Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 173

"Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers" at ja.wiki
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
 * https://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers&action=edit

I need to edit the title page of the Japanese Wikipedia about a song "Mera Joota Hai Japani" as I firmly believe that オイラの靴は日本製,このズボンは英国製,頭の赤い帽子はロシア製 and でも心はインド製 are the incorrect translations of "Mera Joota Hai Japani, Yeh Patloon Inglistani, Sar Pe Lal Topi Rusi, and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani" and 私の靴が日本語,この ズボン が イギリスタン語,頭 の 赤い 帽子 が ロシア語 and しかし 心 が ヒンドスタン語 are the correct translations of "Mera Joota Hai Japani, Yeh Patloon Inglistani, Sar Pe Lal Topi Rusi, and Phir Bhi Dil Hai Hindustani", so I want to replace the former lyrics with the latter lyrics, but the other few editors are not letting me edit this page

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

No other steps,I have just tried to remove the responses of those other users,who posted their comments without giving any necessary response regarding the edit

How do you think we can help?

By simply unprotecting the page mentioned in this form and editing in the manner as I have already mentioned to you

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

Comment on summary by プログラム
Thanks for the kind suggestion プログラム,I will surely try it for getting some quick help.


 * You will need to discuss this with the admins at the Japanese edition of Wikipedia (http://ja.wikipedia.org). This is the English Wikipedia (en.wiki). We do not have any control over the protection of pages at ja.wiki.  General Ization  Talk  03:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

You are correct my friend,that is why I want you to give such a link which can directly lead me to the admin notice board of the Japanese Wikipedia (http://ja.wikipedia.org) Best of Luck
 * is the japanese WP version of Administrators' noticeboard. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this kind help my friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A425:5DE5:7C68:221F:46B5:8C20 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Some background for everyone - the user is trying to change the title of an article on ja.wp from what I can gather is a properly-translated one to one translated by machine, and has been making edits to that article replacing the properly-translated title in it to the (incorrect) machine-translated one. As a consequence, the article was semi-protected on Apr 04. He's come here, to WP:AN, and (repeatedly) to #wikipedia-en-help to try and force the issue or find proxies to do his vandalism for him. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 05:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, he's tried asking at ja.wp and has been shot down. His responce was to remove a reply that explains why his preferred translation is flawed (as well as a few other talk threads besides). —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 10:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And here as well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v  Bori! 06:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dhul-Qarnayn
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute has been ongoing since 30/31 January. It involves myself and one other user, User:Wiqi55. At issue is the last sentence in the lead, which in my version would note how the story of Dhul Qarnayn entered the Quran (through Greek legends current at the time the Quran was written) and Wiqi55's favoured version, which would avoid that question entirely in favour of saying that "similarities" have been observed. I assume this is in order to keep open the possibility that Allah dictated the Quran to Mohammed, but Wiqi55 has never given a view on his motives. Instead he frames his concerns in terms of reliable sources: I have an eminent folklorist and historian, Peter Bietenholz, who states explicitly that the DQ story had its origins in the Greek legends of Alexander the Great, while Wiqi55 has a slew of sources speaking of similarities but not direct origins - they don't, of course, deny that the Alexander stories were the origin, they simply don't address that issue.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None yet.

How do you think we can help?

You can help decide (a) whether Buitenholz is a reliable source (I don't deny that Wiqi55's sources are reliable), and give an opinion on whether the article would be improved by a mention of the origins of the Dhul-Qarnayn story (other than the dictation of Allah, of course).

Summary of dispute by Wiqi55
This dispute is not about the general reliability of Bietenholz (1994), but whether his statement constitutes an exceptional claim.

Bietenholz states that a Syrian version of the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes found its way in the Quran.. However, recent scholarship refer instead to the Syriac Alexander Legend -- an original Syriac work not based on the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes. The Syriac Legend is usually dated between 629-630AD, roughly at the same time as the Quran. It is also missing major motifs like the Dhu-al-Qarnayn epithet. Because of these dating problems and missing motifs several historians reject its influence on the Quran or present it as a "hypothesis". I quoted three experts, two are widely-cited with books devoted to Alexander in the Arabic tradition (Bannon Wheeler, Stephen Gero, and Faustina Doufikar-Aerts). Considering that there is a serious dispute among experts on this matter, we should avoid asserting Bietenholz's opinion as fact. Wiqi(55) 21:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

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


 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. Proper notice has been given.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statement by interim moderator
I will try to get some progress made on this dispute. Please read the rules and follow the rules. I have read the article once, but don't know anything about this except that the subject is a figure of Islamic legend (with some counterpart in other legends and in Christian scripture, but that is probably not important). I have not read the Quran; to the extent that it is relevant, I expect the editors to state what it says. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is as to what the article should say? Be clear and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Let's Talk
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The page appears to be actively guarded against NPOV by a professor (Jaobar) who works in media research. Clearly, we are required to assume good faith, but there have been several concerns raised about the content on the page, and the source of the majority of the content as being Bell-owned media stations. For reference, this user's students wrote much of the initial copy. The page has been the subject of minor edit warring over the past few months.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There has been a talk on the talk page which ended relatively amicably though without a real consensus as to the legitimacy of the sources. Since then, another user has attempted to clean up Bell-cited content and had their edits reverted repeatedly. It seems this cycle is likely to continue in the future, and that any attempt to maintain NPOV will be reverted.

How do you think we can help?

A clear-headed third party can take a new look at the sourcing and the disputes surrounding this page and provide valuable feedback on what rules it may or may not be breaking and provide a path forward.

Summary of dispute by Drmies
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. While I appreciate the attempt, I think the dispute here boils down to something relatively simple: how much content can legitimately be based on primary sourcing when there's a likely COI involved as well. Given the edit warring, we may well see different approaches. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jaobar
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Greetings. Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on this issue. I should say this is my first opportunity to experience the dispute resolution process. This looks quite interesting, and certainly appreciate your time and patience.

I should clarify, in response to comments stated below, I am not engaging in "protectorship". I am aware of and fully support the importance of WP:OWN. If the community decides that the content does not meet Wikipedia policy, I will support the consensus. To this point, I have not agreed with the justifications provided for the edits, including unfair and unjustified suggestions of COI, which is the reason for the current disagreement. I have seen members of the community using COI as an "argument-ender" before, in place of fair and accurate assessment, which is one of the reasons for this continued debate.

I find the COI label, in this context, inaccurate and unfair. When the community watches against marketers editing corporate pages that is one thing. To use the same criticism in this context, simply because a new editor uploads a local picture is again, inaccurate and unfair. Conflict of interest suggests that the individual with the conflict is unable to assess something fairly because of that conflict. Our assessments of COI should be subtle enough to see the difference. I should add that the COI label, unless I'm mistaken, is being applied to a few sentences and a picture.

This debate began because Bell Let's Talk is controversial. A consensus was reached to label it an advertising campaign. Now we have progressed to a debate about whether the use of any internal sources is appropriate, even if the article contains multiple external sources. It was my understanding, unless I'm incorrect, that some internal sources are allowed under WP:VERIFY. Perhaps I am wrong about this; however, in my experience, I see internal sources cited all the time (as long as they are complemented by external sources). I sometimes use Truthiness in class, and after a brief review, even this feature article has some internal sources. So indeed, the community does accept this practice even in its best articles.

So, to be specific, labelling Bell_Let%27s_Talk evidence of COI, and in violation of WP:V and as a result WP:NPOV, a section that can't be more than 200 words in an article that is more than 3,000, seems excessive. I assume that one of the reasons internal sources are sometimes allowed is that there is no other source. That seems reasonable to me, as long as these are complemented by external sources, which is the case in this article.

Of course I would support removing some of the Bell references, as well as some of the other internal references, as I agree that external sourcing is preferred.

I hope that you will agree the COI label is unfair and inaccurate. I also hope you will agree that Bell_Let%27s_Talk adds an important dimension to the article. If the latter must be cut, that is fine, but to justify the edit because of COI is inaccurate, in my opinion. If it must be cut because of WP:VERIFY I understand. As noted at the beginning, I fully support WP:OWN and will not and have not "protected" the article. I simply do not agree with the arguments presented, and if my knowledge of Wikipedia policy is accurate, it suggests that both myself and the editors I am debating are equal in terms of our ability to debate and "protect" our contribution to the consensus.

My sincerest thanks for this opportunity and for your time.

Best, --Jaobar (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bell Let's Talk 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 prior discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors.  Is this an issue about article content, or about an editor?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The editor appears to be preventing changes to his student's article that arguably need to happen by simply reverting and citing NPOV and AGF rather than discussing the issue itself.

I would say the core issue is the sourcing of the article.

The reason for escalation is the potential conflict as raised, and the appearance of "protectorship" over his student's work. Arbitrarycomplexity (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * &, would you be willing to join in on this dispute resolution method? If not, please indicate so, in which case this request will be closed. --MrClog (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Audi R8 (Type 4S)
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The User Vauxford claimed that there were no photos of the pre facelift Audi R8 (Type 4S) in the article when there were photos of that nature present in the article. I even told him that but he still won't agree and continue to revert my edits adding a photo which was already been used before.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

The user Vauxford had started a discussion on the talk page, after reverting the edits I had made which was not being very helpful.

How do you think we can help?

An independent editor should suggest a resolution to the above matter so that this edit war can be stopped.

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

Talk:Audi R8 (Type 4S) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. A Third Opinion might be a useful next step.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - There is discussion of this issue at the edit-warring noticeboard. Discussion here or at Third Opinion should be an alternative to edit-warring.  Stop edit-warring and try to resolve this.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Dependent territory, Talk:List of sovereign states
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

During a sequence of edits that occurred over most of March a significant amount of revisions were done on the List of sovereign states article on the "further information" section of various entries within. As a part of this process (which itself went back and forth quite a bit), the listing of Palmyra Atoll was removed from the United States entry due to questions about its "dependent territory" status within the article. It was thus pointed out that it was included within said article specifically because the criteria of 'List of sovereign states' stated that the list of dependent territories located on the Dependent territory article was the basis for including any dependent territory as a part of an entry on the List of sovereign states list. Once this was identified User:Chipmunkdavis went and revised the entire Dependent territory article removing several entries from it. Most notably Palmyra Atoll and Jan Mayen. Jan Mayen was previously under discussion on Talk:Dependent territory for an extended period of time (See here Talk:Dependent territory/Archive 2), and had not been conclusively decided upon whether it was to remain in or not. I identified government based reliable sources which demonstrated that both of these entries should be included, but my edits kept getting reverted because of the concept of "incorporated territory" that is based on a legal USA definition and the idea that if something is "integrated" it is no longer a "dependent territory", however both of these are not equivalent terms. I have pointed out that it is WP:SYNTH that these concepts thus mean that something is not a "dependent territory" but my edits kept getting reverted regardless. I appeal to any editors with a logical mind and a firm understanding of WP:SYNTH and reliably sourced material to aide in this discussion.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to provide RSs to the users on the other side of the dispute. I have adjusted the language of the entries on the secondary article to be more palatable to those with a differing opinion of what constitutes a "dependent territory" and what does not.

How do you think we can help?

Determine if there is a case of WP:SYNTH occurring with the sources provided by the users on the other side of the dispute.

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

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

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

Talk:Dependent territory, Talk:List of sovereign states discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The other editors have not yet been notified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Feminist views_on_transgender_topics#Rewrite_and_Template_Removal
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The primary dispute is whether or not the page conforms to WP:UNDUE. The primary participants in this iteration of the dispute are myself and Flyer22_Reborn, although in the talk page and the talk archives it comes up several times between many different editors.

I (and other editors who have raised the issue the issue in the past) believe it does not conform to WP:UNDUE because it mostly represents the views of trans-exclusive feminists, even though trans-exclusive feminism is a minority if not fringe position within feminism. In order to fix it, I rearranged the article and took out many of the trans-exclusive claims and sources in the process.

