Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 191

Rebecca Heineman
}

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Another editor insists on deadnaming a trans woman. I believe this is excessive and goes against MOS:IDINFO. I would like dispute resolution as I believe talking alone will not resolve the issue.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Rebecca_Heineman

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

User is not open to discussion on the issue. I believe this is clear violation of MOS::IDINFO and excessive deadnaming of a trans person.

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

First, some background. Rebecca Heineman is a competitive video game playing champion, column author, and video game designer that through much of her career presented as male and was given a male name at birth. She then transitioned to female in the early 2000s. Most of her significant career occurred under her birth name, which includes credits in video games as well as a byline in a monthly column she wrote for Electronic Games in the early 1980s. Her birth name is well known and was part of her public persona until she transitioned in the early 2000s. The article is respectful of this history and follows all Wikipedia policies and conventions in the use of gendered pronouns and in respecting and not calling into question Rebecca's self-identification. This is as it should be.

Since 2014, there has been a concerted - though not to my knowledge coordinated - effort to erase this name from the article on the grounds that including this name is hurtful either to Ms. Heineman or to the larger trans community on the grounds that it constitutes "Deadnaming," or the use of her birth name without her consent. Deadnaming is often considered an aggressive act within the trans community as well as an attempt to overtly delegitimize a self-identification made by a trans individual. In this context it is a harmful, and often shameful, practice. This has led to an understandable, though at times zealous, stance towards halting the practice of deadnaming in any place it occurs and in any context in which the deadname is used. In personal communication with the subject, in current legal documents describing the subject, and in ordinary discourse discussing a person's past and present life, the use of the birth name should absolutely be avoided. I don't think there is any dispute there.

Where we do have a dispute, it seems, is in how to place a birth name in historical context. When a person's entire period of encyclopedic notability occurs after the adoption of a new name and the self-identification of a different gender, this is likely relatively straightforward. In this case, however, we have an individual who worked under her birth name for decades and was credited and attributed under that name. In this case, the birth name simply must be acknowledged within the body of the article, and Wikipedia policy agrees on that point. The current Manual of Style section on Changed Names states that "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable under that name. One can introduce the name with either "born" or "formerly." This is our current policy.

3nk1namshub, who it should be noted upfront has not removed the birth name entirely, but has reduced it to only appearing in the Infobox, would instead have us look to MOS:IDINFO. Unlike the changed name policy cited above, this is not a current Wikipedia policy, but rather a "draft working proposal" that "must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion." As such, it "should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal." But let's leave aside its force as policy and instead look to its recommendations to see where consensus may go in the future. The very first recommendation in the proposal is as follows:

''When choosing how to refer to a transgender subject, consider the use–mention distinction. Before using a transgender person's former or legal name, consider only mentioning it instead. And before mentioning it, consider not including it at all. For example, the article Switched-On Bach mentions but doesn't use Wendy Carlos's former name: "Switched-On Bach is the first studio album by the American composer Wendy Carlos, released under her birth name Walter Carlos".''

Other methods are then subsequently suggested, including the use of a footnote.

Despite several offers by me to compromise on the extent and contextualization of the name both before and after the opening of this DRN, we appear to be at an impasse. 3nk1namshub would prefer that the birth name appear only in the infobox of the article, or perhaps additionally in a footnote. I feel that doing so effectively hides the name from the casual reader, provides the potential for some confusion when trying to tie the subject's works to the subject, and promotes protecting feelings over properly reporting historical fact. I am not the original author of any of the naming material currently in the article and agree with my fellow user that the number of mentions in the body of the article can, and probably should, be lessened so that the use of the name does not come across as aggressive. My preference then, would be to continue identifying the birth name in the lead in a manner consistent with the manual of style while also referring to the birth name as it appears in the byline of her Electronic Games column and in the credits for her more significant games in a manner consistent with recommendation one in the MOSIDINFO proposal. I am happy to defer to 3nk1namshub on the most appropriate and sensitive way to accomplish these goals so long as the birth name continues to be identified in the body as needed for proper context of authored works. What I would prefer not to be a party to is mostly ignoring or shunting the birth name off to the nooks and crannies of the article, which feels like an erasure of history even if that is not the primary intent of 3nk1namshub. Facts are facts, and we cannot remove or marginalize them solely to avoid offense. What we can do, however, is minimize the offense as much as possible in a way that is consistent with also maintaining the historical record. Indrian (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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

I believe has summarized the dispute nicely, much better than I believe I could have. I would just like to add some additional info as to why I have opened a dispute. First, the amount of deadnaming on Rebecca's page was excessive: 8 times by my count, sometimes once per sentence, with wordings that absolutely added nothing to the article. Any attempts to reword or fix this were reverted. Second was Indrian's responses to talk page posts and edit messages in reverts. They seem (in my opinion) to be over-the-top and aggressive; claiming politics, censorship, removal of history, and personal agendas, as well as multiple references to the book 1984. After reading several of their responses, it seemed clear to me that no consensus was possible without outside intervention, hence why I opened this DRN. Indrian, please feel free to respond to this paragraph and clarify or correct anything I've said. I will not be making further responses here unless necessary for the DRN to continue. In addition, I will not be responding further on Rebecca's talk page as I've become frustrated and I don't want to say anything that may be rude, unnecessary, etc. Thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do believe Wikipedia talk pages are magnets for frustration. And I think all of us say and do things on them that our probably outside our norms of behavior in other settings.  That is all to say guilty as charged in terms of becoming somewhat aggressive at times, which is not the best foot to put forward at times like these.  My apologies.  On my part, the frustration stems from the fact that this keeps happening over and over and over.  I am supportive of the trans community and the right for people within it to be identified as they choose to be identified.  I also want historical context respected and for facts not to be erased solely due to hurt feelings, no matter how deep that hurt may go in some cases.  Most of the edits in the past several years have been drive-by with no one even being willing to engage on the talk page or trying to compromise rather than just rip everything out.  From my perspective you are part of a continuum.  From your perspective you are coming to this with fresh eyes.  It leads to an emotional disconnect.  I have no problem with the characterization of the current frequency of use as "excessive."  I have no problem with someone reducing the number of instances of the birth name use in the article so long as the name is still represented in the body text.  No one who has tried to change the article yet, including you, has attempted to meet me on that ground, and I am not interested in making said changes myself only because its not an issue that personally resonates with me in the same way as it does for someone who has been stigmatized in the past by deadnaming.  So I agree that about 90% of your reply above is valid, and would only take exception to the statement "Any attempts to reword or fix this were reverted" because it obscures the fact that few meaningful attempts at compromise have ever been made on the part of those seeking to alter the article. Indrian (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Sadly, it appears that 3nk1namshub is not actually interested in discussion and compromise, but is far more interested in silencing those that disagree with them as concurrent with this discussion they have decided to go to WP:ANI. I continue to stand by everything that I have said on this page and am happy to reach a respectful compromise on the competing interests of respecting personal preferences and providing historical context. I must append, however, that 3nk1namshub clearly has a wider agenda of attempting to bully into silence those that disagree with them on Wikipedia policy. How unfortunate. Indrian (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits
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 Lambtron have introduced that are currently disputed and opposed by me, primary editor of the template's page. Having no good reasoning behind it he/she didn't make a good effort to neither restore status-quo version, nor to agree to offered compromise.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?


 * Template talk:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Decide on whether changes were justified by applying common sense and side with respective party to help to achieve consensus.

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

Template:Sidebar arithmetic logic circuits: Revision history discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Aleister Crowley
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 of Aleister Crowley has the pseudoscientific fringe claim that under the special name of “Agent 666” Crowley was a secret agent spy at the service of the UK government doing such adventures that range from spying on Irish rebels to review oil resources in Mexico and so on. Of this fringe theory we only have the authors’ word as they do not provide any sort of evidence whatsoever, the entire justification and even the redacting of Agent 666 adventures are unproven speculation on behalf of two very imaginative authors, but that present no proof of their claims. Even the redacting of the text in almost every instace say “this guy and this guy claim that Crowley was [insert some adventurous spying action here]”.

Some of this claims even violates the policies on Biographies of Living People (which despite the name apply to Crowley as they apply to people with less than 150 years dead) as some can be considered slanderous, for example they claim that Crowley willingly started conflict in the Golden Dawn under government orders to destroy the organization from inside, not only a very outstanding claim but one that if true would stain Crowley’s reputation in the Occult world. Paraphrasing Sagan outstanding claims require outstanding evidence.

Although the information deserve to be removed, I started with what I considered was a reasonable compromise, not to remove it but to place it all in one separate section as policy guidelines recommend regarding unproven facts and pseudoscience. However user rejected the idea and with no proposal for any other compromiso refuses to any change on the status quo.

A Request for Comment was open but was basically a tie, however among the many commenters the supporters of placing the fringe theory in a special section make some very solid arguments about the pseudohistorical nature of the claims. As can be seen here

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

This request for comment:

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By locating the fringe unproven statement on a special section as proposed and as the guideline and policies demand.

Summary of dispute by Midnightblueowl
For those who are unfamiliar with the situation, Aleister Crowley always claimed to have worked for British intelligence services while living in the United States during World War I. In 2008, Richard B. Spence (Professor of History at the University of Idaho) published a book arguing that Crowley actually worked for British intelligence for much of his life and that this was the reason for many of his foreign travels. This was partly based on an article that Spence had earlier published in the peer-reviewed International Journal for Intelligence and Counter Intelligence. Spence's ideas were subsequently endorsed by the historian Tobias Churton, then lecturer at the University of Exeter, in his 2011 book Aleister Crowley: The Biography (Churton has also published several further books on Crowley and contributed a chapter to the edited volume Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism, published by Oxford University Press in 2012). Another recent academic commentator on Crowley, Marco Pasi (Associate Professor at the University of Amsterdam), devoted much attention to the argument in his Aleister Crowley and the Temptation of Politics, even though he did not ultimately accept it. It is a disputed argument, most certainly, and has been presented as such within the GA-rated article for many years.

