention the leocide, or is that a matter of dispute? If both editors agree to mentioning that, we basically have agreement. Otherwise, that is the topic for the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors
I think it's unnecessary to mention Cecil the lion. Frankly I think it's unnecessary to mention the whole thing, but that's neither here nor there. As tangential as the story of Liataud's entirely lawful big game hunting is to this company, Cecil the lion is even farther removed. Too far to merit mentioning. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to do SEO to associate this business with the killing of endangered animals. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned Cecil because the cited WSJ article on the Jimmy John's boycott opens with the sentence "Outrage over the killing of Cecil, a well-known lion in Zimbabwe, has spilled over into the realm of private equity..." and thus it did seem relevant. No one has ever questioned the legality of Liautaud's hunting. The point is that his hunting affected his company and thus became news and part of the history of the company. Let's omit reference to Cecil if that will expedite this process. I would also like to return to the civil discourse we had been enjoying prior to accusations of SEO. Taquim 05:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page

Seventh statement by moderator
At this point, if Cecil isn't mentioned, the differences between the proposals by Mendaliv and the proposals by Taquim seem minor. Are they willing to agree on a wording, or do we need a trivial RFC? Will each of them provide two possible wordings that don't mention Cecil the lion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors
Here are 2 sentences, first choice first: In the summer of 2015, pictures of Liautaud posing next to the bodies of elephants, rhinos, and other endangered big game he had killed became more widespread on social media along with increased calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.

In the summer of 2015, pictures of Liautaud posing next to the bodies of endangered big game he had killed became more widespread on social media along with increased calls to boycott Jimmy John's restaurants.Taquim 04:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) my talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taquim (talk • contribs)

Additional statement
The moderator is allowing me, an editor who has been observing the debate and only participated in the initial stages of the discussion when it was still on the talk page, to add a comment here. I apologize in advance for the length of my comment, but I feel that since I have not been involved for seven rounds, I want to cover all the points I can in one go.

As the “anonymous IP editor” who Mendaliv referred to in his initial summary of the situation, I just noticed that this dispute was moved here, and I feel compelled to participate. Observing the ongoing debate/discussion between Taquim and Mendaliv, I can’t help but get the feeling that Mendaliv backed down from his position that there should not be even one sentence in the article mentioning the hunting and the boycott to avoid having to have an elongated back and forth with Taquim. All of the Wikipedia policies which oppose the inclusion of this reference have been well presented by Mendaliv in clear and persuasive arguments. Taquim has tenaciously stuck to his position, but has not compellingly argued how each of the Wiki policies Mendaliv mentioned do not apply, instead dismissing each with one flippant sentence per policy.

To shift to my own arguments, there does not seem to be any Wikipedia policy that support Taquim’s position. Just the opposite: several specific aspects of the debate weaken Taquim’s position. Most generally, the entire argument hinges on how impactful these boycotts were, if at all. Primary sources never refer to actual boycotts, but only “calls for boycotts.” It is more likely that the only people “calling for boycotts” are the activist bloggers themselves. What organizations are calling for boycotts? Where are these boycotts? Were there a significant number of picketers? Any picketers at all? Mass letter writing campaigns? There is simply no support other than the online petition filed by an extremely small element (even 70,000 is comparatively low when you consider that Jimmy John’s has more than 2,000 locations and is growing more and more every year.)

Another key point to this discussion is Taquim’s insistence that primary sources back up his argument. To address the specific sources cited by Taquim as being “the proof” of the impact of the “boycott:”

•	Business Insider cited Grub Street,  a food blog, as the source of calls for a boycott.

•	A blog on the WSJ says that "A handful of social media users have urged a boycott against sandwich chain Jimmy John’s Gourmet Sandwiches…” But if you read the blog you will discover that any “effect on investors” is neutralized by a quote from an actual investor who is ready to invest in Jimmy John’s. “Atlantic Street Partner and founder Peter Shabecoff said the firm had been evaluating an investment in Jimmy John’s for 'some time'. 'We think there’s an enormous growth opportunity,' he said." Please note that this statement was made after the “calls for a boycott.” The point is clear, the so-called boycott had little or no effect on the company’s bottom line.