Flyer22_Reborn reverted the article under the assertion that my understanding of WP:UNDUE and the understanding of editors who have raised the issue in the past is incorrect. I'm honestly still a little unclear what their position is, but it appears to come down to two things:

1) WP:UNDUE is only about reliable sources. Trans-inclusive feminism is underrepresented in reliable sources, so it should be underrepresented in the article.

My response to this is that I'm aware that WP:UNDUE is only about reliable sources, but trans-inclusive feminism is certainly not underrepresented in reliable sources. Even their own sources say explicitly that trans-exclusive feminism is a minority within feminism, so I'm not quite sure what they're talking about here.

2) Because there is a long-standing debate about this issue within feminism, the trans-exclusive side of the debate should be represented.

My response to this is that I agree with this as stated, but that representing a side of a debate and portraying that side as the majority position are two very different things.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

As previously stated, several people have noticed the same issue and have tried to argue for various solutions on the talk page.

Flyer22_Reborn says they are preparing a draft for a rewritten article. It's possible that this draft will resolve the underlying issue, but I frankly doubt it will when so many previous attempts have failed without some sort of third-party opinion.

How do you think we can help?

A large part of the dispute is the meaning of WP:UNDUE as it applies to this article, and some kind of ruling or neutral opinion on that would be particularly helpful. I also feel that a neutral opinion on some of the underlying facts (such as whether trans-exclusive feminism is in fact a minority position) would be helpful.

Summary of dispute by Flyer22_Reborn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Like I noted on the talk page, this "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" source states, "there has generally been an over-emphasis on MTFs in particular" when it comes to the literature on feminist views on transgender topics. For anyone who doesn't know, "MTF" means male-to-female; it's referring to trans women. I pointed to other sources noting just how big this aspect of the topic is. Exclusionary views may be the minority view, but this topic mainly concerns the debate regarding trans women. It is mainly about trans women and radical feminists' views on trans women, which is why the article covering so much of it is WP:DUE. I'm not seeing sources on the topic covering much of anything else. I have looked at numerous reliable sources on feminist views on transgender issues, and I keep coming across the trans woman debate...more so than any other aspect of the topic. That is what I mean by WP:Due. I also noted that I will be typing up a draft and will present it there on the talk page. I think LokiTheLiar will appreciate the draft a lot more than the current state of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by sche
Loki made big changes, which were reverted; I don't see any support on talk for restoring Loki's big changes en masse, so I doubt DRN could find consensus to restore them. Flyer says she plans to make big changes of her own, but hasn't made or concretely proposed then yet, so they can't be discussed yet. In short, this thread seems premature. My initial suggestion is that Loki and Flyer break the changes they want to make into a series of proposals ("change this paragraph/section in X way", "change this other paragraph in Y way", "remove this paragraph", etc) which we could discuss on the talk page, and potentially request WP:3Os on if that proves necessary. -sche (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Aircorn
The article is a mess of different sides adding their conflicting views and removing those they disagree with without much thought to making it encyclopaedic. Flyer Reborn is an experienced and proven editor in areas of this nature. While Loki has displayed incredible proficiency in how things work here for someone who has just started editing I would prefer to wait and see what Flyer comes up with in their draft version than debate superficial changes to a very flawed article. AIRcorn (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by A145GI15I95
I'm new to the discussion on the talk page in question. I added minor content to the article three weeks ago. This week I was pinged on the talk page. I answered a question and added a request for more civil language choices. The topic is controversial, with each side using language that the other side sees as inaccurate and unfair. It's fine to call yourself anything, but we must be careful applying terms to other persons or groups who refuse and take offense to such terms. I'd prefer if we could consider this when contributing to Wikipedia. Persons and groups whom some call "trans-exclusive/exclusionary" rebuke this characterization, and instead call themselves "gender critical". Their focus isn't to exclude anyone who identifies or has been diagnosed as trans, rather to reject gender roles/stereotypes, and to reject the concept of social gender as being innate and essential to existence. The usage of the label "exclusive" is problematic for NPOV in the article, its talk page, and now in this DRN page. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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


 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page.  The other editors have been notified.  Is this an issue where moderated discussion leading to compromise is requested, or is this a yes-no question about the removal of a template?  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Moderated discussion is requested. The original question that spawned the discussion on the talk page was about an edit that has since been reverted. LokiTheLiar (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, it appears through the dispute summaries that there is more-or-less a consensus to wait for Flyer22's draft. While I'm still a bit skeptical, I'm willing to defer to this consensus for now. In addition, I think -sche's suggestion is good and so I'm going to be making some more concrete proposals on the talk page about particular changes I would like to make in the hope we can reach consensus on some of them in the meantime. LokiTheLiar (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the apparent promotion of disruptive language like "trans identified male", a phrase which is used offensively to describe transwomen as male and deny that identity, I have added a Discretionary Sanctions notice to the article talk page. The notice may be applied to any discussion of transgender topics. It is worth noting that was previously given a related talk page DS alert 29 days ago (diff), after an (Transgender-related POV editing) Arbcom request which was later declined. I strongly recommend that any potentially disruptive statements on that talk page are carefully sourced, and language used is limited to that as supported in verifiable reliable sources. --Fæ (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who's been calling for more conscientious language to be used, not promoting known slurs. The DS alert was found to be baseless. The above comment is an unfair inference. A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The DS alert is valid. It specifically means that you are editing articles for which discretionary sanctions apply, please read the template. Failing to read it, is not a rationale to appeal a later block or other sanction.
 * Your comments about trans-exclusive radical feminists are inaccurate. Any reasonable review of the quoted sources will demonstrate that many of these writers do reject transgender identification, specifically denying transwomen to be identified as women, many of these writers courting controversy by choosing to use offensive and transphobic language, presumably to increase their public profile and internet footprint. Reframing this history of publications as being "gender critical" and inclusive of trans identities is misleading, no matter how many times you insist on disruptively repeating this in Wikipedia discussions.
 * By the way, there is no such thing as "diagnosed as trans", that is just being offensive to trans people by saying "trans" can be a diagnosis of a disease. This may be your personal opinion, but it is unwelcome and inappropriate in Wikipedia discussions. --Fæ (talk) 09:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop hounding me. ¶ I misspoke in saying the DS alert was baseless; I meant to refer to another charge from my wiki-stalker that was found baseless. ¶ My comments are factual, unless I accidentally misspeak (being human), and I admit when I do so (as I've just done). And I can agree to disagree. ¶ Some persons have been diagnosed as transgender, while others (usually more recently) self-identify as trans. This differs greatly by geographic location (different nation/states/municipalities have different rules) and time (it's an evolving field) and even by doctor (often the ultimate interpreter of medical code). In some medical manuals, gender dysphoria was an illness and it's since been changed. Some manuals haven't changed. Some never listed it so. I mean no offense, and I've repeatedly said I mean no offense. Please assume good faith. If you're working for balanced and accurate material on Wikipedia, then please remember, we're on the same side. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that disruptive repetition appears to be a common talk page tactic used by A145GI15I95. In addition to restating opinions over and over, the editor likes to lob behavioral accusations at others citing violations of WP:PA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Other than the talk page in question, you can see more examples of this conduct at Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi and actions cited in a recent ANI. This isn't the proper venue to take further action, of course, but I felt it should be exposed here considering the tactic is being used again at the talk page in question, and even in the last response above. My advice would be to focus explicitly on content, back opinions with reliable sources when possible, and avoid accusing other editors of behavioral violations. It weakens your position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I see no change in behaviour to making a positive contribution to article improvement. The evidence of self-victimization and ICANTHEARYOU is overwhelming. The specific claim against me of "hounding" is especially bizarre, zero evidence will be produced, given that before reviewing comments this week on this one article, I have never seen this account name before, have not examined their contributions anywhere else and have never posted on their user talk page.
 * Note that "diagnosed as transgender" as claimed twice on this page with zero reliable sources, was also used on the article talk page. This reduces being trans to a disease or mental disorder. It is a highly disruptive and offensive thing to say about trans people, as has already been very clearly pointed out to A145GI15I95, so disruption like this is not an "accident" or to "misspeak" or "being human", it is their choice to be offensive to trans people.
 * It seems to be a problem with Wikipedia policies that A145GI15I95 is allowed to repeatedly make false assertions on Wikipedia talk pages that people are being medically diagnosed with "transgender", while at the same time someone who said exactly the same thing about "homosexuality" being a disease or mental illness would have been blocked by now against the same evidence. --Fæ (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

In addition to this noticeboard a thread is open at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. In addition a prior closely related archived discussion at ANI was 3 weeks ago Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1006. --Fæ (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Fæ: This thread is about the page Feminist views on transgender topics and whether it conforms to WP:DUE. As I wrote earlier this morning here and here and here, I simply can't be expected to keep track of multiple side-threads of your clear concern for my person on topics that were opened for other reasons. Please stop focusing on my person on talk pages, and please stop using multiple threads on multiple pages for this same concern against my person.
 * I've gotten the impression that you refuse any words that come from me. Such refusal, and this multitude of person-focused comments in disparate places, and language such as "especially bizarre" and "zero evidence" above, strike me as a personal vendetta, hence the word "hounding". Though I've repeatedly admitted my word-choice for Wikipedia policy could be inaccurate.
 * I've already responded above to your concern for trans-related diagnoses and supposed "reduction to a disorder". This isn't my action but the action of those who write manuals such as the DSM and the ICD, the doctors who code their diagnoses, and the insurance companies who cover or deny. But again, this thread was about an article's due or undue weight, not about me.
 * No human can be reasonably expected to keep track of all of your threads about the same concern on multiple pages. If you've a personal concern for me, please open an appropriate issue in one appropriate place, where we can each discuss appropriately. Thank you, A145GI15I95 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am now convinced that you are deliberately stating blatant falsehoods to demean and degrade transgender people.
 * Produce current evidence that "transgender" is being diagnosed as a disease. You have stated this as a fact, four times in Wikipedia discussion. On every occasion these are your words and only your words, you are not quoting anyone else, nor have you produced any reliable sources. It should be sufficient evidence that you are flaunting the Arbcom discretionary sanctions that apply in order to misuse Wikipedia to cause harm. As on each occasion it has been explained to you why this is harmful, this cannot be dismissed as you being incompetent, ignorant, misspeaking or a form of "human error". On every occasion of you making these disruptive statements, you claim to be hounded, that others are challenging your statements in bad faith, that you are the victim. It does not wash, nobody is making you defame transgender people, nor are they even prompting you to make these disgusting statements. This is just you choosing to do it, choosing to attack trans people.
 * For those finding A145GI15I95's statements a bit cryptic, which fits their pattern of using technical abbreviations to make demeaning statements about trans people look "technical":
 * DSM = "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". The DSM does not state that "transgender" is a disease to be diagnosed.
 * ICD = " International Classification of Diseases". The ICD does not include "transgender" as a disease to be diagnosed and has removed "gender incongruence" as a mental health condition entirely.
 * These are false statements being deliberately repeated on Wikipedia talk pages. --Fæ (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Sampling (music)
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 and another editor, Liftarn, disagree over whether to include a paragraph in the article Sampling (music) in the section "	Legal and ethical issues". The paragraph summarises a case of plagiarism in a particular song by Timbaland.

We seem to agree that the section should not merely list every case of plagiarism in sampling history. Instead, cases should only be included if they've had a notable impact on legal and ethical issues in sampling. We disagree about whether the sources demonstrate this.

Sergecross73 responded to a request for comment and felt the paragraph should not be included. The discussion has lasted over a month, with no consensus in sight.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Placed a request for further opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums 11 days ago. So far, only Sergecross73 has responded.

How do you think we can help?

We need some more experienced editors to review the sources and help reach a consensus about whether they justify the content.