In May, Dereck appeared on the Crowley article Talk Page, insisting that this argument is "ludacris" and "pseudoscience" (even though it doesn't actually pretend to be science) and thus should not be presented in any way that gives it credence to the reader. Citing WP:Fringe, Dereck has argued that all mention of the argument should be moved to a single paragraph in the article, rather than being integrated at other junctures of the text, as it has been for many years. I very much doubt that Dereck is actually familiar with the published sources on the Spence-Churton argument; I also believe that they are making the argument appear more sensationalistic than it actually is, largely by repeatedly making a point out of the somewhat unfortunate title of Spence's book, Secret Agent 666. (The fact that above, Dereck says Spence claimed "Secret Agent 666" was Crowley's codename just goes to show that Dereck clearly has not read his book, as Spence never claimed this). The reality is that it is certainly a disputed and circumstantial argument (I for one don't actually believe it), but that does not make it pseudohistory, which seems to be the thrust of Dereck's argument. It is a minority view among historians, and is presented as such in the article.

Two days after Dereck initially raised their concerns, I initiated an RfC on the issue. This has proven inconclusive, albeit with a very small majority in opposition to Dereck's proposed changes (five to four). Hence, why I assume that Dereck has brought the issue here. Unfortunately, their approach to dealing with this issue has been slightly combative, both to myself and to User:Josh Milburn, who was one of those who contributed to the RfC. Aside from misrepresenting the nature of the Spence-Churton argument, Dereck has also made exaggerated and outright erroneous claims on multiple occasions during the debate: for instance stating that a "clear majority" of RfC commentators backed them, when it was in fact only a minority, that the article presently mentions the Spence-Churton argument "in almost every paragraph" when in reality it mentions it in only five out of sixty-five paragraphs, and that WP:Biographies of Living Persons applies to someone who died in 1947, which is total nonsense. I welcome the thoughts of additional editors, although I would caution against accepting Dereck's characterisation of the Spence-Churton argument and the debate more broadly too literally.

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

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


 * Volunteer comment - I'll be happy to pick this up once I hear from both parties. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Comment - I will ask a question, which doesn't have much impact on the dispute about the article content, but it does have to do with what policies should be considered. I saw a comment that the biographies of living persons policy applies to persons who have been dead for less than 150 years.  I cannot find such a policy.  It applies to persons who were born less than 115 years ago, unless there is a reported date of death.  Crowley was born more than 150 years ago, and his death is included in his article (as reported by reliable sources).  The BLP policy also sometimes applies to persons who have died recently, especially if there is controversy about their death (e.g., George Floyd).  If I have misread the policy or have failed to read part of the policy, please provide me with a link to the applicable part of the policy.  However, there is a valid content dispute, and the policies that do apply include verifiability, reliable sources, and due weight.  I will let the moderator facilitate a resolution, but please do not cite the biographies of living persons policy unless it applies.     Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted Note The filing editor has also reported the other editor at WP:ANI for a civility violation. This noticeboard does not consider a dispute that is also pending in another forum including a conduct forum.  This dispute is closed.  After the thread at WP:ANI is resolved, if there is still a content dispute among survivors, a new case can be opened here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)}}  Case unclosed.  The complaint about incivility was against another editor, and has been closed anyway with an admonition.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After reading the policy again I see it was 115 years after birth and not 150 after death as I though to remember. And for the record the RfC is in a tie now again (5-5). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Moderator statement
Thank you both for your contributions. You've both indicated that you're amenable to compromise, and that's always a good sign. Here are my rules for the discussion:


 * Don't be mean to each other.
 * Please be concise.

So where can we find compromise? Because the RfC was inconclusive, there is not a consensus to separate the espionage claims into their own section. Neither is there a consensus for status quo, because status quo is why we're here.


 * is there be a version of the article with an espionage subsection that is acceptable to you?
 * is there be a version of the article without an espionage subsection that is acceptable to you?
 * To both, is there another compromise idea that either of you have had that I'm not seeing?

You can answer these in the negative. Also, pretend you're responding to me and me only. Past this point, I don't care what one editor says about another, and you don't need to defend yourself to me. I'm neutral in this.

Also, one more question for Dereck Camacho: Since this is an issue of due weight, it would seem that adding a section dedicated to the espionage claim does not alter the balance (indeed, it would be added to the TOC). Is it your concern that, because the espionage claims are placed throughout the article, that there would seem to be a sort of subtle insistence that Crowley was a spy? Short of making the spy claim its own section, is there a way to mitigate this effect without removing the claims entirely?

Again:


 * Don't be mean to each other. Or to me, for that matter
 * Please be concise.

--Xavexgoem (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Now that you mention it, it could be indeed that having its own section do not solve the issue of undue weight. One option that comes to my mind is having the spionage claims in the form of notes maybe, so that they're not directly on the text but the reader can check them if they want. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Footnotes are generally used for clarification, because they must be linked to from the article proper. That is, even with a footnote you would need something within the article proper that makes the claim. So information cannot be relegated this way.
 * I am curious about your misgivings with the current article. Looking at the RfC, it appears that a concern is the "interwoven" nature of the claim. One of the comments (by User:AllyD) summed it up well by saying: "Just reading the present article, though, I am inclined to agree with Dereck Camacho's original point above: in summarising Crowley’s various movements and disputes, there is too much interwoven suggestion of the British Secret Service as motivator." Would you agree that this is a significant problem with the current version of the article? Xavexgoem (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will wait for Midnightblueowl to respond before proceeding. I think we can reach a resolution fairly quickly. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for --Dereck Camacho (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I personally think that the longstanding system, whereby we integrate the argument chronologically with the rest of the article, reads best. That's why I argued for it at the RfC, and clearly it gained some support from other editors. However, I cannot say that Dereck's proposal, of moving it all into a single section, would be disastrous for the article. I don't think it would be an improvement, but the article would not suffer greatly because of it, so long as it was done carefully. Of course, we would still have to mention Crowley's claims that he worked for British intelligence during the First World War at the chronologically appropriate juncture of the article; that should be considered separate from the wider Spence-Churton argument. I would also stress that at no point in the article should we start referring to the argument as "pseudoscience" or "pseudohistory" or anything like that, because that is not how the Reliable Sources characterise it, and nor should we present the Spence-Churton argument in a manner that is clearly worded so as to try and discredit it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, Midnightblueowl. Dereck, do you have any thoughts or concerns? You had previously shown some ambivalence about adding the subsection. If it's now unacceptable to you, then I do have a compromise offer of my own. But if we can close the case now, that would be preferred. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no objection on keeping Crowley's own statements were they are now nor I have an objection on moving the Churton/Spence statement in a subsection however I thought that a second proposal was gonna be presented, if so I would like to hear it, if not then I think a subsection is the best option. Also notice that in my original edition I never mentioned that the Spence/Churton hypothesis was pseudo-anything I just limited myself to reorder all its mentions in one place (I do think it is but is not the kind of thing that goes on the text). --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Since the current compromise resolves the problem between the two of you, my offer would lead to more discussion and may prove worse than what's offered now; it's hardly an ace up my sleeve. Noticeboard discussions are taxing, and both your time is better spent in mainspace. Only I am the insufferable metapedian, here :)
 * May I close the case? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So just to be clear the proposal is to make a subsection with the claims and Midnightblueowl agrees? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging to be sure, and in case there's concerns you'd like to discuss. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll close the case. Please do ping me if something comes up. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Seal Team Six
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a difference of opinion over some of the terms being used in the article. Some editors contend these are military jargon which sometimes veer into euphemism, and are thus unsuitable for use on Wikipedia. Other editors counter that these are widely-used terms that are explained fully at their linked articles, and thus present no problem.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:SEAL_Team_Six

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By pointing us toward relevant guidelines we may be unaware of, or toward relevant discussions on similar topics where a policy was decided.

Summary of dispute by BusterD
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have exactly one edit to this page, a reversion on May 15 I felt was a BLP vio because it was unsourced. IMHO, the content of that edit is unrelated to the content in this dispute. Later that day I saw a series of edits which seemed to indicate possible 3RR violations, and clearly demonstrated an edit war in progress. My part in this has been to create a talk thread in which to discuss the dispute, a thank you post to those who chose to engage in discussion , and a notification (and request for eyes) at the relevant WikiProject talk space. I have made no comment on the content under disagreement. BusterD (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Noted. If you want to participate you are welcome to, but if you do not want to- no problem there either. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As the editor who created the talk thread, I chose to stay out of the fray; I did however read the discussion as it unfolded. To my reading it was relatively obvious that the filer of this process (Konli17) was unable to find much talk page support for their position. One of the last comments by one opposed to the filer's position was a suggestion to: "use a form of dispute resolution to get a consensus or drop it." So here we are. I am satisfied that there's discussion instead of edit warring in live pagespace. BusterD (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Garuda28
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Peacemaker67
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Buckshot06
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Moderator's First Statement
Good Morning, or whatever time it is where you are, I am volunteering to mediate this discussion. I have reviewed the discussion on the talk page and am familiar with the issue and material, though neutral on the specific issue. Before we begin I have a few questions. 1st- does everyone agree to participate in the discussion here? and 2- do you all understand, this is a mediation board, we cannot impose or enforce decisions- we simply help generate and direct conversation until all parties agree on a solution.