•	Chicago Tribune blog: Please note that the 2013 piece is also just a blog, and is not the Chicago Tribune itself. Furthermore, the blog is actually not about boycotting Jimmy John’s, but about boycotts in general, and just cites Jimmy John’s as one example. And the blogger herself is ambiguous about how she feels about boycotts like hers: "My self-righteous mini-boycotts are random, inconsistent and, often, hypocritical."

•	Chicago Tribune article: This is where Mendaliv backed down a little. It should be noted that this isn’t a news piece which was prompted by boycotts, but rather an interview with Liautaud. Taquim asserts that Liautaud "reflects on the damage to his reputation (sic) and possible damage to his business because of the boycott" and later tries to sneak in that "Liautaud himself refers to the damage of 'the boycott'", but the article does not lend credence to either of those statements! Liautaud does not mention the boycott or the company in his quote – and the writer makes clear that his intention was to discuss how he was personally aggrieved that people connect him, NOT the company, with the photos.

•	Additional articles/blogs mentioned by Taquim are not convincing either: The Daily Herald is not found on-line, so we can’t be sure this is any kind of a source; AdAge  does not mention the boycott, it just has a link to another blogger trying to get a petition sent to Liautaud to stop big game hunting; The Seattle Times is not a new article on the issue, it is a reprint of the Chicago Tribune article. Finally, this whole issue was, as Mendaliv correctly pointed out, a “flash in the pan” which made it to the news only because of the “Cecil the Lion” story. Ongoing stories are limited to blog posts and interviews that Liautaud himself gives rather than new news surrounding exaggerated “boycotts”. Further, Liautaud says he no longer hunts big game as he is quoted in the Chicago Tribune, "I don't hunt big African game anymore."

Ultimately, a hunting reference may be relevant for Liautaud himself, but the connection in primary sources to his company via a “boycott” is tenuous at best, if indeed the “boycotts” did have any effect at all. Taquim himself stated that “The size/effectiveness of boycotts are difficult to ascertain; as is the number of customers that Jimmy John's has lost due to the owner’s trophy hunting.” He also states that “As for what constitutes a "boycott," that might be difficult to define.” Unfortunately, the burden of proof for adding this mention falls squarely on the shoulders of Taquim. Wikipedia policies dictate that each statement should not be added unless they meet with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Given all of the above, and Taquim’s own statements which show that this is not the case, I simply do not see any good reason to have even one sentence on the issue in the article on Jimmy John’s sandwich shop.
 * 185.54.163.66

Eighth statement by moderator
When an unregistered editor asked me if it was all right if they participated, I had assumed that they would respect the ground rules, which include "Be civil and concise". (I agreed because another editor will always be able to participate at the article talk page when this discussion is closed.) The above post is not concise, and is a wall of text (and I only interpret as meaning that they are not happy, because it is otherwise too long to read). I would ask the two editors again to see if they can agree on a one-sentence statement, but that is no longer feasible. I will ask the new editor to state in no more than three sentences what they think. I won't ask the existing editors to comment on the wall of text unless they want to do so, and, if so, they may comment in no more than three paragraphs. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

We will try to move on to some sort of resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors
I apologize for not being concise. I did not realize that this was a prerequisite given that the other editors have gone back and forth 7 times before I became aware of the existence of this noticeboard. As requested, here are my thoughts in three sentences:

Despite Taquim's claims to the contrary, primary sources never refer to actual boycotts, but only “calls for boycotts” whose effects Taquim himself admits are near impossible to quantify. Each source which he cites makes only a cursory reference to the boycott if any. Given this and the ephemeral nature of this episode's noteworthiness, notwithstanding the occasional blog post from activist bloggers, I see little relevance to the company history.
 * 185.54.163.66