Summary of dispute by Liftarn
The Timbaland plagiarism controversy gives a description of the case in question. It is an interesting example since Timbaland refereed to what he did as "sampling" when what he did was mute the bassline, add some drums and song on top of an existing track and passed it off as his own work. This new and novel definition of what sampling is should be enough for the case to be included, but it has also have a lasting impact on what is called "collective forensic musicology" and it is used in books about music education. // Liftarn (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sergecross73
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Here’s my take on it, as the only person who looked into the dispute from the WikiProject notification. “Sampling” is a widely used technique in modern music. As is frequently an issue on Wikipedia, is “example bloat” - everyone always wants to add their preferred example to illustrate an idea. Because there are just thousands upon thousands of examples of sampling in music, Popcornduff requested that he prove his specific example regarding Timbaland was particularly noteworthy. He’s provided a couple relatively weak sources noting Timbalands sample usage, but no particular commentary on its importance or impact. He wants to make grand claims of importance, but popcornduff and I have pointed out that none of his sources back that claim. He insists they do. We’ve asked him to outline the exact content he’d add, and the exact content from the source he felt backed the assertions. He has so far refused to do so, stating he feels he has already proven his point (even though he’s 0 for 2 on convincing anyone.) Sergecross73   msg me  13:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

List of sources from Liftarn
Wow... There is a lot of them...

That Timbaland plagiarised Sunni's track:
 * Cuepoint: Was Timbaland’s Skillful Sampling a Cultural Crime?
 * Cuepoint: Was Timbaland’s Skillful Sampling a Cultural Crime?

That he refereed to it as sampling:

That is had a lasting impact:

Talk:Sampling (music) discussion

 * All participants have been informed of this dispute resolution request via their talkpage by me. Discussion will start only after all involved editors have given a summary of the dispute. MrClog (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I hereby open this dispute resolution. Please note that this resolution is meant to find a compromise that you all can agree on, and that this resolution is non-binding (but it is very much requested that users do follow the agreed-to decision). It seems like a good first step to me that you list all sources that support your side of the story under "List of sources from Liftarn". MrClog (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If possible, could you share the specific quote in which Evan Tobias says that it had a lasting impact, that would be great. Note that unless Tobias explicitly states that Timbaland plagiarising and calling it sampling had this lasting impact, it could be considered WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you’ve pretty much experienced one full cycle of the looping argument we’ve had going on with Liftarn now. He’ll list off a few sources, but refuse to explain what in the source specifically verifies the claim. And while of course off-line sources are generally acceptable, his refusal to supply or understand the issue here - that we need a source that explains impact specifically - makes me rather wary to be persuaded by a source I can’t verify the contents of personally. Sergecross73   msg me  21:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)*{{


 * {{ping|Sergecross73}} {{ping|Popcornduff}} I have managed to find an online version of the book Liftarn uses as source, and the closest to the "lasting impact" claim I could find was this:{{blockquote|text=The phenomenon surfaced throughout the Internet and eventually in mainstream media sources across the world, forcing Timbaland to address the issue in interviews. Even after the case was officially closed in 2007 (according to a statement by the original composer of “Acidjazzed Evening”), the discourse continued through text-based comments and video responses posted on YouTube or related sites, a process that continues years later.  Note: This is part of a copyrighted work of Evan Tobias, shared under the fair use doctrine of United States copyright law.  }}From my perspective, this doesn't prove that there was this lasting impact, therefore making it WP:SYNTH. Thoughts (especially from Liftarn)? Also, saying that the fact that it is used as an example in the book proves it had this impact is also SYNTH. --MrClog (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, you citing SYNTH runs parallel with our claims of “not being supported by source” - I think we’re all arguing the same thing against Liftarn here. It’s been days here, and had been going for days at the talk page prior, and there’s still no actually excerpts from reliable sources. I’m getting the vibe Liftarn doesn’t have anything specific prose in a source to verify his claim, or he would have presented it by now... Sergecross73   msg me  23:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Please explain how WP:SYNTH is applicable here as there is no synthesis. FYI, there is en entire section of the book with the title "Timbaland steals music? A case of collective forensic musicology". // Liftarn (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's use the ABC structure: Timbaland said his plagariasm was sampling ("A") and this is used in a book as example ("B"). You argued that it therefore had a lasting impact ("therefore C"), but this violates WP:SYNTH, which states:{{blockquote|text="A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.}}I have read the part on Timbaland in the book and nowhere does it seem to say and/or explain that the example had a lasting impact. MrClog (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. A and B are not connected, thus it's no synthesis. The lasting impact is implied with the phrase "continues years later". // Liftarn (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Liftarn}} Timbaland justified plagariasm with sampling ("A"), this has been discussed for years ("B"), therefore it had a lasting impact ("therefore C"). The source doesn't argue that C is true. THe fact that the case has been discussed for many years doesn't neceessarily prove it had a lasting impact. You should bring WP:RS that say that it had a "lasting impact", and saying that the fact it has been discussed for many years proofs this impact is WP:SYNTH. MrClog (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it has been discussed for years, thus is had a lasting impact. "A" does not enter into it. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{ping|Liftarn}} Certain murder cases have been discussed for years, yet they had no lasting impact on the legal/ethical aspect of murder. "Discussed for years" doesn't necessarily mean "lasting impact". MrClog (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That is finally a valid argument instead of the straw man. It certainly changed the interpretation of the Berne convention and US law. See International Copyright Law: U.S. and E.U. Perspectives: Text and Cases (p. 198-204). Also see Making and Unmaking Intellectual Property: Creative Production in Legal and Cultural Perspective (chapter 13). // Liftarn (talk) 07:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can’t find a source that directly states it, then it’s not a valid addition according to Wikipedia policy. It’s original research to equate “lots of mentions” to “lasting impact”. If you can’t pull an excerpt from a source that directly verified your addition, it’s either WP:SYNTH or a source verification error. Sergecross73   msg me  20:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, like "The decision is notable for its sweeping conclusion as to what constitutes a U.S. work under § 411." // Liftarn (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems like a good source that supports your claim to me. {{Ping|Sergecross73}} {{Ping|Popcornduff}} What do you think? MrClog (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't buy it. The source, if I'm reading it correctly, states that in this case the court decided the work in question could be considered a US work. The source then gives an example of another, later case, when a different court reached the opposite conclusion. I think the "sweeping conclusion" here means that the court's conclusion about which works fall under US copyright was "sweeping" (ie included a lot of different works), not that it had a sweeping effect. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your claim seems to be unsupported by the source as it says "Given the ramifications of the ruling in Kernel, the case may well go up on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.". Another article says "As a result of this decision, foreign authors face increased uncertainty as to whether the provisions of the Berne Convention will serve to exempt them from the copyright registration requirements applicable to owners of U.S. works." and "the court’s decision adds yet another reason to the long list of reasons why foreign authors should consider timely registration of their works with the U.S. Copyright Office, despite the exemptions provided by the Berne Convention." // Liftarn (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That 1) is all speculative, with no examples of how it has changed anything and 2) describes US copyright law generally, n:ot sampling specifically. This really isn't a great or necessary example of an ethical and legal issue in sampling. Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * {{u|Liftarn}}, what do you think about Popcornduff's comment? MrClog (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He is entitled to his opinion, but I think the facts speak for themselves. // Liftarn (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Uhhhh it really feels like Popcornduff’s statement would require a bit more of a rebuttal from you here if you’re deciding to stick to your guns on this. Usually when someone says “there’s no evidence”, you...counter it with evidence...? Sergecross73   msg me  17:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sergecross, what do you think of Lifturn's newest sources? Popcornduff (talk) 00:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * He didn't say there isn't an evidence (as there is). He just don't like it. Facts should matter, not personal taste. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley have indeed (as the sources say) had a major impact on how internationally copyright law is interpreted in the US. While the impact is on anything published online it stems from a case of sampling. // Liftarn (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * But time and time again, you cant (or aren’t) explaining how. You say “no you’re wrong” and “look at the source” but you never really explain your understanding of what the source says other than a basic “the source says so”. It’s clear you’re adamantly arguing something...but it continually feels like you yourself don’t even understand the crux of your own argument. Sergecross73   msg me  01:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to explain it in a simpler way. Don't hesitate to ask if something is unclear. Timbaland found a track by Glenn Rune Gallefoss. He muted the bassline, added drums and song. He then published it as his own work (for simplicities sake we can leave out the ethical aspects of that). This he (and several media articles) refereed to as sampling. OK, so this is a case of sampling according to himself and several sources. You with me? It later went to court as Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley. So we have a court case about sampling. In the case it was ruled that if you published something on a diskette in Australia it was a US work. This reversed the precedence from Moberg v. 33T LLC. Possibly as a revenge for Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick. Anyway, as the sources say this new way to interpret the jurisdiction of works published digitally is a major game changer. // Liftarn (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's the final part we're questioning: "a major game changer". I don't see how the sources you have provided demonstrates how the game has changed, for the reasons I gave above. Can you address those concerns?Popcornduff (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about this some more, because I'm trying to figure out how we'd incorporate what you're saying here into the article, if we were to do it. I actually have no idea, based on your summary above, what the outcome for Timbaland was. I tried reading the Timbaland plagiarism controversy article, but it's not clear there either, and it's not an easy article to read generally. I tried rereading the source mentioning the "sweeping changes" we discussed before, but it seems to have been moved behind a paywall - perhaps something has changed on my end?
 * As best as I can manage right now, the relevant parts of what you're arguing should actually amount to something like this (very different from what you've added to the Sampling (music) article so far):
 * {{tq|In 2011, the US producer Timbaland won a copyright infringement case after sampling a composition owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission. Under US copyright law, a work must first be registered with the US copyright office to become the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The court held that by being published online, the composition had been simultaneously published every country with internet service, including the US. The work therefore satisfied the definition of a US work, and as it had not been registered with the US copyright office it could be sampled without permission.}}
 * Does that look reasonable to you?
 * But please note that I would not advocate to include this in the article, as it lacks the critical element: what makes this different from any of the thousands of other plagiarism and sampling disputes, why is this more important, what lasting impact has this had? I can't find anything in the sources we can use to add to the text I wrote above. Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In short the case caused a fundamental shift in how online publication and international copyrights work. Basically the court threw out the Berne convention. That is no small thing. // Liftarn (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And yet the same source also says that in another, later case, a different court reached the opposite conclusion, indicating that it might have had no lasting impact. The sources you're relying on now also phrase everything in terms of general copyright law, rather than giving specific indication about how this affects sampling.
 * We're getting lost in the swamp here. Stand back and look at the big picture. This section should summarise major legal and ethical arguments in sampling, ones that really changed things and are important to sampling. Like Sergecross said a thousand years ago, we can't throw in every case. We have to figure out which ones are a big deal and which ones aren't. This one isn't a big deal. Popcornduff (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to Moberg v. 33T LLC that was in 2009 and before Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley (2011). "On October 6, the United States Court for the District of Delaware ruled in a case of first impression that a photograph posted to the Internet from a foreign server is not a “United States work” within the meaning of section 411 of the Copyright Act, and thus need not be registered in the U.S. in order to bring suit for infringement.". The case Moberg v. 33T LLC did not change anything as it just preserved the status quo. However Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley reversed that and it's a big deal. // Liftarn (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC


 * You're right, I misread the source. The case you're talking about did indeed come after the other, not before. Sorry about that.
 * ... But in my view it still doesn't provide any evidence of any lasting impact. And that's what I've been asking for since day one. Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

{{od|::::}} This has dragged on for almost two months, now, so here are (hopefully) my final thoughts on this matter:

Like Sergecross said, there are countless examples of court cases and disputes over sampling we include in this section. But this isn't supposed to be an exhaustive list of such events. It's supposed to be a concise summary of major events that have shaped the use of sampling in music.

We have a few weak sources that describe the Timbaland incident, but nothing to show it has had any serious impact on anything. The source Liftarn is pushing now focuses mainly on the implications for copyright in general, with little discussion of what it means for sampling, and with no examples of anything having changed.