Assuming participation and understanding of purpose, I would ask that each editor begin by stating their concerns and hoped resolution clearly and concisely. Please focus on your own specific concerns and goals- and do not engage in back and forth debate yet or speculation on other parties concerns. This process is designed to remove the inconsequential side issues (squirrels) and let us focus on the heart of what is being contested. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Second Statement
So, I took a look at what links to the definition of Direct Actions- and I found the term is not used exclusively by American forces- its also used by forces based in Denmark, Israel, Canada, India, Germany, South Africa, New Zeland, Singapore, Italy, Norway, Indonesia, Australia, Slovakia, and Malaysia to name a few. So I'm not sure why its use for seal team six is controversial- would you please explain that in more detail please? Just to be sure I understand completely. Thank you Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Konli17
Many articles to do with Western or Western-aligned militaries often use Western military jargon instead of clearer terms. And while that's not ideal, it's worse when those terms are euphemisms; Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch gives a military euphemism as an example. It's also odd that these terms are never used to describe the actions of enemies of the militaries concerned, adding to the perception that euphemism is their purpose. I've no objection to the use of the term, but with explanation, and not at the cost of NPOV or precision. Konli17 (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You are correct- the MOS does give a military example- however, on the WP page of the example provided, collateral_damage- it specifically says it is "criticized for its use as a euphemism" and it does not have a specific definition, where as Direct Action is not identified on its page as a euphemism and does have a specific list of activities that it may be used to represent. In fact, the WP page for Direct Action gives very clear, specific definition, while the page for collateral damage does not. I guess that is my confusion here. Direct Action is not a term used exclusively by USA and its allies- Slovakia, Malaysia, South Africa- none of these are traditional US allies- although they are not US enemies either. South Africa and Malaysia cannot be considered truly "Western" either. While I am not aware of any terrorist and/or Non-government combatant groups actively using the term, I'm not aware of any restriction on such use either. So again, I must ask- with that clear definition in place, what makes this word a Euphemism other than that it is mainly (but not exclusively) used by western military units? I'm sorry for my confusion. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * From the lede - "direct action (short duration strikes or small scale offensive actions), often against high-value targets." Direct action against HVTs translates as assassination or abduction. Why not just say that? Both South Africa and Malaysia are Western-aligned, unlike e.g. Syria and North Korea. Konli17 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Third Statement
We need participation from others involved, or this will have to be closed due to lack of participation. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Planet Fitness
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

According to news sources and a legal document, Rick Berks founded Planet Fitness. I added the facts to the History section of the page, and Stonkaments deleted them. We have been discussing it on the Talk page, however Stonkaments ignores my points and reverts my edits. I have even provided a legal document that discusses the case in detail but Stonkaments still chose to ignore it and reverted again.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planet_Fitness

I thought if I cited news sources and even provided a legal document, that would end the discussion. I have been trying to sound neutral, however I am getting frustrated.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I suggested that we add subsections to the history. One for the original founder and another for the franchise operation. I am not disputing that the people who bought PF in 2002 turned it into a huge company, however there is a place in the history for the person who named it and owned 3 gyms before the trademark was purchased. I honestly don't understand why Stonkaments keeps deleting those notes. Thank you for your help.

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

Planet Fitness discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer comment - Please notify the other editor of this case on their talk page. Thank you! Xavexgoem (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Super Goose 007  ( Honk! ) 04:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

National Aeronaval Service
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

Few months ago, I began to change to replace on the page infobox into infobox law enforcement agency. The subject of the dispute, National Aeronaval Service is a part of Panamanian Public Forces (a country without military), so my reason to replace infobox is simply because Panama don't have military.

Then, FOX 52 began to reverting changes on this page infobox, and we began discussion on talk page. And eventually it's not really going anywhere, as he keep adding arbitrary criteria to justify the usage of military unit infobox.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:National Aeronaval Service

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Another neutral editor or other editors could review our dispute and help to arrive at a consensus.

Summary of dispute by FOX 52
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

National Aeronaval Service discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This seems to be a better fit for WP:30. I will not open the case until FOX 52 describes the dispute in their own words. Super Goose 007 ( Honk! ) 15:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lawrence Kasdan
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 added a substantial amount of new material to the article for Lawrence Kasdan in February 2020 (all of it meticulously sourced), and one particular user, Revan646, has now three times deleted all of my work to revert back to the old (and very sparse) version of the article. The only reason given is that I "ruined it" by making it too long and "filling this page up with unnecessary information." I've communicated with the user directly on their Talk page (politely), but we appear to be at a standstill. The back and forth prompted another user, Timaaa, to warn both of us about the consequences of engaging in an edit war, which I certainly have no desire to do. How can I resolve this situation according to Wikipedia's protocols, and at the same time maintain the integrity of the article?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I've tried reverting the changes back multiple times, I've asked for advice from other users in the Help chatroom, and even requested dispute resolution from volunteer Steven Crossin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steven_Crossin#Dispute_with_user_Revan646_on_Lawrence_Kasdan_article This in addition to communicating directly with the user in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revan646

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would ideally like for my edits to the Lawrence Kasdan be reviewed and (hopefully) approved, assuming they meet Wikipedia's standards, and for user Revan646 to be prevented from continually, completely undoing the new work.

Summary of dispute by Revan646
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Volunteer comment - This is almost certainly a conduct issue. See this revision with summary: "Restoring the page prior to when the user Tgreiving ruined it. Tgreiving keeps filling this page up with unnecessary information while also deleting useful information like his filmography. The fact that Tgreiving makes it too long isn't the only reason I keep removing their stupid edits. Someone needs to block Tgreiving. They're just not getting it."

And this: "I am once again reverting the page back to how it was before the user Tgrieving came along and ruined it. Not only is it ridiculously way too long but Tgrieving also removes useful information like Kasdans filmography. Tgrieving must be a troll or stupid. Wikipedia editors need to block Tgrieving from continually ruining this Wikipedia page."

I doubt mediation will be fruitful, but someone might want to take a stab at it. But I'm thinking an admin is necessary here. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings
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 presence of Niskanen's election ratings, which appear in both the article about the 2020 United States Senate elections (and has a lengthy discussion there) and the presidential election. It was present in the article before being removed multiple times by one editor (who tried to do the same thing at the senate page) We have both agreed to abide by any resolution

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings Talk:2020 United States Senate elections

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ruling one way or the other on the dispute, whether to maintain the status quo from before the dispute where Niskanen was included, or to change the table and leave the data out.

Summary of dispute by Wollers14
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Moderator's 1st Statement
Before we start any kind of discussion, please place the notification of open DRN on 's talk page. I've read the discussion on the talk page, and I'm familiar with the material and neutral so I'm willing to moderate this dispute. HOWEVER, It looks like you are both wanting an admin to come in and make a decision- that is not what the DRN does- we moderate discussions and hopefully facilitate a compromise. I am happy to do that, but it looks like a WP:RFC may be more appropriate to try to find a consensus. If you are both willing to work towards an agreement here, please confirm and also state what you would like to see happen by the end of the discussion. Thank you Nightenbelle (talk) 13:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Opening discussion and statements
Fair enough. I have taken it to Wikipedia:Third opinion

Hello here is something I am willing to do. We can keep the Niskanen ratings up for now until more reputable ratings like 538, Fox, or CNN etc come out. After at least one of those come out we can remove the ratings because I would like to give Bitecofer one more election to pass to see if her predictions line up before adding them to any future pages for permanent use. There's my proposal. Wollers14 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay since you have opened a WP:3O I am going to place this DRN on hold since we do not encourage multiple open cases in multiple places at once. If this is resolved by the 3rd opinion- wonderful, we will close this, if not- we can re-start this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Rape in Islamic law
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

Basically there is a dispute over which editor's version authentically follows the academic sources - mine or Vice regents'

1. VR's version emphasises the minority viewpoints that marital rape is considered a crime in Islam. Yet the sources say that "marital rape is literally uncriminalizable under dominant interpretations of the sharia." Hence, the section should emphasise and start with the dominant views per WP:DUE.

2. In VR's version the opening line says that "Most interpretations of Islamic law prohibit marital rape, but treat it differently than other forms of rape."

But that is not what the cited source said. It says (after describing what the definition of rape is in each classical Islamic school of jurisprudence) "From these judicial opinions, rape can be defined in Islamic law as: "Forcible illegal sexual intercourse by a man with a woman who is not legally married to him, without her free will and consent"."

After that in a footnote, the author expresses his personal opinion (and not that of the classical jurists) that marital rape is classified as "domestic violence."

3. Another problem with VR's version is that it says "certain" Hanafi jurists allow marital rape, when no such qualification is used in the sources. The multiple sources which have been provided are quite categorical that the Hanafi scholars allow forced sex with wife, without indicating any sort of internal difference of opinion among the Hanafi jurists..

4. Another issue is over the text on what the non-Hanafi jurists say. My proposed version reads "The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it." This is backed by the source here

VR says these jurists still criminalise forced sex in marriage under a different classification (i.e. domestic violence). But the source quite clearly states that the non-Hanafis do not penalise a husband for forced sex with his wife. If they held it to be domestic violence they would have still penalised it. The source says they did not.

5. VR quotes Hina Azam as saying that perineal tearing is criminalised in Islamic law yet excludes the same Hina Azam source when it says that coercion within marriage is still "fundamentally legal." Another aspect is that the academics differentiate between forced sex involving physical violence, which might be considered a legal infraction by the classical jurists, from other forced sex.

6. I think we should also include the views of Hanafi jurists such as al-Nasafi  who do not hold a man liable for the death of his wife resulting from forced sex.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

There were extensive discussions on the talkpage but they never got anywhere.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can check each user's version against the sources provided and see who is more faithfully following the sources. I have provided the quotes from the sources here For each sentence of my text I have displayed the quotes from the cited sources, here.

Summary of dispute by Vice regent
I'll keep it short. The basic gist is whether marital rape is allowed in Islam. Mcphurphy's assertions that Islam - a religion of 1.4 billion people, or 20% of humans - allows a man to rape and kill his wife (see his point #6 above) should raise red flags. In fact, I listed reliable source that say that Islam prohibits marital rape: Talk:Rape_in_Islamic_law.

So what of the sources Mcphurphy lists? The user is doing two things: WP:CHERRYPICKING and confusing some nuances in the Islamic faith. I'll give two examples.

Mcphurphy wrote above, The multiple sources which have been provided are quite categorical that the Hanafi scholars allow forced sex with wife,[2][3] without indicating any sort of internal difference of opinion among the Hanafi jurists. Yet the very author quoted (Kecia Ali), refers in her footnotes to her earlier work where she writes, Even the majority of Hanafi thinkers who accepted this doctrine [of forced sex being licit] recognized a distinction between forced intercourse and more usual sexual relations between spouses, although both were licit, sex by force might be unethical." Immediately after that, in a footnote she clarifies that this is comparable to marital rape was not explicitly an offense in England until 1991 (though that doesn't mean the English couldn't censure it in other ways). It is thus a distortion to say that Hanafis allowed marital rape, when the author clearly says that the situation is more complicated.