I actually support Taquim's second phrasing introduced above in Round 7. That said I think we're going to wind up at an RfC at some point. My main remaining concern is that the phrasing, stating that Liataud had hunted endangered animals contains a commonsense, yet apparently incorrect, implication that such killing was unlawful. Liataud has insisted that everything he did was legal. I suspect that the implication is going to cause a WP:BLP problem which will in turn need to be satisfied by inserting yet more words, like "legally hunted", or require a subsequent sentence... which would break the earlier "one-sentence" compromise.I can't go with Taquim's first wording in Round 7 because it feels too much like keyword stuffing, and it just makes a poor sentence. I'm not ascribing ill intent, just commenting that it'll create an issue down the line.Now, not to broaden the dispute, but what I could support is, if properly sourced, a second sentence that discusses Jimmy John's PR response—i.e., largely ignoring it and rapidly removing any social media posts referencing it from pages they control—because that does involve the company itself. I believe I saw an article discussing this as indicative of Jimmy John's whitewashing in the run-up to the rumored IPO. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mendaliv for supporting my second sentence; I'm not sure where we're at now.... can that sentence be added to the History section of the article? PS: full disclosure here: my interest in having this information added to the article was sparked when someone told me I shouldn't eat at Jimmy John's because of the boycott. I had never heard of such a boycott and so did what most people would do, I looked it up in Wikipedia. The JJ article did not reference the boycott, and I was forced to search further for the information I needed. Since tens of thousands of people have signed petitions regarding hunting and the boycott it is likely that I am not alone in seeking this information. I was floored when there was opposition to the inclusion of this information and I wrongly assumed that the article was being managed by someone connected to JJs. I now understand the need to be extremely careful about wording, and I am pleased that Mendaliv and I have agreement. I hope we can move forward with that sentence. Taquim 02:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) my talk page.

Ninth statement by moderator
Since there is agreement between the two editors, either of them may add the sentence to the History section. I will be closing this moderated discussion within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The additional editor, who came late to the discussion, is advised to discuss on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much Robert for bringing resolution to this difficult issue. I very much appreciate your assistance. Mendaliv, please add the sentence with modification as you deem appropriate and the citation of your choice. Thank you. Taquim 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC) my talk page

Talk:Isaac Barrow#Allegations_by_Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr
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

User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr is creating controversy where I feel there should be none. They first disputed what I thought was the obvious influence of James Gregory on Reverend Isaac Barrow. Upon their reversion, I found an excellent (translated) primary source document, where Barrow in his own words calls Gregory "the most learned man" (quite the compliment four hundred years ago) before sharing/referring to one of Gregory's theorems.

For a primary source document, I feel there is no stronger evidence of "influence" that can be provided when the author gives high praise and refers to the individual's (Gregory) work. Bryn Mawr claims that my use of this portion of the primary source document is somehow original research;again, these are Barrow's own words, and in my opinion no secondary analyses can provide a stronger case than the author's own words. I am sure I could do some digging and find further letters between publishers, but I am also skeptical some of these are available online (likely held in some archives in England somewhere).

To many Commonwealth citizens, the influence of mathematicians in other Realms is nothing new. We have always looked at our contributions as one small part which we hope our fellows in other Realms can build upon. This is exactly the case here, as Gregory and Barrow started out investigating similar phenomena, but along the way the latter was exposed to the work of the former and decided to build upon it (as did Sir Isaac Newton).

I am at a loss as to what the reverter's issue is. This edit is not surprising, nor is it original research. It is simply demonstrative of the collaborative effort of prominent scholars from each of the Realms. I am therefore requesting moderation because I do not feel the reverter will be satisfied with any source I do provide, given that a translated primary source was deemed original research (to which I am at a loss!)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have provided a robust translated source from 1916 that shows Isaac Barrow referring to Gregory's work whilst heaping praise on him, calling him the "most learned man". For a primary document focused on geometry, such praise is unusual and often representative of the author's respect. The original document is almost four hundred years old, and thus such praise in those times often would be interpreted as influence.

How do you think we can help?

Help achieve a consensus on whether Isaac Barrow was influenced by James Gregory. Again, this insertion was supposed to be unsurprising. However, after Bryn Mawr reverted my first edit, they were then unsatisfied with a translated primary source, calling my claims "original research" which I found quite insulting. The kind of praise Barrow gave Gregory (in a nearly 400-year old treatise!) when referring to his work is demonstrative of "influence"; no higher compliment could be paid 400 years ago

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

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

Talk:Michel Temer
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

Should the verifiable fact that a president named of an all white-male Cabinet be removed from an article, or not? Please see: Editor request

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Tried to explain @ Talk; asked for help of others; requested actions from the administration directly and indirectly in order to resolve the dispute.

How do you think we can help?

It can be resolved by, some kind of authority, providing some rationale and/or a logical explanation, including examples or "Wiki case-law" (if needed) that led to the conclusion that the information should or should not be removed from the article.

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

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