As you can probably guess, I would still prefer to exclude the Timbaland incident in this article. But in the interest of reaching some conclusion, if other editors would like to review these sources again, and feel they demonstrate reason to be included in this article despite my objections, then I'll live with that. Sergecross73? MrClog? Any thoughts? Popcornduff (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m pretty much in the same spot as you. As I’ve said since the beginning, I could probably be swayed if Liftarn proposed specific prose, a specific source, and the specific excerpt of the source that backed it. But I still don’t think he’s managed to do that. (If I missed this in the massive wall of text above, feel free to re-add it down here, with the 3 parts I’m requesting. Sergecross73   msg me  18:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've made the edit there is some very specific text right there, but the main points I'm trying to get across is 1) Timbaland expanded the definition of sampling to also include taking someone else's work and pass it off as your own with just some minor changes. (This is the ethical aspect) The resulting court case reinterpreted US copyright law contra the Berne convention (this is the legal aspect). // Liftarn (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The text you added doesn't make clear what relevance, if any, the case has. The quote from Timbaland is baffling, and the supposedly important part (the outcome of the lawsuit) isn't mentioned at all. I notice you haven't responded to my proposed text, above. Popcornduff (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That would work with some tweaks. The text "after sampling a composition" is incorrect. Something more in line with reality would be "passing off somebody else's work as his own. Something he called sampling". Or "Apart from the lyrics the song was nearly identical to used a piece from 2000 for the Commodore 64." // Liftarn (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Due to holidays, I'll not be able to further be engaged with this dispute resolution. I'll change the case status to reflect this and to request other volunteers to take over. --MrClog (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

2019 Euro_T20_Slam
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

Continued vandalistic removal of basic relevant content

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

negotiation

How do you think we can help?

Rule WP:CISNOT needs inforced, and Editwarring to be prevented

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

2019 Euro_T20_Slam discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Fascism in_Europe
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 an ongoing dispute on if the Portuguese Uniao Nacional should or should not be listed under "European regimes often described as fascist or being strongly influenced by fascism". Sources say the regime was non-fascist.

Similar discussion was held at the article on and some other related articles, etc...

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Call in an established editor.
 * An historian.

How do you think we can help?

Bring another external opinion.

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

Talk:Genesis creation_narrative#User:Oldstone_James_edits
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The article makes a claim, in WP:VOICE, that reading the Genesis story as history is misreading it, which is contradicted by many reliable sources (which give numerous concrete examples of literal readings) and even the article itself ("It can also be regarded as ancient history"). The editor defending the current version claims that there is no contradiction in the article, and they also claim that the sources I have provided to them do not show examples of literal reading.

Note that misreading is defined as "the act or an instance of interpreting something incorrectly", meaning the phrase "misreading the Genesis story as history" does not imply that the Genesis story is history; instead, it implies that the Genesis story wasn't intended to be read/interpreted as history.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have changed my proposal following criticism by other editors

How do you think we can help?

I think a WP:3O may resolve the issue, as only two editors, me and jps, have expressed an opinion on my most recent proposal. Otherwise, if more than one volunteer responds to this request, a new consensus can be built.

Summary of dispute by ජපස
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is a premature filling. Suggest withdrawing. If not, I will support a topic ban for tiresomeness. jps (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not agree to this filing and I do not respect the legitimacy of any resolution worked out here. I suggest any volunteers who are interested join us on the talkpage and would also request this whole discussion be closed as WP:Forum shopping. jps (talk) 13:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nota bene

Summary of dispute by Dimadick
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The dispute started on April 19, with an argument on whether Biblical literalism is a "misreading" of the Bible or not. User:Oldstone James argues that a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth may have been the intention of the Book of Genesis' unnamed writers of the 1st millennium BC, while User:PiCo uses a source to support that this creation myth was never intended to be a history text. Much of the subsequent argument is on whether specific statements should be attributed to specific opinionated sources in the article (for example "Bruce Waltke states/cautions...), or whether they should be repeated in Wikivoice as facts, per Explanation of the neutral point of view. Personally, I quoted the Due and undue weight policy on contradictory sources, and suggested that it is essentially a debate of the creation myth's historicity. Dimadick (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Epiphyllumlover
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I strongly disagree that Oldstone James is being tendentious. In general practice on Bible related articles on Wikipedia, the content of the article summarizes either the Biblical information or the modern scholarship. Usually the less important, niche subjects summarize the Biblical information and the more important ones summarize modern scholarship. Oldstone James is looking to shift the article somewhat away from the latter and more towards the former. The several other editors won't let him do this on the grounds that if he does, it will be promoting Creationism, which is generally considered a fringe scientific position on scientific articles in Wikipedia. This is a misreading of the WP:Fringe policy due to the fact that this an article about a Bible story instead of a scientific article. However, due to the multiplicity of editors backing this proposition, the article currently reflects this misreading of WP:Fringe.

On the talk page, I suggested that Oldstone James could write a new section for the article reflecting the missing point of view. He declined, preferring to make even a more modest adjustment, stating "A simple solution to this problem would be to simply rephrase the two controversial statements that reading historically is misreading so as to avoid WP:WIKIVOICE." This is a much more minor tweaking than I suggested to solve the problem. In fact, it barely changes the position of the article at all and if I were him I would say it wouldn't be worth my time.

If Oldstone James was being tendentious he would be insisting for more broad changes rather than more minor ones. As for the criticism of his sources, this is an example of someone playing mind games. His sources are fine, and the view he is using is already dominant on many of the more minor-importance Bible topic articles without any feuding.

My opinion is that, however well-sourced the current page is, the claims it makes are very strong on one particular POV, such that using WP:WIKIVOICE is highly inappropriate. As such it prevents effective expansion of the article with other points of view.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Genesis creation_narrative#User:Oldstone_James_edits discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * User is being tendentious. One of the sources clearly says "If the reader misjudges the genre of the text in front of him, the result is a misreading." page 142. Theroadislong (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just note that I am not arguing for changing the line that you have quoted. Explaining why you believe I am being tendentious may also help. O l J a 21:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem to be involved in the dispute, and I have thus added you to the list of involved editors and gave you a space to send in a summary of the dispute. --MrClog (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

As is says at the top of this page, "We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums" This is currently under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think the discussion you are referring to has anything to do with the dispute here. The discussion at WP:ANI is about my general conduct; the discussion here is about specific content. O l J a 21:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The ANI discussion is about a proposed topic ban from all creationism articles, broadly construed. Genesis creation narrative is a creationism article. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that if ANI rules against Oldstone James and we decide in his favor, you will have two wikipedia procedures contradicting each other. To resolve this problem, I offer to make the relevant changes in the event Oldstone James is given a blanket ban and we resolve this dispute along the lines of what he is asking for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oldstone James is now under a self-requested one month block and cannot respond here. See his talk page for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...And now, 14 hours after being blocked, he has submitted an unblock appeal on UTRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wrong. It was a fake unblock request. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "Genesis creation narrative is a creationism article." No, it is not. We have a WikiProject Creationism and it has not added this article to the ones that concern it. And its talk page contains no notification on this dispute. Dimadick (talk) 06:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * FTFY: . jps (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Solomon's Pools#"Near Modern settlement"
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The current lede of the article reads as follows: "Solomon's Pools (Arabic: برك سليمان‎, Burak Suleīmān, Solomon's Pools, or simply el-Burak, the pools; Hebrew: בריכות שלמה‎, Breichot Shlomo) are three ancient reservoirs located in the south-central West Bank, immediately to the south of al-Khader, about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) southwest of Bethlehem, near the road to Hebron. The site is traditionally associated with King Solomon." We have been trying to add another directional bearing, which would make the lede paragraph read as follows: "Solomon's Pools (Arabic: برك سليمان‎, Burak Suleīmān, Solomon's Pools, or simply el-Burak, the pools; Hebrew: בריכות שלמה‎, Breichot Shlomo) are three ancient reservoirs located in the south-central West Bank, immediately to the south of al-Khader, about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) southwest of Bethlehem, near the road to Hebron, and north of Efrat." Four editors have agreed to its insertion, while two editors oppose its insertion. See Talk-Page for a discussion on this issue. The minority view keeps reverting the edits of the majority view. One editor claims that distances must be sourced, although we have shown the distance on a map.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We have discussed the issue in the article's Talk-Page and I have also submitted a AE (Arbitration Enforcement) against one of the editors (Huldra) who thought that settlements were not entitled to directional bearings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Huldra

How do you think we can help?

By giving your professional opinion as to the edit, if what we wish to include in the article is a reasonable inclusion or not, and to ask the minority view to respect the opinion of the majority.

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

Summary of dispute by Nableezy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are no reliable sources making any mention of any settlement as being relevant to the topic of the article. David's comments on the talk page have to be honest been quite baffling. He seems to be insistent on his personal opinions on the rights of "the sons of Abraham" and that Josephus "disproves the theory of modern revisionists of history" (ie modern historians). Arguing with somebody who insists on using religious dogma over reliable sources is proving more than a bit difficult. I have not argued that the distance be sourced. I have argued that if no reliable source makes any note of the distance to any modern Israeli settlement then including such a statement violates WP:DUE. David has ignored that entirely, focusing on the strawman that distances need to be sourced, something that nobody, not one person, on the talk page has said.  nableezy  - 21:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Solomon's Pools#"Near Modern settlement" discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Kafr 'Inan#Kfar Hananya
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on the article's Talk Page already. The discussion involves Kafr 'Inan, whose name was also Kefar Hanania in the 2nd-century CE as we see here in Mishnah Shebiith 9:2 and which place is discussed by the relative archaeologists and historical geographers. When students of religion study this site, the first name that comes to mind is the Hebrew rendition of its name, Kefar Hananiah which happens to be the exact same site as Kafr 'Inan.

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is currently an edit war regarding the applicability of MOS:FORLANG in the article Kafr 'Inan. The site has actually two foreign names; one in Arabic and one in Hebrew. When trying to add its Hebrew name, certain editors continue to revert the addition.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Discussed the issue in the article's Talk-Page and also with an Administrator.

How do you think we can help?

By asserting whether or not MOS:FORLANG applies also in this article's case, where there are two foreign language names used to describe this single geographical site.

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

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

Talk:Kafr 'Inan#Kfar Hananya discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

MOS:FORLANG is about the lead sentence, which is not the place where this dispute is. Zerotalk 03:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zero, if you look closely at the edit history, the dispute involved the lead paragraph. Our friend, Nableezy, already agrees that we add the Hebrew in a different section. Slowly, we're making progress here.Davidbena (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Max Blumenthal#Trujillo
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 Max Blumenthal article a disagreement started almost two weeks ago regarding an addition of content. The disputed is regarding opposite versions regarding a New York Times article, which the Wikipedia article states that it "vindicated the journalist analysis, who had reached the same conclusion weeks earlier".

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Three different versions of the content have been included. However, there's still no consensus.

How do you think we can help?

Uninvolved editors can help providing insight or other point of views, as well as solutions.

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

Summary of dispute by GPRamirez5
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Max Blumenthal#Trujillo discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Proper notice has been given to the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:United Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262#Population
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 Mzajac chose to remove the "% of world population" statistic, claiming that it constitutes original research and synthesis of published material because it represents the world population % of many countries in one figure.

I say this does not constitute original research or synthesis, and I point out that other information on the same page that Mzajac has not shown any interest in removing is example of the same thing:

Both the "% of votes" and "% of total UN members" stats are exactly the same case. Mzajac has no interest in removing those stats, but defended the other two stats saying "The percent figure is derived from the numbers. It’s another, clarifying view of the same data."

Well, that's also exactly what the '% of world population' stat is. Literally, all 3 stats are the same in being exactly that.