Mcphurphy also wrote, Another issue is over the text on what the non-Hanafi jurists say. My proposed version reads "The non-Hanafis neither expressly sanction marital rape, unlike al-Khassaf, nor do they penalise husbands for it." This is backed by the source here The author actually makes it clear in the very next sentence that when she talks about "rape", she is referring to ightisab - which is typically applied to rape and not to marital rape. That doesn't contradict scholars who do penalize it in other categories. Mcphurphy is not understanding the nuance in Islam and Islamic law when it comes to marital rape.

VR talk  15:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Rape in Islamic law discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The statement by Mcphurphy is too long. Be civil and concise.  Overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but often they do not clarify the issues.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

United Artists
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's a bunch of misinformation saying that United Artists currently exists as a digital production studio. It's not true, because United Artists currently exists as two companies: United Artists Corporation, a legal entity under MGM that owns the UA trademarks and some copyrights for the James Bond and Rocky franchises; and United Artists Releasing, which is basically a resurrection of UA in general because it's a US theatrical distribution joint venture of MGM and Annapurna Pictures that was expanded in 2019 and it's not only using the UA name, but also continuing and building on the original UA's legacy and heritage as a distribution company for independents. United Artists Digital Studios is just a separate, short-lived production unit under MGM that only used the UA name unofficially and isn't related to UA in general, plus the original Annapurna/MGM joint venture isn't called Mirror when it was formed in 2017 (and it was in October, not December). The news articles didn't say that. It just wasn't named until its expansion in 2019 and it was a test that saw MGM invest in Annapurna's one-time theatrical distribution arm in exchange for having its team release certain MGM movies in the US under the MGM banner. "Mirror" was just a separate banner under the venture for third-party movies only.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?


 * Talk:United_Artists

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Can you please apply these changes here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Artists&diff=946916875&oldid=945122528

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

United Artists discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. This is true. 94.123.199.31 (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Lunch Date
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Dispute over whether to list BB Gandanghari (subject to WP:BLP) as her present name or the name she was billed on the show as. A compromise was already offered (to list both) but was only accepted by two users (one party to the original talk and the other brought in via the Third Opinion Request process) in the discussion.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Lunch_Date#Billing_of_the_actress_now_known_as_BB_Gandanghari

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing a solution based on WP policy on how to list Gandanghari as.

Summary of dispute by Hotwiki
I wasn't notified about this through my talk page but I'll go ahead. According to MOS:TV, the name credited in the show should be used. The other name suggested wasn't even created when the show was airing and when the show ended. Also, the article is for a TV show, not BB Gandanghari. I simply don't see the need to mention the name change, years after the show has ended.TheHotwiki (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's First Statement
Good morning, or whatever time of day it is where you are. My name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to moderate this case. I've reviewed the talk page and previous discussion of this issue. First-, when you open one of these- you must notify the other editors on their talk page. I've notified this time, but please be mindful in the future. Thanks

Now... I see that a 3O has already been done, and the suggestion by them was that a short statement be included "Could a compromise be to list them as "Rustom Padilla (now known as BB Gandanghari)"?" Hotwiki Why, exactly, are you opposed to this compramise? I understand that the actress changed her name long after the show ended, but that doesn't change the fact that the person who acted in this show now has a new identity. To prevent confusion and preserve continuitity, it seems prudent to reflect that in some way- we are an information community, is it not our duty to include all relevant information without putting undue emphasis on any one perspective? Would adding those five words harm the article beyond repair? I do see that including the name used on the show, even if it is now a dead name, is important as well because it is how that person was identified on the show. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Participants' first statements

 * Apologies; I did not realise I had forgotten to ping them on their talk-page. I had assumed a mention on the Lunch Date talk page was enough. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 16:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as the name (Rustom Padilla) credited in the show is still being used in the article and not removed, then I won't further disagree with the suggestion/s. TheHotwiki (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Second Statement
User:IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat are you good with adding the statement, "Rustom Padilla (now known as BB Gandanghari)"? If so.... then I think we've found our compromise and solution. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Participants' second statements

 * Affirmed. Sustenance in Sonder - IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat 01:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Tell Abyad
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 is about one quote of the Washington Post which says:

The Kurds formally renamed Tal Abyad with a Kurdish name, "Gire Spi", and proclaim its new identity in signs throughout the town — written in the Latin script used by Turkish Kurds but not readily understood by Syrian Kurds or Arabs. They have also unilaterally detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and made it a part of their newly formed autonomous enclave, carved from areas traditionally inhabited by Kurds but steadily encroaching also on territories that were historically Arab.

Amr ibn Kulthoum (from now on Amr) and I have a different point of view of what belongs into the article. Amr insists that the quote has to be included as it is from the Washington Post. But Tell Abyad wasn't renamed to Gire Spi and the Kurds have also not detached Tell Abyad from the Raqqa Governorate "unilaterally", then Latin script is current in Syria, too. The "welcome to Tell Abyad" plate stayed at the entrance of the town throughout all the time the Kurds co-governed the town. The Kurds only allowed the Kurdish name to be spelled as well. Also, Tell Abyad wasn't a part of the Raqqa Governorate as it was captured from ISIS by the Kurds. The Wapo article is from 2015, the Raqqa Governorate was in large parts in possession of ISIS until 2016, Raqqa only fell in October 2017. I say we can mention that the Kurds allowed the Kurdish name to be spelled and printed as well, instead of renaming the town from Tell Abyad to Gire Spi and that Tell Abyad was included into the Kobane Canton. But not "unilaterally" detached, it was detached before, too and is detached now as well. I guess the points are extensively present in the discussion mentioned below.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you could look at the arguments presented in the discussion and then comment on them. Maybe you bring us to reach an agreement about what of the disputed content is to stay and what has to be removed.

Summary of dispute by Amr ibn Kulthoum
I had already presented my arguments in the Talk page. I am not really sure what User Paradise is complaining about, besides simply asking to remove or modify the direct quote from Washington Post, which is one of the most credible sources used in Kurdish-related articles, compared to ANF, Hawar, Rudaw, Kurdistan24, etc. that they prefer using. Here are my arguments to debunk Paradise's claims: "In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border."
 * 1) Kurdish sites are full of news of attaching Tel Abyad to their newly formed Kobani Canton, see this map, detaching it from Raqqa Governorate, and pro-Kurdish users here (like Paradise and Konli) have filled WP with this kind of information and maps including the Tel Abyad page itself (see Rojava, although updated since the town was captured to Turkish and SNA forces). Also this page of administrative divisions shows this Euphrates Region.
 * 2) Below is a quote from an author frequently cited by pro-Kurdish users:

On a similar note, in their Kurdification of northern Syria zeal, PYD/YPG came up with a new name (Sere Kaniye) to replace the 1000+ year old name of Ras al-Ayn.
 * 1) Here is an official Traffic police sign in Tel Abyad under Kurdish militant (YPG) control, showing only the Kurdish name (Gire spi), both in English and Arabic (كري سبي) scripts, with no mention of the long established Arabic name (تل أبيض) in this predominantly Arab town. A ton of separate reports on human rights violations by YPG forces exist besides this story, but that's a discussion for another day.
 * 2) Here is another story and another one, another one from other Kurdish "news agencies"/sites using the Kurdish name in Arabic scripts instead of the original Arabic name. I can provide tens of these.
 * 1) Here is another official department in Tel Abyad showing the Kurdish name in both Latin and Arabic scripts, instead of the original Arabic name. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Konli17
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. "Please do not continue to discuss disputes before a volunteer has opened a thread. If necessary, please continue to discuss on the article talk page." Until someone volunteers to mediate this dispute (and after a week, no-one has), I don't see any point in contributing here. Konli17 (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cengizsogutlu
I told with link,photos even videos and road signs the city is under control of TFSA & Turkey seized from Kurdish YPG. Before civil war city called officialy Tal Abyad. After being captured by People's Protection Units local council renamed city to Gri spi. Arab and Turkmen were forced to migrate to Turkey. Well things changed a lot after Turkey and TFSA launch Operation Peace Spring city's name offcialy Tal/Tell Abyad again. To prove this, i share names in the city center, the local court, town hall, The soldiers' barracks to Military police stations from fire brigade to hospital Road signs to newspapers This is officially tel abyad. Kurdish name of the city can be used but the main name is Tel abyad. Also I'm new to wikipedia. Personal attack was made to me on the talk page. I don't know how to report about this. someone called me "straw man" and belittled my view, there is no respect here also. Finally, some members are more than encyclopedic editing they are doin some manupulating things This is cant be overlooked, These persons are constantly making manipulation edits about Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Irani Kurds. Wikipedia should follow these ridicls edits. Absurdly, countries that bans Wikipedia sincerely speaking has piece of truth, this site should remain a world-wide encyclopedia, not a field of ethnic-political manipulation warfare place.

Best RegardsCengizsogutlu (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Shadow4dark
Again as per talk, PYD/Kurds changed the name to Gire Spi. As per source they use name Gire Spi and not Tell AbyadShadow4dark (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Tell Abyad discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. I've now removed the quote in dispute. Also with a see talk page note. But not! the resulted in tensions part, which might be true, at least given the dispute about the quote. I hope someone will give me an answer at the talk page before reverting. I have started the discussions because it is stated that the filer should take part in every part of the process. Maybe the volunteers are waiting for this.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC) The editor reverted and didn't give an answer at the talk page even though I have brought several sources to make my point. Just as the last time, 6 days ago, before I made the request for dispute resolution.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored the Washington Post material that is subject of this discussion here that you had just deleted. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's First Statement
I'm sorry it has taken so long to volunteer, but I have not had a lot of time this week to spend on Wikipedia, and I'll be honest- I don't have a lot of time until after the 10th of July- but I will do my best to check in at least once a day to moderate this. I have read the summary of the case- and the talk page. I'm still somewhat confused as to what is going on. It looks like

1) the name of the town has changed by some citizens- but it is not clear if that was a lawful or legitimate change or not. 2) a quote from a newspaper was being argued about if it was appropriate for the page.