I came across their profile on Quora and found they are focused on and very opinionated on topics relating to Ukraine/Crimea/Russia, and as a rule push information in favour of Ukraine and attack and dismiss information that appears to benefit Russia:

https://www.quora.com/log/revision/675723535 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/680009624 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/680972797 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/679695836 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/679318114 https://www.quora.com/log/revision/678373285

Mzajac's posting is heated and also is consistently opinionated to one side, and so I think that Mzajac's desire to remove the "% of world population" stat while preserving the "% of votes" and "% of total UN members" stats, despite them all being examples of the same thing, is due to a desire to remove the one stat out of three that is unflattering to creating an impression of a global front against Russia on the matter of Crimea. However, I find that all 3 stats are helping in looking at the UN vote results in context.

The % of world population stat did add to my view of the overall situation, and I think that's what Mzajac doesn't like.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried to reason about the situation on the talk page, and I've reverted the removal of the % of world population stat. Mzajac asked for discussion of the topic, but when the points are raised Mzajac simply tries to manoeuver around them or ignore them.

How do you think we can help?

I think this dispute can be resolved with verification of whether representing multiple countries' population stat in one figure constitutes original research.

If it doesn't, then affirm that so the '% of world population' stat will remain on the page without further removal.

If does, which I can't see how, then we have to remove not just the '% of world population stat', but also the '% of votes' and '% of total UN members' stats.

Summary of dispute by Mzajac
Regarding the content edits: the UN presents their voting results by listing the number of votes for, against, abstaining, and absent. They do not include population statistics associated with each vote, because they are not directly relevant. The impulse to add that information, I speculate, is backed by an impulse to add a moral element. For example, implying that the single vote of the People’s Republic of China represents the will of its 1,400 million people. I believe this violates WP:SYNTH, which states “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” If we do allow this, imagine what new columns of stats will start to get added to every single article about a UN Resolution.

Regarding User:Nozoz’s argumentation style, I am perturbed that she or he is finding social-media profiles that he or she presumes represent me, and is posting links to selected log entries as part of this dispute-resolution processs to try to characterize me as “very opinionated” and trying to “dismiss information that appears to benefit Russia.” If our social-media profiles are on trial here, I would welcome User:Nozoz to post a list of links to her or his social media accounts so our personalities can be judged fairly, if that were relevant to the question. But I believe this is skirting violation of WP:DOX. —Michael Z. 2019-04-24 14:21 z 

Talk:United Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262#Population discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Reverse racism
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

Two-part issue, where another user and I are at loggerheads over (1) whether "reverse discrimination" is a legitimate alternative name for this article, to be placed in bold in the first sentence, and (2) whether the article shows systemic bias requiring use of the globalize template. I've pointed out that, and that , i.e. a "significant alternative name" for the topic. says this is too ambiguous, given that another article has Reverse discrimination as its title. For the "Globalize" issue, I've pointed out that sources describing the topic, and that the article should reflect these sources per Due and undue weight. I don't think one user's unproven hunch that the article is plagued by systemic bias is enough reason to indefinitely deface the article with a cleanup tag. Systemic bias is by definition not a question of this or that article being skewed; it's about the shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors and under-representing those topics for which reliable sources are not easily available (i.e. online) or available in English. Well, part of the answer to that is to seek out alternative sources. I've asked several times    for published sources that describe non-U.S. viewpoints, but none have been provided.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I think I have exhausted the possibilities of talk page discussion given that my repeated requests for information have been largely ignored. has twice listed the dispute at WP:3O, but no one decided to take up the issue, and the.

How do you think we can help?

I think moderation from an experienced user would help all parties articulate their concerns more clearly in order to arrive at a solution based on Wikipedia's core content policies.

Summary of dispute by Scoundr3l
(1) Regarding the alt title: "Reverse discrimination" is the subject of another article. As far as anyone can tell, that article covers the only definition of the term. I asked for clarification on the scope of the article. Sangdeboeuf replied with the opinion that the two terms have similar, but different scopes. I agreed. I attempted to remove the alt title and further define the article "reverse racism" to differentiate it from the "reverse discrimination" article. Those changes were reverted and Sangdeboeuf seems to have contradicted the previous opinion by now insisting they are the same thing. My position is that using it as an alt title on the "reverse racism" page is needlessly ambiguous, even if some sources do, because it's the same term covered by the other article. In the best interest of the readers, the articles should attempt to disambiguate them.

Note: there is an ongoing merge proposal for the two articles, which we've both participated in, as well as a merge suggestion that was closed as "Keep".

(2) Regarding the globalize tag: This was added by me because I feel that that lede of the article almost exclusively discusses US politics, despite the article having relevant subsections for the US and abroad. I think the lede should summarize the worldview, as much as possible, and the US can be discussed in detail in its relevant subsection. I made that clear in my discussion and I offered open-ended suggestions for how we could begin improvements. Sangdeboeuf's response has been nothing short of hostile. They've made no attempt to understand or engage in the issue, answer simple questions, or participate. Their stance has been "I disagree", which I can't be expected to account for, but I expect any reasonable editor could see a good faith effort to begin working on improvements. After one of the many removals of the template without action or engagement, a 3rd party editor re-added the tag and Sangdeboeuf still insists on removing it without discussion.

After it became evident that this was not a collaborative environment, I sought out a 3O twice. No responders. Participation in the article is low and probably hasn't been encouraged by stonewalling and ownership-like behavior. The only 3rd party participation so far was the re-addition of the globalize template.

Talk:Reverse racism discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to open this one up? MrClog (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer moderator
I will try to facilitate discussion. I have opinions on this subject, but will keep my personal opinions in check, because I have an even stronger opinion that Wikipedia needs to present the neutral point of view on issues where many people are not neutral. Please read the ground rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in contentious areas. Overly long posts do not help to resolve issues, although they make the poster feel better, so be concise. Discuss article content only, not contributors. The objective of this discussion is to improve the article.

Will each editor please state, in one or at most two paragraphs, what the issues are? I understand that there may be a suggestion to merge this article with reverse discrimination, but that should be outside the scope of this discussion, because there is a consensus-based procedure for merge discussions. Is there an issue about defining the scope of the topic and the article? If so, please state it concisely. If there are other content issues, please state them concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors

 * Yes, first and foremost there is an issue of scope. Presently, the article does not define what 'reverse racism' is. It begins immediately by contextualizing how the term is used in Affirmative Action debates, which is inadequate, if not incorrect, as a definition. The source themselves state that the concept dates back to the Reconstruction era and it is often used outside of those contexts, such as bloc voting discussions. I offered instead to define it as situations where "typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged groups." This definition is modeled after the one in Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society and similar (but distinct) from the definition used at reverse discrimination. That will allow us to set the scope of the two articles apart and discuss the broader subject outside of the American Affirmative Action debate (though it can still be discussed with due weight). And finally, the alt title is unnecessary and confusing, probably owing to those scope issues. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate what I wrote above, minus the "globalize" issue, since that by an uninvolved user. The issue, as I see it, is that since multiple published sources treat the terms reverse discrimination and reverse racism as equivalent, both terms should be given in the lead section or paragraph per WP:OTHERNAMES, preferably in bold text. Whether a separate article with the title Reverse discrimination exists is irrelevant; anyone can create an article with any title. We should simply follow what sources say, and use hatnotes or a disambiguation page to deal with any ambiguity as needed. In terms of the article's scope, I think it's preferable to give context up front rather than just the literal meaning of the words reverse racism, precisely because it's a non-neutral term (à la white genocide or great replacement). The crucial points to cover are that (1) it's a concept used as a political strategy, and (2) it specifically refers to anti-white discrimination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The worldview of the article is still an issue. The globalize discussion that was closed was off-topic conversation about the inclusion of the tag, not really useful to anyone. As the issue was already in DRN, there's no value in re-opening it, but that doesn't mean the issue has disappeared or been resolved. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
Editorial comment: Do not reply to the posts of other editors, and do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The parties are here because they are presumably requesting facilitation because back-and-forth discussion merely restated the two sides.

Is there agreement that there is a scope issue? I am neutral, but I see a definition issue at the beginning, which is that the topic is reverse racism, but there is no initial definition of what is meant by racism in the first place. Do we need to start by defining racism? Please answer in one paragraph.

Can each party provide a one-paragraph (preferably two or three sentences) proposed lede paragraph? Provide this separately from the answer to the above.

There have been comments about a global view. I can see that the concept of reverse racism is likely to be different in different countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, continental Europe, India. Will each of the editors please comment in one paragraph about whether they think that the article needs to be expanded to be global? If yes, is it currently focused on the United States?

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

 * A lot of sources take for granted that "reverse racism" is self explanatory, at least within the context they are discussing, so they don't bother to specifically define it. But it does need to be defined for our article. I don't think we necessarily need to define 'racism' in this article, but we should at least link to that article, if possible. My proposed lede:"Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination in which typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged racial groups. The concept has been used to portray color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, such as affirmative action, as a form of anti-white racism." If it's too wordy, we can cut down on some of the "or"s. I've also offered to include "concept" or "In political discourse," in the lede sentence, as part of our previous discussion. Regarding worldview, the article is presented as universal, but focused almost exclusively on the US. It relies too heavily on sources discussing American politics and makes little effort to present the term outside that context. By last estimate, 6 of the 7 sentences in the lede mentioned the US specifically, either in text or piped link. This is excessive considering it repeats a lot of what's already in the US subsection. Similar discussions have been brought up about India on the Reverse Discrimination talk page. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is any problem with the article's scope. Giving a simple definition of racism in the lead section would only confuse matters in my view, because (A) racism does not easily fit under a single definition, and (B) the topic is not a form of racism at all, according to the sources. This is explained in the second paragraph of the lead. I think the existing lead paragraph,, gives a workable definition of the topic and places it in the appropriate context. It could probably be broken into parts to avoid a run-on sentence, though. I think the article already represents a global worldview as represented by the existing sources. Most of the high-quality sources I've seen focus on the US, so that's where the article should also focus. I think any expansion needs to be justified with published sources (I haven't seen any sources that specifically discuss the concept of "reverse racism" in India). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
Hmmm. It appears that one editor is basically satisfied with the definition, the scope, and the globality, and the other editor thinks that the definition should be revised and the article should provide more information about the problem outside the United States. Are you (each of you) willing to compromise on the definitional statement? Are you (each of you) willing to compromise on including or not including other countries? Are there any other issues that need to be discussed and are not being discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors

 * My last edit to the page, adding, was an attempt to incorporate the other editor's concerns in defining the scope of the topic. I'm open to further compromise if it can be shown to be faithful to published sources. Ditto for including other countries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Naturally willing to compromise, but I'd need details on the proposed compromise. I'd also ask Sangdeboeuf to stop editing the lede while it's under discussion as it's making it difficult to characterize what we're talking about and it's introducing more errors. The only thing that doesn't appear to be addressed is the alt title. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
I don't see any editing of the lede since we started discussion. (If I did, I would fail this discussion, because the mediation rules state that no one shall edit the article while discussion is in progress, but it appears that the editors have read that.)

Since it appears that the editors are making some progress toward compromise, I will change the rules and encourage the editors to engage in back-and-forth discussion as to the wording of the lede sentence for four days or so.

Are there any other issues that the editors think need to be resolved? As to whether to tag the article, we already know that we do not want the article tagged. If it needs improvement, it should be improved here, rather than tagged as needing improvement.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors

 * As stated, I'm satisfied with the contents of the current lead sentence, though happy to entertain other suggestions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * this change was introduced since the discussion started. I'm genuinely curious which of the concerns it was meant to address as it doesn't add a definition, worldview, or address the alt title. It's just a tossing of the word salad. It's also factually inaccurate as it needlessly introduced "racial minority" and "white majority" which are not requisite to reverse racism (see: South Africa). We've engaged in a back and forth since mid February and come no closer to a compromise than when this began. If we could have resolved this by now, I'm sure we both would have. What we really need is a third opinion. It's also unclear what you mean by "tag" in regards to the alt title. Scoundr3l (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't add a definition". It describes the scope of the subject according to those who use the term. What other definition would you like to include? As to the majority/minority issue, you may have a point; what if we just said "white people"/"black people" instead? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator
I stated the ground rules on 28 March. They said not to edit the article. The lede sentence was tweaked on 29 March. How do you expect to arrive at a compromise if you are ignoring the mediation instructions?

I suggest the use of a Request for Comments. Will each side please state what their version of the lede sentence should be. Please also identify any other issues.

Fifth statements by editors

 * That was an oversight on my part that was nonetheless intended as a compromise edit. I even said as much under "Third statements by editors" above. However, if an RfC is recommended I'd be fine with that as well. I think the existing lead sentence is good but could be split into two, such as —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * To reiterate the issues: (1) the current lede sentence is not a definition. It's inadequate to handle the most basic uses of the word, such as "To vote for a Negro only because he is a Negro would be reverse racism" -Jackie Robinson, New York Times, discussing bloc voting. Or "Accusations of 'reverse racism' haunt an American professor" -The Economist, discussing tweets by Sarah Jeong. The over-reliance on the wording of only a few sources (and ignoring others) has needlessly skewed the scope of the article in favor of one preferred context, at the expense of others. There's no reason to try to make the article fit into a definition if it doesn't fit. It's not the definition. My proposed lede:"Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination in which typically advantaged or majority racial groups are denied advantages or opportunities given to minority or disadvantaged racial groups. The concept has been used to portray color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, such as affirmative action, as a form of anti-white racism."This definition fits all appropriate uses of the term, including those used by the AA sources, and still provides context for how the term is used in Affirmative Action debates. Providing an adequate definition is not an issue of neutrality. The term means what it means and there are no "non-neutral" exceptions to NPOV. Second (2) is the alt title. The purpose of alt titles is to ensure coverage of all significant names for the article content, and vice versa. The subject of "reverse discrimination" is already covered. Using this alt title means we now have two articles about "reverse discrimination". As you said, there is a consensus-based procedure for merging articles. That proposal has already been rejected and it appears that it may be rejected again. This bypasses the process by disrupting the scope of another article. Alt title should be removed if and until consensus changes for a merger. RfC wouldn't be my first choice. After all, this is just a disagreement between two editors. I feel like it's already been protracted enough. But if nobody else is willing to offer their opinion here, it'll do. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator
Okay. If the editing of the article after moderated discussion started was an innocent mistake, the editors can resume trying to talk to each other about a proposed lede that will be acceptable to both parties. I will observe and let there be back-and-forth. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors
I would refer to my latest comment where I propose a slightly modified lead paragraph. Otherwise I'm satisfied with the lead paragraph as it stands. Will entertain any alternative suggestions. Meanwhile, what should we do about problematic edits like this one, which introduce questionable content into the lead section? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, we've both already stated our issues, our proposals, and our reasoning several times now and they don't appear to have changed much. If we could have resolved this with back-and-forth, we would have done it on the talk thread that began in February and we wouldn't need dispute resolution. Just for the sake of variety, I think we should hear what you think and then I'm sure we'll have better luck coming to an accord with some new information rather than just repeating this all over again. As for the new edit, it doesn't appear related to this conversation. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * true, talk page discussion went nowhere, which is why I brought the issue to this more structured forum. Do you have nothing to add about my latest proposal? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, with the threading this can be confusing but I was actually saying that I think we should hear from or someone else. I appreciate the change in forum, but if it's still just you and me repeating ourselves, it isn't moving us forward. Your current proposal has all the same problems as when we began: it uses an inappropriate alt title, it doesn't define the term, and it's factually incorrect to the scope of the subject. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you substantiate those claims? What do you suggest as a better lead sentence/paragraph? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already substantiated it several times in my previous statements, and proposed a better lead. See previous statements. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the last edit was not related to this discussion, as Scoundr3l says, I've removed the questionable material. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator
This is getting troublesome, in that we keep seeming to have this resolved, and then it isn't quite finished. Let's try one more time. Will each editor, one more time, please provide their proposed wording of the lede sentence? If we can't get agreement, I will throw it to an RFC. If you don't want that, just agree to something.

By the way, I have requested that the page be semi-protected for between one and two more months due to repeated edits (and I haven't looked at whether they are plain vandalism, fancy vandalism, or socks) by unregistered editors that have to be reverted. Some of it is POV vandalism.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors

 * My proposed lead sentence is, to be followed immediately by —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this is getting troublesome. This is the third time you've asked us to provide our proposed lede, we provide it, you offer no further input, and say we're getting close to a resolution. If you aren't going to participate, please just close this so we can take it to an RFC. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator
Sangdeboeuf has proposed a lede. Scoundr3l - Please either accept it or propose a different lede. If you propose a different one, we will use a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Batman: Knightfall
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 am attempting to enhance the "Reading order" section of the Batman: Knightfall page by adding an issue, Robin #0, to the list. I have provided both a reference (linked article) and a note to justify the inclusion of the extra issue. The intention behind adding Robin #0 to the reading order, is to enhance the reading experience for anybody that is choosing to use this page as a reading guide. This edit is being reverted on every attempt.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

After an initial edit war took place, we have engaged in discussion on the Talk page, with a failure to reach consensus. I have attempted to improve the edit by re-wording the note to address the concerns of the reverter, with no success.

How do you think we can help?

I am hoping for a third party decision if the edit to enhance the reading order is an acceptable edit. I am open to suggestions to further improve the edit, to make it an acceptable change.

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

Summary of dispute by TheJoebro64
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Batman: Knightfall discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not notified the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This dispute can be closed. A solution was reached — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman Fan 31593 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution_noticeboard
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'm victimized because someone is very uncomfortable with the truth. This is - whether you like it or not; online bullying.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

They're not really trying to have a conversation or gain consensus - they're trying to "manage" something... and I'm for some reason being made a part of that. I would prefer not to be.

How do you think we can help?

Do a deep dive on policy, policies, mission statements, your heart and Sociology/humanism/ethics.

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

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution_noticeboard discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India
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 have created the article Cow vigilante violence in India as spin out from Cow protection movement article. There already exists an article Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 which deals with the same issue but after 2014, this is a subset of the article in question, but still that exists. But this article is being redirected to bypass the WP:AFD. I was told by an admin that redirecting is not deletion.

And the user reported me to Admin notice board for Edit warring, which was closed as no violation.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed the issue with the admin who dealt with edit warring report and who redirected the article and protected it for a week. User_talk:El_C

How do you think we can help?

You can provide inputs on how to proceed with this, or suggest if I should leave this dispute and move on.

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

Summary of dispute by Abhi88iisc
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:Cow vigilante violence in India discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * There has been prior discussion and proper notice has been given. --MrClog (talk) 13:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - This is a deletion dispute and should be dealt with by a deletion discussion. Redirection is back-door deletion and should be resolved by a deletion discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Volunteer note - A parent article should not be redirected to a child article. I have restored the two articles.  If there should be redirection, it should be of the child article to the parent article.  The copyright-infringing material should be removed (not closely paraphrased).  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Casualties of_the_Iraq_War#2006_Lancet_paper
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

This dispute concerns how Wikipedia should present the number of Iraqi Casualties of the Iraq War. Editors at the article appear to agree that epidemiological surveys are the most robust method for determining the number of casualties that have occurred in a war zone, and these are available for the Iraq War. However, there are five major epidemiological studies of mortality resulting from the Iraq War, and these have different findings. Three studies have produced higher estimates (Lancet 2004; Lancet 2006; ORB 2008), one has produced a lower estimate (IFHS 2008), and one has produced an intermediate estimate (PLOS Medicine 2013).

Two editors, User:Snooganssnoogans and User:TheTimesAreAChanging, argue that available scientific commentary demonstrates that the Lancet 2004 and Lancet 2006 studies are contested and probably unreliable, and have placed text in the lead of the article stating that these studies "are disputed in the scientific community."

Three editors, User:Thucydides411, User:Jrheller1 and myself User:Darouet argue that available scientific commentary shows that the Lancet 2004, Lancet 2006 and PLOS 2013 studies are instead the most reliable, and that the lead text is misleading.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

There are an abundance of sources and a long history of talk page discussion all of which have not resolved this dispute. Those discussions have included this recent one, and other discussions on the talk page and in the archives.

How do you think we can help?

I have had good experiences with dispute resolution in the past, where level-headed and experienced volunteers have required all participants to base their arguments in available sources and to permit both compromise and progress. There is good evidence that editors in this dispute are intelligent, interested in the subject, and can therefore contribute to a strong article that adheres to sources.

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

The section on the Lancet study is an extremely comprehensive summary of the academic debate surrounding the study. The section is lengthy because the study is extremely notable and controversial in the field/topic of war death estimates. The section contains both criticism and praise for the study. Unlike Thucydides11, who has repeatedly sought to remove every single study criticizing the Lancet study, I have fully welcomed all studies that hold a favorable view of the Lancet study and would never dream of removing relevant peer-reviewed research under any circumstance. The simple fact is that academics dispute the Lancet study: many recognized experts say it's deeply flawed whereas other recognized experts praise it. Even the lead author of the Lancet study, Gilbert Burnham, later published an article which revised the old estimate, producing a far lower estimate of war deaths. I cannot emphasize just how bizarre it is to describe criticism of the Lancet study as fringe when not even the lead author of the Lancet study stands by the Lancet study anymore.

There are several claims made by Thucydides11 below that are false or misplaced. First, the claim that the section solely cites one scholar who disputes the Lancet study is false; by my count, there are at least 28 recognized experts cited in the section as critiquing the Lancet study, most of whom are published in peer-reviewed academic outlets. This includes giants in the field of quantitative social science and conflict research, such as Andrew Gelman, Lars-Erik Cederman and Nils Petter Gleditsch. Second, the claim that citation counts reflect WP:DUE is misplaced, given that damning critiques of popular studies rarely get anywhere close to the same citations as the popular studies. For example, Ashworth et al. points out rudimentary methodology errors in Pape's 'Strategic Logic of Terrorism', yet Pape's article has been cited 20x more. Broockman and Kalla's exposure of LaCour's fraudulent study ended LaCour's career, yet LaCour's study has been cited 2x more (despite the immediate debunking). What matters is whether content is by recognized experts or published in peer-reviewed academic outlets, not whether it's been cited a bunch. Furthermore, the 2008 critique of the Lancet study was awarded "article of the year" by the Journal of Peace Research, clearly demonstrating that this is not some minor insignificant quibble that somehow got past peer-review. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Thucydides411
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The article should reflect the scientific consensus, with minority views receiving less weight. One tool for establishing what the scientific community thinks of the various studies is to look at citation counts. Snooganssnoogans and TheTimesAreAChanging have objected to this method, but citation counts are an important measure of how other scientists view a work. The 2006 Lancet study, by Burnham et al., has been cited over 700 times. Snooganssnoogans has objected that famous junk studies (such as the notorious MMR vaccine-autism study) can also rack up large numbers of citations. In order to make sure that Burnham et al. is not simply "notorious," Darouet went through the most highly cited papers that cite Burnham et al. If Burnham et al. is junk, then those papers should say so. Instead, the three most highly cited paper that cite Burnham et al. do not criticize it (Wang et al. (2016), Adhikari et al. (2010), Kassebaum et al. (2015)). A relatively recent survey article in Annual Reviews (a well respected, high-impact journal), Levy & Sidel (2016), directly states that "these studies [Burnham et al. and Roberts et al.] have been widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians". That establishes the dominant scientific view on the subject.