Am I correct that these are the two main issues?

What I would like to ask each of you now is 1) Are you willing to participate? 2) a 3 sentence or less summary of the problem and 3) 1 additional 1 sentence summarizing what you hope to accomplish by the end of the Dispute resolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs)

Paradise Chronicle statement
1) yes, I want to participate 2) the quote in dispute includes inaccuracies like "unilaterally" detached it from the existing Syrian province of Raqqa and the Kurds "formally" renamed Tal Abyad into a Kurdish name Gire Spi, to name just two here in the short summary. An other part of the dispute is the lack of cooperation of the two opposing parties at the talk page. I'd support withdrawing the quote, as it describes several inaccuracies. 3)I hope to come to an agreement with the other editors.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * why you still complain about this? PYD use Gire Spi as first name and Tell Abyad as secondary name. You can't accept their own claim. Shadow4dark (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم statement
Hi Nightenbelle and thanks for volunteering here. As you will soon discover, the discussion here is just the tip of the iceberg as the dispute extends to many articles. In brief, the Kurdish YPG militia have been encroaching on more and more Arab-majority land (sometimes where no Kurds live such as Deiir Ezzor) for the last nine years or so, and have been kurdifying the areas they capture, under the pretext of "liberating this land from IS terror group". See of their claimed rojava (western Kurdistan) in 2014, versus  (all are maps published by pro-Kurdish users/sources). We do have many reports on this, just to name a few: Amnesty, Forbes, Al Jazeera, the Nation, NYT, Washington Post, the Washington Institute, foreign minister of Russia Lavrov, Chatham House from 2015, Institute for the Study of War, Syria Direct. Just to give some earlier background, showing the suggested Kurdistan area in the Treaty of Sevres and here is a  showing Kurdish-inhabited areas. Some editors here try to whitewash the YPG and its administrative arm, and sweep these reports under the rug. You can get a better idea by visiting the Rojava article, and seeing the Talk page there. Please also have a look at most of the references used there, mostly affiliated with Kurdish militias or openly pro-Kurdish (ANF, Hawar, Ruber, Kurdistan24, Rudaw). Even blogs and personal websites are used in that and similar articles to support propaganda-type claims. When reading those articles and their sources you would think yourself in Utopia. Sorry for my long statement here, but I've been frustrated with Wikipedia bias lack of oversight for years, so I am unleashing here. I have presented my arguments for the specific Washington Post quote above. I look forward to hearing what you think on this. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Shadow4dark statement
Yes i am looking for a compromise. 2 users want delete all good sources stuff include war crimes. But this is not NPOV. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's 2nd Statement
Okay, I'm still pretty darn confused about it all- I'm sorry that I'm having to play catch-up so much. This is, I think, why no one was willing to moderate this dispute because it is much more complicated than it looks and there are many layers of the dispute that are not apparent if you are unfamiliar with the history. But, maybe there is some benefit from an outside perspective.... No one is disputing that the Kurds are (at least) attempting to exert control over the area and are attempting to impose a new name? Then would it be acceptable for the article to include the quote saying "Some western news organizations reported the name change while locals are not so quick to accept the change" and then include a news source to support that? I'm assuming, since you are saying this is true, that there are reliable sources that support it beyond your own experience?

Now as far as removing the war crimes- why are these in dispute? What are the reasons for having them removed? (I know you think its NPOV Shadow4dark- I mean what are the reasons the people are removing it are using?) they can't just be saying "I don't like it so I'm taking it out." Maybe by looking at those reasons we can find a path to compromise. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Participant's Statements
I am not against that it is mentioned that the YPG is accused of war crimes. It is also stated in the article that the UN denies such claims. If a claim made it to the UN it is fair to be mentioned. War crimes as such, are also not included in the Washington Post quote in dispute. This is what I mean, with not cooperating in the discussion. The answers of the opponents are about anything else, but not about what the dispute is actually about. Let's talk about the mention that the Kurds "unilaterally" detached it from the Raqqa Governorate, which territory at the time wasn't even governed by a Governor, but by ISIS. And about the Tel Abyad plate at the entrance of the city. There it is mentioned Welcome to Tell Abiad. Here from 2 January 2020, here from September 2019, and here from 2015. It is the same plate the PYD used, which the Turks now use as well. There are hundreds of articles of the PYD/SDF mentioning Tell Abyad. here, here, here, these are all so called official PYD or SDF websites. The name of the city was not changed from Tel Abyad into Gire Spi, it was just allowed to write the Kurdish name as well. Please for the rest of the discussion,. focus on Latin/arab script, the name of the town as stated above, and then Tell Abyad "unilaterally" detached from Raqqa Governorate. "Unilaterally" is the term in dispute. Latin/arab script are well known to the Syrians from before the AANES rule, and a town governed by ISIS was sure not "unilaterally" detached from the Raqqa Governorate. If it was detached from anything at the year 2015, it was detached from ISIS ruled territory, and ISIS detached it from the Raqqa Governorate before. Tell Abyad was just made an own canton within the AANES. As it is stated in the article. Sorry for the long answer and the repetition of the arguments, but maybe not all involved in the dispute were able to read my statements at the Tell Abyad talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's 3rd statement
Okay- so the war crimes issue is not part of this, then lets drop it and if the person discussing that issue wishes an DRN for that issue, they can open one. The word unilaterally comes from the Washington post quote correct? And that is a direct quote of what they said- so we really can't argue that point- they said what they said, true or not is irrelevant.

What is relevant- is should the quote be included. It is in a section that contains many examples of how the Syrian civil war is being covered by journalists- so it seems appropriate to include this quote there- but perhaps you could also include a quote from a journalist that does not think the name change and detachment is so cut and dry. Then link the two by saying there is some disagreement among journalists about the current state of affairs? Would that work and give a more equal and fair representation? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

participants' statements
Thank you Nightenbelle for your time and suggested resolution. On the war crimes topic, these were documented by many sources, and actually there was a Kurdish NGO based in Berlin (Kurdwatch) just monitoring that (from all sides) and can be browsed for YPG war crimes, regardless of what the UN says about one specific incident. However, as you rightly concluded, the war crimes are outside the scope of this discussion. I fully agree with your conclusion that the quote is a quote and should stay, and I hope Paradise Chronicle accept this fact. Back to the quote content, I hate to repeat my arguments above, but it seems from Paradise Chronicle last statement that they did not understand my previous statements. I clearly provided evidence above, the name change in BOTH Latin and Arabic scripts is clearly shown on new OFFICIAL signs used by the Kurdish YPG authorities and clearly shows removal of the original Arabic name, although some old signs (e.g., Welcome sign) still existed (per Paradise's claim). The unilateral detachment of the area is also clearly shown on YPG maps and administrative measures (elections, etc.). BTW, IS only changed the name of Raqqa "Governorate" to Raqqa "Wilaya" (as they did everywhere), but never changed the administrative border of the area per Paradise claim. Thank you very much again and I am happy with your conclusion. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Amr provides 2 private facebook and twitter "sources" for the name change, both not a reliable source for such a claim according to wikipedia and they should weigh the same than multiple official PYD and SDF webpages + the images from the articles of my sources? Here is an other image showing Tel Abyad in the area of the AANES Government in 2018. If they really would have RENAMED it, they'd at least keep the name up in their area. And that Raqqa "Governorate" was named into "Wilaya", is this also a "formal" name change? The Raqqa Governorate was not active at the time, sorry. The arab/latin script was not mentioned yet. I repeat, both scripts were used also before the AANES governed Tell Abyad as you can see all over syria. Remove the quote. We can't include a quote mentioning inaccuracies suggesting it is a fact. We can use the source for the tensions for the Kurdification, as I have done it as well. We can also use an other source with less inaccuracies for the tensions.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's 4th statement
user:Paradise_Chronicle I'm sorry- I don't see any facebook or twitter sites being used as sources. I do see many different American news sources- but not many global or local sources.

Look, I'm sorry- I'm failing to see how the quote relates to this conflict. What it appears to me- is an argument over whether the town has changed its name or not. IE- who has the right to decide the town's name. And that- is an ongoing situation that will not have a clear answer until the current state of affairs in Syria reaches its conclusion, or at least, until more time has passed.

So here is my proposal- Say that some sources are saying that a name change occurred. Cite those sources. Say that the change has not been accepted by all parties- cite sources proving this. And then everyone walk away from the article for a few months. When you return- evaluate what changes have happened in that time.

The simple truth is- there is not going to be a clean cut answer to this problem right now. Both sides are arguing a war that is still being fought, and that is not the purpose of WP. We are here to be an encyclopedia- a storehouse of facts, definitions, and explanations. And when it comes to culture- it is extremely difficult if not impossible to define culture as it is being shaped. That is what you are all trying to do, and I think you are wasting valuable time and energy doing so here. I wish we could right the wrongs of the world here on Wikipedia, or find solutions to all the problems- but we cannot, and even if we could, we are not a platform to disseminate those solutions. What we can do- is state the facts clearly and concisely and leave analysis to historians, social scientists, and journalists.