So what does our article say? The lede first lists a range of casualty estimates, and then refers to "Other estimates, which are disputed in the scientific community, such as the 2006 Lancet study". Yet the 2006 Lancet study is referred to by the Annual Reviews survey as "the most rigorous". The lede sets out a dichotomy, between "disputed" estimates and those which are, by contrast, not disputed. This dichotomy does not exist, and if anything, goes in the opposite direction - the Burnham et al. study is actually considered one of the most rigorous estimates, not one of the least. How does Snooganssnoogans justify making this dichotomy? By citing, over and over again, criticisms published by the same researcher, Michael Spagat (Snooganssnoogans disputes this, but we can go through the sources one-by-one). These criticisms routinely have low citation counts, yet they utterly dominate the section on Burnham et al. (six of the seven paragraphs), and are additionally scattered throughout other sections of the article. Michael Spagat alone is mentioned by name a stunning 29 times throughout the article. This is completely out of proportion to the reception he has received in the scientific community, as evidenced by citation counts, how highly cited papers that cite Burnham et al. view the study, and what review articles on the subject state.

If you want an idea of what I think is appropriate, take a look at this diff: a neutral lede, and a short description in the section on Burnham et al. about how review articles characterize the study.

Summary of dispute by TheTimesAreAChanging
For the record, I used to accept the 2006 Lancet survey and credit Snooganssnoogans with changing my mind on that topic. (See, e.g., "Moreover, the Lancet estimates for Iraq War deaths are probably valid"—TheTimesAreAChanging, December 1, 2016.) While the study has many critics, I now agree with Darouet and Thucydides411 that singling it out for criticism in the lede is not appropriate. However, Thucydides411 recently deleted 23,000 bytes of sourced text from Casualties of the Iraq War, including both criticism and strong support for the Lancet. As I explained on the talk page, this large-scale deletion did not seem constructive to me because it removed all consideration of the relative merits of the Lancet and IFHS studies in favor of a short general summary from two review articles, one of which is more than a decade old. I do not wish to continue edit warring with Thucydides411 and Darouet, who I respect as much as I respect Snooganssnoogans, but I contend that a significant amount of the content that Thucydides411 deleted had encyclopedic value and that his edit went well beyond "trimming Spagat," as he might put it. If you compare the two versions, you'll see that the scope of the purge is rather dramatic, with the subsection dedicated to the 2006 Lancet study being reduced from one of the largest in the article to one of the shortest, in keeping with Thucydides411's stated preference to devote roughly comparable coverage to all estimates of Iraq War casualties rather than devoting significantly more space to the Lancet in particular. As mentioned, I don't want to keep edit warring the 23,000 bytes of content back into and out of the article, but I would have preferred a more measured approach than simply deleting all criticism of the Lancet. I had previously created a paragraph detailing Tirman et al.'s defense of the relative merits of the Lancet study versus the IFHS study in an attempt to balance the article, but with SPECIFICO dropping out of the discussion and Mr. Ernie joining Darouet, Thucydides411, and Jrheller1 it appears that the numerical balance has now shifted in favor of the other side in this dispute, and it's not clear how amenable this new bloc will be to a compromise in light of Darouet's and Jrheller1's determination that all academic criticism of the Lancet is FRINGE and UNDUE respectively.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Jrheller1
I agree with Thucydides411's assessment. I attempted to edit the article in July 2018 to remove some of the excessive Spagat references, but they were immediately edit-warred back by Snooganssnoogans. Since then, Snoogans has continued to add still more Spagat material.

Spagat and his co-workers have enough publications and mentions by mainstream media that there could be a separate article about their work. But their work should only be mentioned in passing in "Casualties of the Iraq War" so that it does not distract the reader from the viewpoint of the majority of experts that must be presented by "Casualties of the Iraq War". Jrheller1 (talk) 05:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mr Ernie
I will not be able to participate in this DR, due to RL circumstances the next 2 weeks. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Casualties of_the_Iraq_War#2006_Lancet_paper discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The necessary preconditions have been met, because there has been discussion at the talk page, and notice has been given.

Is this a dispute where the parties are seeking assistance in reaching a compromise, or is the dispute an A-B (this or that) question? If it is the latter. a Request for Comments is recommended. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * We're seeking assistance in reaching a compromise. There are some very basic issues (e.g., "What is the dominant scientific view on the 2006 Lancet study?") that we disagree on at the moment. Going through these questions in a structured manner would help. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * thanks for your question: I don't think this will be resolved through a simple this-or-that RfC. The question of how to accord due weight to comments critical of the dominant Lancet epidemiological surveys, and how to describe those surveys themselves, involves many aspects of this article. For this reason dispute resolution would be preferred.


 * would you like to be included in this process or would you rather recuse yourself? -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * thank you for initiating the discussion. I'll ping other editors shortly and will plan to make my statement below within 36 hours. -Darouet (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Hey I have made my opening statement below. -Darouet (talk) 22:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

First statement by interim moderator
I will try to get some progress made on this. Please read the rules and follow the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I don't know anything about this dispute other than that there is a war and wars have casualties. I understand that there are five studies. Is there a question about how much weight to give to each study? Can the conclusions of each study simply be stated without trying to rank them? Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph statement of the issues, within 48 hours? Do not comment on each other's statements. Address your comments to me and so to the community.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

First statements by editors
Thank you for initiating this process. I believe the issue is not how much weight to accord the different studies, but rather how much weight is being accorded to the minority position — and above all to Michael Spagat's work — that the Lancet studies are unreliable. Instead, the two Lancet papers and the PLOS paper are widely considered the most rigorous studies of Iraqi casualties arising from the Iraq War. This consideration can be seen in their extraordinarily high citation counts, their positive and authoritative treatment in those citations, and in reviews by other authors. This 2016 Levy and Sidel Annual Reviews text summarizes the Lancet studies: "...widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians; we agree with this assessment and believe that the [PLOS] study is also scientifically rigorous... [Iraqi civilian deaths] in fact, may have been underestimated by these scientifically conservative studies." I believe that we should note these studies are more rigorous. I do think that your suggestion — omitting judgement in the lead — could be one that brings compromise. -Darouet (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that any particular study should be given more space in the article than another. I also don't think it's necessary to rank the studies (except for the body counts, which the scientific literature notes undercount casualties). One major problem, right now, is that the lede does effectively rank the studies, by dividing them into two categories: one category is used to come up with a range of casualty estimates, while the other category is called "disputed." However, the sources that the lede terms "disputed" (the Lancet studies) are precisely the studies that the scientific literature indicates are the most rigorous. The Lancet papers are the studies with the largest numbers of citations, and which are explicitly stated to be the most rigorous in review articles, yet in the lede and in the subsections on the Lancet studies, they're singled out for criticism. This is not reflective of how the scientific community views the Lancet studies. -Thucydides411 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This is actually very simple: a large number of peer-reviewed studies and expert assessments dispute the 2006 Lancet study. Even the lead author of the 2006 Lancet study authored a separate study which considerably downgraded the casualty estimates. As a result, it is accurate to describe the Lancet study as disputed (because that is what the academic literature shows). On Wikipedia, we reflect that there is a dispute between reliable sources when there is one per WP:NPOV. Darouet and Thucydides411 repeat two falsehoods (which have been corrected multiple times, incl. here): (1) that all the critiques of the Lancet study are essentially by one academic (I count at least 28 recognized experts) and (2) that references in the academic literature to the Lancet study have been overwhelmingly positive (at this point, Darouet and Thucydides411 have only managed to find two such studies - when there are dozens of studies / expert assessments cited in the Wikipedia article that harshly critique the Lancet study). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator
I will repeat my previous suggestion that perhaps this can be resolved by a compromise wording that completely or almost completely avoids commentary on the merits of the various studies but simply summarizes the studies. Is this general approach satisfactory to the editors? If so, does each editor have a suggestion for how to do this?

If any editor sees another or a different issue or has a different approach, please state it concisely. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
How is it a compromise to remove description of the state of the academic literature on the subject? That's the crux of the disagreement! Many studies and academic assessments sharply criticize the Lancet study, and the lead author of the Lancet study has published a separate study with a downgraded casualty estimate (i.e. not even the lead author of the study stands by it!). There is no commentary on the "merits of the various studies". The text simply notes that the Lancet study's findings have been "disputed" (which is indisputably correct and reflective of the academic literature on the subject). If there is a disagreement between reliable sources, Wikipedia policy instructs us to reflect that disagreement (i.e. stating that the veracity of the study is "disputed"). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the approach that you give would be appropriate for the lede. The different survey-based estimates of mortality should be put on an equal footing in the lede. This is what I attempted to do in an earlier version of the article, which had this paragraph in the lede:
 * Estimates of Iraq War casualties range from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to over a million (per the 2007 Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey). Other survey-based studies covering different time-spans find 461,000 total deaths (over 60% of them violent) as of June 2011 (per PLOS Medicine 2013), and 655,000 total deaths (over 90% of them violent) as of June 2006 (per the 2006 Lancet study). Body counts — which underestimate mortality — counted at least 110,600 violent deaths as of April 2009 (Associated Press). The Iraq Body Count project documents 183,249 – 205,785 violent civilian deaths through Feb. 2019.

The question of what to do in the body of the article is a separate one, as part of the dispute centers around how much weight to give criticism of the Lancet studies by Michael Spagat, and whether his criticisms are representative of how the wider scientific community views the Lancet studies (I think it's clear that they aren't, and I'd be happy to talk about the sources that back up that assessment). Maybe we can talk about that once we've decided how to present the different estimates in the lede. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator
It is clear that what we are trying to do is to find a neutral way of stating what the various opinions and studies are, which includes that there have been other studies critical of the Lancet study. Can each editor please propose their wording that assesses the various studies neutrally? We can then try to pull them together. Each editor should submit their own wording, within 48 hours. Use as much length as you think is necessary, remembering that it should be read by a reader who is new to the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed as no response after more than 72 hours. The issue appears to be how to summarize different opinions on different studies, and there is agreement that the article should identify the various studies including the 2006 Lancet paper and identify opinions on the 2006 Lancet paper. The editors should resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion there is again extensive and inconclusive, another request can be opened here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been requested to re-open this, and am doing so. From now on, editors are expected to respond in 36 (not 48) hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Third statements by editors
The scientific response to the Lancet studies has been overwhelmingly positive. This can be gauged in a number of ways:
 * 1) Looking at the number of citations of the Lancet studies.
 * 2) Looking at the highest cited articles that cite the Lancet studies, and seeing how they describe the Lancet studies. Are their descriptions positive or negative?
 * 3) Looking at review articles on the subject. How do they describe the Lancet studies?

Method #1: Roberts et al. (2004), the first Lancet study, has been cited 472 times, according to Google Scholar. Burnham et al. (2006), the second Lancet study, has been cited over 700 times, according to Google Scholar. By contrast, the Iraq Family Health Survey, which Snooganssoogans has claimed is more reputable, has been cited 181 times.

Method #2: According to Google Scholar, these are the three highest-cited journal articles that cite the 2006 Lancet study: These papers do not call the Lancet studies "discredited," and in fact cite them as supporting references for some of their claims.
 * Wang et al. (2016), in The Lancet, with cited 1082 times. Here's the sentence that cites the Lancet studies: "Indeed, it has been challenging to accurately document the number of casualties from wars and deaths resulting from malnutrition, infections, or disruption in health services during wars." This sentence also cites a systematic review of Iraq War mortality estimates, by Tapp et al. (2012), which I discuss below. Note that Wang et al. does not call the Lancet studies "discredited" or anything of the sort. It says that estimating deaths from wars is difficult. In my opinion, that's definitely something that should be said on Casualties of the Iraq War, probably in the lede.
 * Adhikari et al. (2010), in The Lancet, with cited 671 times. The sentence that cites Burnham et al. reads, "However, during times of war, we should remember that evidence from systematic household cluster sampling suggests that most excess deaths, and, by extension, most demands for intensive care, do not arise from violence but from medical disorders resulting from the breakdown of public health infrastructure (eg, cholera), or from the discontinuation of treatment of chronic diseases caused by interruption of pharmaceutical supplies." It also cites a study about the DRC. Adhikari et al. reference Burnham et al. to substantiate a point, not to criticize their study. One would not cite a "discredited" study in this manner.
 * Kassebaum et al. (2016), in The Lancet, cited 500 times. I couldn't find the reference to Burnham et al. in the linked version of the article, but this related article, by the same group of authors and cited 320 times, states that, "The accelerated declines in cause-specific YLLs rates for nearly all causes is occurring despite threats to human health such as climate change, antimicrobial resistance, obesity, emerging infectious diseases, and conflict", citing the two Lancet studies and Tapp et al., among other papers.