So thats my statement. I hope you all will agree to it, if not, I'm afraid I will have to end my participation here and ask another volunteer to step in. The reading alone for this dispute is much much more than I have time for at the moment. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Participants' statements
Hi Nightenbelle, here is the twitter source, and here is the facebook source Amr provided in the discussion here at the DNR and at the Tell Abyad talk page. Have you seen any other sources showing only Gire Spi? And the quote doesn't only include renamed, but also "formally" renamed, and formally it is then, when formal/official documents, plates etc. say Gire Spi, which is clearly not the case. And sorry, it is not only the name which is in dispute. Also the Latin/Arab script, and the detachment from the Governorate/Wilaya are an issue. The only time someone answered me to the latin/arab script here at the DRN, it is with a facebook source which he thinks can counter multiple official sources. These Facebook and Twitter sources would never come through on the article itself, and they shouldn't come through here, either. Do you use Facebook and twitter to argue in a controversial claim which has multiple sources claiming otherwise? If you think an other volunteer is better suited for the dispute, you are welcome to invite him/her.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Paradise C, if all the material I provided (here and on the Talk page) did not convince you, then nothing will convince you, which is typical of your POV editing here. Remember that the pictures in the facebook and twitter links I provided are not the source used, they are just to show pictures from YPG offices that prove that your claim of no official change of the name is false. Here is a story from the Miami Herald that talks about the name change, among other things, the Kurdish name controversy and the funny response of a Kurdish official claiming the original population and name were Kurdish, which is a bold lie contradicting even Kurdish authority publications like this one (see map on P12) (see Tell Abyad page for more details and references). On top of what I provided above, here is another story from the Kurdish ANF news agency that you love citing showing only Gire Spi in Latin and a link to a Hawar News (another Kurdish "news agency") video showing only the Kurdish name in Arabic scripts (كري سبي) (and no mention of the Arabic name Tel Abyad تل أبيض) as the title and the same Kurdish name on the video. Here too. And another hawarnews showing Gire spi, and Rudaw and another. BTW, pro-YPG editors like yourself have cited Facebook on the Rojava article, how ironic!

Bottom line, everything in the Washington Post quote is true and is echoed by Fabrice Balanche, an expert on the Syrian civil war and author of Sectarianism of Syria's civil war reference work. Balanche is quoted in so many articles on WP and elsewhere. Balanche says on Tel Abyad, copied from here: "In administrative terms, Tal Abyad district no longer belongs to the Syrian government province of Raqqa, but to the Kurdish canton of Kobane. Although the population is predominantly Arab, there is no civil council to represent them as in Manbij, Deir al-Zour, Raqqa, and other Arab-majority locales liberated by Kurdish forces. Instead, the YPG’s goal is to fully integrate Tal Abyad into Kurdish territory, which the group still envisions as an autonomous belt along most of the northern border."

You are simply wasting everyone's time here. I can keep going forever, but I have other more useful things to do. Thanks Nightenbelle again for your time. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections if Paradise Chronicle adds new paragraph. Which says, "however it is disputed by Kurds and some journalists" Shadow4dark (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As per WP:Quotations quotes should never be included to describe "cultural norms". It is also stated that the quotations should be "brief". Also I have mainly seen quotations from well known personalities, who where relevant to the topic described in the article. The quotes from such personalities where usually shorter. Check at Atatürk, or Citizens speak Turkish.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lost Cause of the Confederacy
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 feel that other editors are deliberately showing a one-sided narrative in the section for the film "Song of the South". I initially deleted the section all together, which the had only one reference that did not mention the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" anywhere. This text was restored by another user with some new (more robust) references. I then added an alternative view from a book published by University of California Press. As an academic publisher, this must count as a reliable source. This was removed with a rather rude comment in the edits. I have since discussed this on the talk page. My edits have been misrepresented and are not being discussed in accordance with the Wikipedia policy on civility. I feel that this is a violation of the Wikipedia policy on NPOV as the criteria for a reliable source is not being applied consistently on the article: if the references from IndieWire and the San Francisco Journal are sufficiently reliable, then the book from the University of California Press should be as well, but I feel that other editors are applying an unfair standard to favour one point of view over another.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have warned the user about civility. They mocked this and invited me to report them to the Administrators' Noticeboard. I am aware that it is not sufficiently serious for that yet, but I think that a DRN might be useful at this point.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Can you please ask Jorm to be civil? Can you also make a ruling for consistent application of being a "reliable source" in this context? I do not think that the current application is consistent, but I would like to hear your verdict on this subject. I would also not be averse to deletion of the section for Song of the South all together, if it is decided that there are no robust sources to link it to the "Lost cause of the Confederacy", which is what I originally argued.

Summary of dispute by Jorm
This editor is trying to insert a single undue opinion. There are no modern historians who believe that "Song of the South" is not an attempt at 'lost cause' revisionism. Opinions to the contrary are not due. No other editors support this. Apparently I am also "uncivil" because I said this needed a talk page discussion. It certainly does not require dispute resolution. That's all I'm going to say on this matter but SummerPhDv2.0 may wish to expand further.--Jorm (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Lost Cause of the Confederacy discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Comments by SummerPhDv2.0: Jorm was warned for civility. I cannot begin to imagine why. Jorm's comments to that point were "Not sure this viewpoint isn't undue" and "Like, I just said this is undue, so you should take it to the talk page!" Then again, I apparently "deliberately misrepresented" Epa101 by calling an article from the Pittsburgh Courier an article from a newspaper (though it was reprinted in a book, the content Epa101 added specifically said it was from the Courier).
 * Yes, the article is one-sided. This is because the sources(Roger Ebert, CNN, Newsweek, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Society for Military History, the Journal of American History (my error) and others) are one-sided. That a book reprinted someone's fond recollections in a newspaper article presumably written somewhere between 1946 and 1960 does not justify saying "Some African-American writers have rejected this interpretation of the film" when all of the interpretations are far more recent and the newspaper article is one person's opinion saying nothing whatsoever about the Lost Cause -- the topic of the article.
 * TL;DR: Epa101 seems to want to argue against what the sources say and feels attacked because we didn't buy their weak case. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes it was a collegiate project on a complex, sensitive, and controversial subject until Epa101 became the only person to create a problem. All of his characterizations of other people's behavior was robotically reactionary, adversarial, and wrong. Jorm was inexplicably singled out, and nobody knows why him or why not anyone else. Epa101 seems to be thinking that Wikipedia's prose must have a counterpoint to every point, where we must create some kind of "artificial balance", or else we must destroy it. — Smuckola(talk) 04:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , it's a shame you raised this issue with such a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. There is a content issue worth discussing, but now editors will be entrenched in their opinions and unwilling to listen&mdash;or at least tempted to feel that way. Suggest closing this as there was no real attempt to resolve anything on the talk page. fiveby(zero) 01:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Our job here is to work past that. Thank you for your comment. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, . I understand what you are saying and that you are trying to help, but I would like to point out that some others in this discussion are not exactly being conciliatory.  If you compare what  and  have written about me above with what happened in the history, I think that you might find some exaggerations.  I asked  to be civil because he could see that I was editing the page (I made a mistake with closing a reference) and was reverting what I did.  His comment "Like, I just said this is undue, so you should take it to the talk page!" was admittedly not the worst of insults, but one could be a bit more diplomatic when reverting the more than one edit that I'd made with references.  If someone challenges me to report them for not being civil, what am I supposed to do?  If I let it go, then that sends out the message that civility cannot be enforced on Wikipedia and users can get away with bullying others.  I don't believe in that.  Couldn't he have just excused himself for any misunderstanding and then moved on?  He actually asked me to report him to the AN/I, but I knew that was a bit excessive.  I'll respond to the point on the sources separately now.  Epa101 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Volunteer query - The proposed edit seems to attribute the quote to both The Pittsburgh Courier and the Gevinson book (the former by direct attribution, the latter by citation). Does Gevinson therefore attribute the quote to the Pittsburgh Courier, or is there anything more substantive within Gevinson? Xavexgoem (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Put more directly, is this the only source supporting the addition? Xavexgoem (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I cannot view the source, but a lot of users are saying it does not even support the text as written. Even if it did three are questions of undue (why does one academic get to override a lot of others) and indeed why was the wholes section removed in the first place when it was well sourced? This looks like (frankly and no pun intended) an attempt to white wash Disney (and it looks like edit warring as well).Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The source, as presented, is a newspaper article quoted in a book. Nothing presented indicates it directly discusses the "Lost Cause" (as a result it has no place in the article). Additionally, as presented, the content is WP:SYN. The source is a presumably African-American newspaper editor giving an interpretation of the film, written sometime prior to 1960. The text added to the article presents this as "Some African-American writers have rejected this interpretation of the film" which is far removed from anything the article says. The source does not discuss the "Lost Cause" interpretation, does not discuss African-American writers and certainly does not have them rejecting an interpretation from 50 years after the article was written. A more accurate presentation underscores that the article does not belong here: "A writer whom a Wikipedia editor believes in African-American fondly wrote of the film in the mid-20th century in a way that the Wikipedia editor feels is contrary to coverage of an interpretation presented 50 years later that the writer could not have known about." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I will wait for your response to my questions: "is there anything more substantive within Gevinson?" and "is this the only source supporting the addition?" I understand if you really want to respond directly to Summer or Slater or Jorn, but please just respond to me. Xavexgoem (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They have disappeared and their suggested source has been thoroughly debunked and dismissed at the talk page. I would not hope to get a response. This should be closed, as it should never have been opened.--Jorm (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making an honest effort to discuss the subject here and thank you also for empathising with how I might feel about the some of the comments made above. To answer your questions in turn below:
 * Is there anything more substantive within Gevinson? If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if Gevinson is doing more than quoting a newspaper article by Herman Hill (who was African-American, by the way).  The context is that the academic book says that the Black press at the time was divided on the film.  I quote from page 855: "The picture generated much controversy among African-American newspapers, some of which supported it while others did not."  It gives examples of those that criticised and defended the film.  I felt that the article as it stood did not reflect this division of opinion at all, which is why I added the part that I did.  I am aware from my time on Wikipedia that views on what constitutes a reliable source differ widely.  If we consult WP:Reliable sources, it says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."  My addition seems to meet this criterion: it is published by University of California Press, and the subject of the book is the portrayal of ethnicity in American feature films.  When I started editing this section, the only reference in the whole passage was from IndieWire and I question whether that counts as a reliable source (that's why I initially deleted the section).  Now to concede a point: SummerPhDv2.0 is right to say that the book does not mention the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" explicitly: it mentions the context of racism, slavery and the Civil War but the term "Lost Cause" does not occur.  Is this necessary for inclusion?  If it is necessary, then consistency requires that the current cited sources for IndieWire and Newsweek are removed, as they are no more explicit on the "Lost Cause" than Gevinson is.  The CNN article does use the term, although it only mentions the film in passing and is mostly about a different subject.  The SF article is more focussed on artistic depictions of the Confederacy, but does not use the term "Lost Cause" anywhere.  Furthermore, I'd like to point out that it is wrong to say (as some others are doing) that the sources currently in the article constitute an academic consensus.  None of them is an academic source.  Although three of the four are from respectable news organisations, they are op-ed pieces.  To quote again WP: Reliable sources: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."  From this basis, I argue that it is inappropriate to say that there is a consensus on the film's interpretation.  I think that the academic book should trump the four op-ed pieces in saying that there is division and not a consensus on the film's worth.  (I apologise for the length of this section, but I want to make my case properly.)
 * Is this the only source supporting the addition? If we are to confine relevant sources to those that explicitly talk of the "Lost Cause", the most relevant that I can find is this article from the Journal of American Culture].  It states that Joel Chandler Harris (whose stories provided the basis for the film) "was a Southerner who refused to support the Lost Cause ideology and 'may even have concealed his true age to avoid conscription into the Confederate army'"; that surely is worth a reference in this section of the Wikipedia article.  The article acknowledges flaws in the film but defends it against many lines of criticism, concluding by saying that the film intended to promote "racial harmony".  I can then name a few others that do not say "Lost Cause" explicitly but do highlight that there is no consensus on how the film should be viewed. The University of Texas Press has released a book, Disney's Most Notorious Film: Race, Convergence, and the Hidden Histories of Song of the South.  Most of the articles in the book are admittedly critical of the film, but I am much more willing to accept them than the sources currently in the article.  Even here, there are indications of dissenting opinions on the film.  The essay Our most requested movie constantly talks about the "ambivalence" of the Black community: see pages 89, 97 and 98.  There is also an article in the Cinema Journal] Reassuring Convergence: Online Fandom, Race, and Disney's Notorious Song of the South, which states that much of the film's online film basis strongly oppose the accusations of racism.  There is also a fairly sympathetic article here in the Quarterly Review of Film and Video].  There is actually a substantial academic literature on the film and the appropriate place for them all is in the article for Song of the South itself but, if it is to be mentioned in the Lost Cause of the Confederacy article, then the references used should show both sides of the debate in reliable sources rather than suggest that all robust sources have the same interpretation, as some others are claiming.  The relevant Wikipedia policy that I was trying to uphold was "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic" on WP:Neutral_point_of_view.  I hope that you can understand why I wanted to introduce some balance into the article.  Epa101 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just spent about an hour writing the above. I'm disappointed to see that the subject has been closed whilst I was writing this.  Is there any chance that you can re-open this please?  Sorry but it's a bit hard to respond to discussions such as this in such a short time period when I have a full-time job as well.  Epa101 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The case is closed (it could never have been opened, anyway. I apologize for dragging several people through it). I do think that the consensus view holds out, though. There appears to be a history of how Song of the South was interpreted, but that would be better placed in that article. We could re-litigate every other example in Lost Cause if we take historical interpretations into account, I would think.
 * I do appreciate your commitment to good sources, and I agree that there should be a better source for Song of the South linking it to Lost Cause (I'm sure one could be found?). However, that discussion is independent of WP:UNDUE, which is the critical thing.
 * Anyway, this needs to be the last comment in this thread. Feel free to come to my talk page if you'd like to discuss it further. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#cite_note-who-1
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

Used the "Talk" feature

I have provided updated scientific references about the conditions that affect many individuals, but some user keeps on deleting ubbiased sciencific refernces.

I provided a number of published sources to back up my edits, but some person keeps on reverting them.. This is a problem because the views of this person are biased and are not benefiting people who come to educate themselves about this condition.

Please suggest how to deal with this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&stable=0

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Tried to resolve and improve the article, but the other user just delets my improvements.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide the unbiased data so inidividuals will educate themselves and be well informed.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#cite_note-who-1 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
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

Provided updated research

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Used the talk feature and requested the edits to be done.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Publish all points of view and have users make their own decisions.

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

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

I don't think this new editor intends to be WP:POINTy by adding me (he's new, I think), but out of fairness I won't close this time around. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Please update the article to take all points into account. Including the latest studies. Let readers review all sources and make their own "*Educated*" decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mypc1 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I just began contributing (editing) today, although have used your knowledge-base WIKI pages in the past.
 * First, please sign your posts by adding ~ (that's four tildes) after your talk or project page edits.
 * Second, please be aware that your topic area is heavily scrutinized by other editors. I would recommend editing other topics, checking out the tea house, before diving into such a contentious area. Xavexgoem (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips. Very much appreciate your suggestions. Also, thank you for the tip about heavy scrutiny of this topic, how do we as contributors provide all points of view and let people make educated decisions? I am open to suggestions and do not mean to create hostility. We need to shed the light on all the research and not just WHO (which has been discredited & criticized based on their responses to the latest pandemic, but I don't mean to open another "pandora's box.") Mypc1 (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for signing your edits :)
 * For instance: Nobody is going to remove sourcing to the WHO. You may think them discredited, as may not-insignificant segments of society. However, we will regard them as reliable. You may disagree, but that's an uphill battle that you won't win; too many people here will disagree with you. Conclusion: Another pandora's box ;)
 * Second, the quality of the sources in this topic area must be impeccable. To state that Electromagnetic hypersensitivity does have a scientific basis or is a recognized medical diagnosis will require a very strong source. slt.co won't pass muster, I'm afraid. You'll want to read up on these guideline: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and Fringe theories. I'm sorry to link you to WP:FRINGE, but the general consensus is that EM hypersensitivity is at the fringes of general consensus, so you'll have to work with that.
 * Basically, there's no easy solution here. Are there any other topics that you're interested in? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, your comments made sense, but we need to look at all of them. For example, Keiser Permanente Study at https://spotlight.kaiserpermanente.org/new-kaiser-permanente-study-provides-evidence-of-health-risks-linked-to-electromagnetic-field-exposure/ and studies provided by Medical Doctors at Physicians for Safe Technology, https://mdsafetech.org/. Also, by Stephen T. Sinatra, M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A.C.N., C.N.S., C.B.T., is a board-certified cardiologist at https://heartmdinstitute.com/detox-toxins/emf/emf-research-studies/.Mypc1 (talk) 02:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I'm a very versed individual and yes, other topics do interest me. However, what is the point of further contributing on this platform if only certain individuals, who do not look at all the sources, screen out and squash others.Mypc1 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I ask because you need more experience editing articles and contributing. I'm going to close this case now. Be safe out there! Xavexgoem (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Santa Claus
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Dispute regarding the following issues in the lead section of the article:

1. Should the lead section use the word "legendary", "imaginary", "mythical", or something else? 2. Should the lead section include a paragraph that notes that the role of Santa Claus is fulfilled by parents?

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Started this RfC: Talk:Santa Claus

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide opinions from a wide variety of people regarding the issue on the RfC.

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

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

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

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

Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS
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

For seven years, a section about medical care was above a section about condoms. In May, switched their order. I objected and reverted. AlmostFrancis then reverted back so I opened an RfC but it generated little discussion. I believe there is WP:NOCONSENSUS and the order should revert back to the last stable version, but AlmostFrancis believes there is a consensus for his version. Discussion on talk does not seem to be making any progress.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?


 * Talk:Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS


 * Talk:Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS


 * Note: The (relisted) RfC has run for seven weeks but only garnered a single outside comment.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would be useful to have outside voices help determine what to do both in the short term (i.e. is there a consensus or not?) and the long term (i.e. help us arrive at a solid consensus if there isn't one already).

Summary of dispute by AlmostFrancis
From its inception through to 2013 and from 2017 until January of this year the content on contraception was first in both the body and the lead. In fact, until January of this year contraception content has always been first in the body, though admitedly, in 2013 someone plopped the health care section between the intro to contraceptives and the details :). In January, Slugger removed the background section on contraceptives, therefore moving the healthcare section up and switched the content in the lead.  This was done without any edit summary to let people know he had done so and was part of a 20-ish spree of edits most of which did no have edit summaries.  You can't fairly claim silent consensus when you either intentionally or unintentionally obfuscated a reorg.  Once people noticed all the changes that Slugger has made there has been push back so I see no reason to consider the January reorg to have consensus and therefor do not really think WP:NOCONSENSUS demands returning to January.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS discussion
Hi, my name is Nightenbelle and I would be happy to mediate this dispute. I have read the ENTIRE talk page on the article, and I have a few requests before we begin discussion. Please also invite the other three editors who are actively involved in current edits on that page- to be clear- that would be Contraldo, WhatamIdoing, and Roscelese. I'm not sure why Contraldo and WhatamIdoing were not invited in the first place since they were actively involved in that discussion. I am asking you invite Roscelese because they have had strong opinions on other edits and if they would like to be included here I think it would be a courtesy. My second request is to keep comments brief, professional and to the point. Make sure you answer all questions clearly and concisely.