Method #3:
 * Tapp et al. (2012), which is cited by Wang et al. (2016). Tapp et al. calls the Lancet studies the most rigorous studies on the subject: "Of the population-based studies, the Roberts and Burnham studies provided the most rigorous methodology as their primary outcome was mortality [16, 18]. Their methodology is similar to the consensus methods of the SMART initiative, a series of methodological recommendations for conducting research in humanitarian emergencies." Tapp et al. also discusses criticism of the Lancet studies, which they partially attribute to political considerations: "However, not surprisingly their studies have been roundly criticized given the political consequences of their findings and the inherent security and political problems of conducting this type of research [36, 37]. Some of these criticisms refer to the type of sampling, duration of interviews, the potential for reporting bias, the reliability of its pre-war estimates, and a lack of reproducibility. The study authors have acknowledged their study limitations and responded to these criticisms in detail elsewhere [38]. They now also provide their data for reanalysis to qualified groups for further review, if requested." Tapp et al. also say that Iraq Body Count likely underestimates the number of deaths significantly: "The IBC was largely established as an activist response to US refusals to conduct mortality counts. This account, however, is problematic as it relies solely on news reports that would likely considerably underestimate the total mortality."
 * Levy & Sidel (2016), in the Annual Reviews journal series, which are highly prestigious journals for broad reviews of scientific subject areas, have this to say about the Lancet studies: "Although the Roberts and Burnham studies faced some criticism in the news media and elsewhere, part of which may have been politically motivated, these studies have been widely viewed among peers as the most rigorous investigations of Iraq War–related mortality among Iraqi civilians (34); we agree with this assessment and believe that the Hagopian study is also scientifically rigorous. Although the methodology and results in the four studies cited here have varied somewhat, it is clear that the Iraq War caused, directly and indirectly, a very large number of deaths among Iraqi civilians—which, in fact, may have been underestimated by these scientifically conservative studies. A paper by Tapp and colleagues (34) and a recent report by three country affiliates of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (12) have extensively reviewed these four epidemiological studies as well as other studies that attempted to assess the impact of the Iraq War on morbidity and mortality. Like Tapp et al., they call the Lancet studies the most rigorous (and say that this is the view of the scientific community), and say that some of the criticism has been politically motivated. Levy & Sidel also cite this analysis of the various mortality estimates, which discusses the whole "controversy" at length, and describes it as largely politically motivated and detached from the views within the scientific community.

The various studies that Michael Spagat has co-authored that criticize the Lancet studies have very low citation counts in comparison to the papers cited in Method #2, and compared to the Lancet studies themselves. They do not appear to represent the views of the scientific community, and if they are mentioned, they should only be given weight corresponding to their actual impact in the field - that is, not much, in comparison to the above papers.

For the lede, here is what I propose:


 * Estimating war-related deaths poses many challenges (Wang et al. 2016, Adhikari et al. 2010). Experts distinguish between population-based studies, which extrapolate from random samples of the population, and body counts, which tally reported deaths and likely significantly underestimate casualties (Tapp et al. 2012). Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health Survey) to over a million (per the 2007 Opinion Research Business (ORB) survey). Other survey-based studies covering different time-spans find 461,000 total deaths (over 60% of them violent) as of June 2011 (per PLOS Medicine 2013), and 655,000 total deaths (over 90% of them violent) as of June 2006 (per the 2006 Lancet study). Body counts counted at least 110,600 violent deaths as of April 2009 (Associated Press). The Iraq Body Count project documents 183,348 - 205,908 violent civilian deaths through April 2019.

I can also write a summary for the section on the 2006 Lancet study, but I think we should agree on the lede first. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated that the Lancet Iraq mortality surveys are the most highly cited publications on this topic, and that they are well-respected. However, it has been argued that studies have received significant criticism and it would therefore be fair to describe them as "disputed." Adding such a label to the lead ignores (in fact, editorially negates) their preeminent position academically, and is furthermore false by omission: in fact every casualty estimate and body count in the Iraq War is highly contentious.

For example, The prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that published the Iraq Family Health Survey (IFS) — which derived a lower estimate of mortality than the Lancet papers — provides commentary from the editors, and from known experts, to attempt to explain the lower IFHS mortality estimates. Concerning the Iraq Body Count (IBC) the editors first write, "...the Iraq Body Count's tally represents an undercount based on surveillance, not a survey, and should be treated as a reliable lower bound", a point repeated by more or less every scholarly work on the topic. Concerning the IFS study the editors then continue, "Though the IFHS study group should be commended for its attempt to capture the highest-quality results, uncertainties remain. The survey design, in particular, is certainly open to criticism, and the authors honestly admit the shortcomings of their analysis. For example, sometimes it was problematic or too dangerous to enter a cluster of households, which might well result in an undercount; data from the Iraq Body Count on the distribution of deaths among provinces were used to calculate estimates in these instances." The editors also note the further likelihood of underreporting of deaths due to refugees, migration, and household dissolution.

These concerns are noted by commentaries from recognized experts in the NEJM. For instance Dr. Edward J. Mills at the University of British Columbia notes that the IFHS study focused only on deaths from violence, whereas the Lancet papers estimated all excess deaths. Criticizing the IFHS study Mills writes, "The majority of deaths that result from any conflict are attributable not to violence but to the complex dilapidation of the normally protective public health infrastructure. Focusing on violence alone ignores many of the deaths that have occurred during this invasion. Using the crude mortality rates in the IFHS report, the actual excess mortality in Iraq between 2003 and 2006 was approximately 433,000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 354,000 to 523,000). Indeed, absent from the IFHS report is an acknowledgment that the combined totals actually approach those of the 2006 study by Burnham et al." Effectively, Mills disputes the IFHS findings and endorses the Lancet papers.

Every commentary that follows makes the same point, and adds others. Dr. Francisco J. Luquero and Dr. Rebecca F. Grais at Epicentre, a part of Médecins Sans Frontières, write that lower IFHS values likely result because IFHS "imputed missing data for [high mortality governorates, (HMGs)] using the Iraq Body Count, which probably underweights the HMGs as a result of publication bias; and use of a very long questionnaire, which has been shown to lead to underestimates of mortality."

Dr. Timothy R. Gulden at the University of Maryland also criticizes the IFHS for failing to sample in high mortality areas, which leads to an underestimate of mortality. Gulden writes that the second Lancet paper "remains the only study to scientifically investigate [the spatial] distribution" of mortality in Iraq, and notes that the IFHS reliance on IBC data "could double the number of violence-related deaths found by IFHS to 300,000." Gulden also notes that surveys conducted by "overnment-affiliated survey takers" will cause under-reporting.

Altogether, like other scientists Gulden concludes that "when these two sources of error are taken together, the IFHS results are easily in line with the finding of more than 600,000 violent deaths in the study by Burnham et al." Again, the IFHS is disputed, with the Lancet studies used as a gold standard.

More or less every source states that the IBC and other counting measures are underestimates — since the lead states this as well, I won't belabor that point here. But it's worthwhile noting that much of the scientific criticism of the IFHS survey stems from its use of IBC data, clearly leading to lower estimates of mortality. This point is made by the widely-cited and also lauded Hagopian (2011) study, ""In contrast to IFHS, we skipped only one cluster for security reasons, and did not substitute Iraq Body Count data, which we know underrepresent death rates."

Hagopian et al., find lower mortality rates than the Lancet studies, but they note a number of reasons why their results might be lower" "We have three hypotheses for the low crude death rates we found in comparison to three previous retrospective mortality surveys: sampling differences, recall bias, and other non-sampling errors, and/or reporting problems related to migration... The long recall period required of participants in this study likely contributed to underreporting of deaths, and in the setting of a country with increasing sectarian divisions, some people may have been unwilling to report deaths, as well. The war has also caused wide-scale redistribution of Iraq’s population, both internally and externally; we know we missed the families that migrated out of the country, and likely missed a representative proportion of internally displaced people as well. We know the earlier census data did not capture these movements, and our sample was selected using those data. It is highly likely that households experiencing more violence were more likely to migrate, thus serving to reduce our death rates using the retrospective mortality survey method." It is worthwhile to observe the significant text Hagopian et al devotes to explaining sources of lower mortality estimates compared to those derived in the Lancet studies, with an emphasis on the problem of underestimation in retrospective surveys over time.

Altogether, it is clear that it would be false to label the Lancet studies as disputed while omitting this label from the IFHS study, and when the Lancet papers are regarded as a gold standard in this work. As a final point, it is telling that the Lancet has resolutely stood by these studies, in keeping with all other metrics of their sturdy position in academia. -Darouet (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I apologize, I realize that requested that we draft text summarizing our knowledge of studies of Iraq War casualties in a neutral way. I would modify what has proposed in the following way:

-Darouet (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * has also replied. Darouet (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have already responded to Darouet's statement. There's nothing new in it. I'd just be repeating what's already been written. The issue is very clear: when a study has widely been harshly criticized, we describe the study's findings as "disputed", in particular when the lead author no longer stands by the study. Also, at some point, it's apparent that one is losing this argument and debating the issue deceptively when you repeat multiple times that only one academic has critiqued the study, as it's so brazenly false and has been debunked at least half a dozen times here and on the article talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Statements by Thucydides411 and by myself, above and at Talk:Casualties of the Iraq War, cite papers and report article metrics demonstrating that 1) The Lancet papers (and the Hagopian paper) are considered the most reliable and highly regarded studies on Iraq War casualties, and 2) that all estimates of Iraq war casualties are controversial, but the Lancet studies remain the gold standard against which other estimates are judged. Snooganssnoogans' comment does not address these points, metrics or sources. Furthermore, Snooganssnoogans has stated that I am "debating the issue deceptively" because I "repeat multiple times that only one academic has critiqued the study." That is not what I have written. Only once (1st statement by editors), I wrote that "the issue is not how much weight to accord the different studies, but rather how much weight is being accorded to the minority position — and above all to Michael Spagat's work — that the Lancet studies are unreliable." -Darouet (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
Darouet has replied. The other editors have not replied. I will be closing this dispute as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Mark Twitchell
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

Verissa77, who seems to be interested in this article and this article alone, keeps adding 'filmmaker' to the page regarding a person who's main notoriety, and indeed the main focus of the entry, is as an attempted serial killer, I find this tactless as the individual in question never successfully made a film, and is a murderer, and thusly in honour of the victims we should mark the subject of the article as a convicted murderer first and foremost.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have contacted him and made clear in my notes in revision history why I made the edits I made. He has been unresponsive, and never leaves notes, simply makes the offending edit.

How do you think we can help?

Encouraging him to either justify his edits or preventing him from making future edits.

Summary of dispute by Verissa77
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Mark Twitchell
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Talk:Qizilbash#Qizilbash Turcoman
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

Two years ago I have added a broad range sources that clearly indicate Qizilbash as Turkic/Turcoman tribes. Users Kansas Bear and HistoryofIran on the contrary claimed that we cannot indicate Qizilbash as Turcoman, since there were also Iranian elements. But academic peer-reviewed sources clearly assert that the number of Iranian elements was too small compared to the Turkic ones and, again, according to the vast majority of the specialized sources Qizilbash's definition is Turkic tribesmen. Discussion followed, but as I was unexperienced editor and maybe young I make several violations and unsupported assertions. Two years later I have decided to repeat my arguments, this time more clearly and gave extensive analysis for the topic with all respective references. Colleagues answered nothing. I think, they do not have anything to add.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page discussion

How do you think we can help?

Consider both point of views and explain who is right and who is wrong.

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

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

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