The first thing to do is be sure enough editors are willing to participate- So if you are willing to participate would you please respond here indicating that and give me a brief (less tan 2000 character) summary of what the problem is and what you would like to see happen. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done, done, and done. The only reason I didn't involve Contaldo originally is that he only made a single comment, hasn't been actively lately, and wasn't a party to the present dispute about NOCON. Likewise, WhatamIdoing only made a single comment to a RFC and hasn't seemed interested in participating further after a couple of pings. Roscelese didn't participate at all. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the order of the sections is less important than the other problems on the page. This is a subject that scholars have actually written whole books on, but we mostly seem to pick points that we want to make, and then find a source that will support the point we'd already decided upon.  As a result, what the article has said about condoms has not always been much more coherent than "they said condoms were bad because condoms prevent men from getting pregnant".  Consider, e.g., the simple sentence, worked on by several editors during the last decade, that currently says The Roman Catholic Church's opposition to contraception includes a prohibition on condoms.  There are three sources after that sentence.  The first (a dead link to a website created by a Catholic man with no apparent credentials) names condoms as an example of contraception.  The second is an official organizational website and does not mention condoms.  The third is a PDF that I didn't bother downloading, but I'm guessing that it doesn't actually say that condoms are "prohibited", either.  They probably have no problem with condoms being used as water balloons.  It's just the contraceptive use that is presumably covered, and that means that there should be no official opposition to MSM using condoms.  But we all know that they said condoms were bad, so we're writing the article to make their opposition bigger than it is.  It might be better to scrap everything, get a few good books, and start over.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Slugger O&#39;Toole I understand why you didn't include them originally, and its no problem, but after reading the entire talk page, I'd rather have everyone invited to participate and decide not to rather than not invite them and have them upset over that. WhatamIdoing I can tell by reading the talk page there is a severe need for mediation on several issues, and I would encourage all involved to seek outside assistance more often with this article, but it is easier to tackle one issue at a time, and this issue is on the order of paragraphs, so we will stick to that as close as possible, and then if more issues need to be worked on, we can cross those bridges after this one. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it would be more pointful to decide whether the article should contain that section at all, before deciding where to put it. The organization at the moment is sort of "political talking points" in no particular order ("You all kill people by hating on condoms!"  "Yeah, well, we built more hospitals than you, so we save lives, too."  "You hypocrites have gay priests!"  "And we took care of them while they were dying, while you were still kicking innocent kids out of your schools"), with most sub-topics organized chronologically.  It might make more sense to organize everything by chronology (in which case, that section gets split), or by theme (e.g., LGBT separated from heterosexual couples), or by geography (North America separated from Africa).
 * But if you prefer to organize something that needs to be re-written and possibly split, then that's fine. A model discussion might be helpful to the editors involved (i.e., a small group of editors that does not include me).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough the prohibition against condoms included gay men and prostitutes well into the the AIDS epedemic diff diff. I think there was a bit of give for a while in 2010 for gay men, but I think that was walked back in short order.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , As I said in my initial statement, I first would like to come to a short term resolution on what order they should be in if for no other reason than to clarify my understanding of WP:NOCONSENSUS. If I am wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. After that, I would be more than glad to discuss a broader reorganization of the entire article. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Second Statement
Okay folks, we are already coming up against the same problem that occurs on the talk page repeatedly. First there are passive agressive statements, ranom information/ comments that have no place in the current conversation, and no one answering what was asked. So- lets focus here. If you would rather solve another problem- you need to start your own case on this page. This dispute is about the order of sections. We will not switch from that topic to another at this point.

As far as your question on WP:NOCONSENSUSThere has been some confusion the talk page discussions. Slugger- you are right, it is not necessarily the most popular option. It is the option that is the best compromise according to the majority of people. I'm putting that in my own words, of course. One person does not get to decide what the best compromise is, the majority of people involved need to, with as little personal bias as possible, decide that. It appears that you have tried to force your decision on others several times on the talk page by trying to make the decision on the best option by yourself. Unfortunately that is not how things are supposed to work. that is bordering on WP:Tendentious_editing. Now I don't think that is your intention, or you wouldn't be here trying to work something out. But be aware that passion, on all sides, is in danger of overrunning your ability to compromise. The goal here, for me, is to keep you all focused on one task. As WhatamIdoing said- to perhaps model how these conversations should go to help in future ones on the talk page.

Now- the questions I need answered from each of you are: 1) Are you willing to participate in a DRN about the order of sections on the page. and if so 2) What would you like to see happen in this specific situation?

Please answer ONLY those two questions in the space provided and hold further discussion until after at least 3 people have agreed to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Participant's Answers
1) Yes, I am willing. 2) I want to a) understand why reverting back to the original order is not appropriate per NOCON seeing as there is a lack of either a consensus or even a majority and b) come to a consensus on how to order the article. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

2) While I was originally planning to partake, which is why I added a summary, Slugger is now using this process to stop forward movement on the article. This is unfair to both the article and other participants so this should probably be closed.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pinged to participate because I've taken part in other discussions at this article. I have no opinion on the section order; changing the section order will neither mitigate nor aggravate the POV problems in the article. I do, however, have to respond to 's suggestion that the section on condoms be cut down because it's illogical, though. This theme is a major focus of coverage of the topic. Whether or not we personally feel that it's a logical belief is irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't remember ever expressing a view on the size of the section about condoms. I'd like to see it re-written with high-quality sources, but that's not the same as me suggesting that it be cut down.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was pinged but I've tended not to edit much on wikipedia nowdays because I have found Slugger O'Toole a difficult editor to work with. I sympathise with AlmostFrancis that Slugger finds ways to block progress to push their preferred version - they pretend to go through the motions, but never with an open mind about where things might end up. Catholicism comes first. They were blocked from all articles relating to the Knights of Columbus and frankly it is my view that they should not be allowed to edit any articles relating to Catholicism because of inherent and sustained bias. But until administrators take action to address this issue then other editors will just drift away and wikipedia will be the worse for it. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's 3rd Statement
From what I can see- the only person willing to participate is Slugger, the others either are not involved or feel this should be closed. So, I will close this tomorrow- unless someone other than Slugger requests that it stays open and is willing to participate.

HOWEVER- Slugger O&#39;Toole I need to be perfectly clear here- and I need you to understand something. IF this DRN moves forward- it is NOT an excuse you can use to stop others from editing any other section of the article. the DRN process does not halt edits- although we do ask that edits not be made to the section in question. What's more- we do not exist to decide or overturn consensus. I understand you are not happy that the current consensus is against your opinion- but that is what the majority of editors have decided is the best compromise. You do not WP:OWN this article, and using this process or any other to try to force others to conform to your opinion of how an article should look is not acceptable. If this process moves forward- YOU are going to have to give up ground and compramise as well. We are not going to tell everyone else to support your POV. Frankly- the article is very heavily skewed to the pro-Cathoilic side already. Now I'm not anti-Catholic, I'm not pro Catholic... I truly am neutral in this area.... But I do recognize that the article sounds almost like it comes from a Catholic magazine as opposed to a history book or encyclopedia. The truth is not black and white- but shades of grey, and trying to erase that grey... whitewash if you will- is not the purpose of Wikipedia. So... I ask again Slugger O&#39;Toole, are you truly willing to work within this process to move towards WP:NPOV with your fellow editors- or should this go to another board? And if Slugger O&#39;Toole is willing to work towards WP:NPOV, AlmostFrancis are you willing to move forward with this process towards that goal? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Participants' statements

 * , In just the last few weeks alone, and only looking at this article, I've opened up two RfCs and a handful of queries at WP:RSN. I've notified the relevant Wikiprojects. I opened up this DRN and so far am the only editor willing to participate. I haven't seen anyone else do any those things, not a single time. I would hope that would be evidence enough of my willingness to improve the article in a NPOV manner but, if I need to make it explicit (again), then yes, I am more than willing to work with anyone else who wants to improve the article. I have also never asked anyone not to edit the article or any portion of it. In fact, I said I thought 's edit was an improvement. I simply suggested that at this moment in time, this would be the appropriate venue to discuss changes to the sectioning. I didn't even go as far as you did in saying "we do ask that edits not be made to the section in question," which is what happened.


 * I would also appreciate if you could point out where you think there is a consensus against me on the topic of what order the sections should be in. I have seen four editors weigh in and give three preferences. Since I said I would be willing to accept 's suggestion, it's actually two editors for condoms on top and two editors for the conferences on top. As I've said before, I don't see a consensus at all. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Slugger O&#39;Toole This above right here- is the kind of response that is compabitive and defensive. It makes other editors feel like you are not open to working together. But since you ask for examples.... Here is where you were trying to use this DRN to halt editing on the rest of the article |here. As for consensus.... here are places on the talk page where there is consensus against you: The section on POV addition from 9 May 2020 (consensus- your recent edit inserted too much POV), The wording on the new Lede from 9 May 2020 (consensus is your lede is too pro-catholic), The section on Honorifics from 10 May 2020 (consensus the word Cardinal is an honorific), In the section titled Deadlink (Consensus- the source is not an RS), In the section Bias from 23 May 2020 (Consensus- the article is bias), In the section Liturgy Training Publications Kasza from 25 May 2020 (consensus- sources not RS), the RFC about pastoral care (although in your defense- you accepted that consensus and moved on), The section on the Diocese published material not be RS (consensus is its not RS), In the section "Cuts to Minitrsy section" from 22 June 2020 (consensus - the cuts should remain cut). In each of these areas multiple editors have agreed and you alone say no. I'm sorry to disapoint you- but when three are involved and two agree and one doesn't- either do a RFC, or the two in agreement are the consensus. You've done several RFCs- and they are not getting enough attention, and what comments they are getting seem to be in support of those pushing to remove the POV from the article. So while, yes, you are the one pushing for progress- you are also the one standing in the way of progress. Even here- you have not really participated at all- but continued to stonewall and have used this DRN as an attempt to stop other edits/improvements to the article. I have to accept at this point that this DRN was not opened as a good faith effort to find a solution, but as a 3rd attempt to control content in the face of an opposing consensus. As such, I am choosing to close this DRN at this time and suggest that you examine your motivations for editing this article before you move forward- are you truly trying to make the best, non biased article on this topic- or are you concerned about the reputation of the Catholic church more than you are concerned about bias in an article? There is a reason I do not edit articles on education legistlation. Not because I am not an expert- I am. I am the daughter of an educator- I was an educator for over a decade, and I have passionate beliefs on the subject. I am not the right person to objectively write about laws pertaining to education in the United States because I cannot keep my perspective out of my writing. So I stay away from them. I edit areas where I can be objective. Perhaps you need to consider making the same decision? Remember- we are not on WP to right all wrongs. We will never agree with everything that is said about topics we care about.... but this is one encyclopedia- not the be all end all of opinion editorials. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)