Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 192

Edward Colston
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This is to seek a policy-based recommendation, on the sole issue of whether Colston should be neutrally described, in the opening sentence of his article, as a "philanthropist".

Edward Colston was a C17/18 merchant who, in life and through bequests, supported and endowed schools, almshouses, hospitals and churches in Bristol and elsewhere, and who in later centuries has been commemorated in various ways, especially in Bristol, for example with a statue and the naming of a major entertainment venue. In recent decades it has become clear that he was involved, directly or indirectly, in the Atlantic slave trade, and as a result of the subsequent publicity his reputation has been questioned.

There is no doubt that he made charitable donations that benefited the people of Bristol, and as a result many reliable sources (some of which pre-date the more recent controversies) describe him as a "philanthropist". The issue is whether he should be described now, in Wikipedia's neutral voice, as a "philanthropist", given his acknowledged involvement in the slave trade. There has been extensive discussion among editors over definitions of the word "philanthropist", and alternatives such as "benefactor", or wordings such as "he was described in the past as a philanthropist..." have been suggested. Opinion has been divided among editors at that page, with a majority favouring continued use of "philanthropist" in the opening sentence.

The closing admin at the recent WP:RFC here concluded: "This conversation is effectively in a deadlock...."

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

Talk:Edward Colston/Archive 2 Talk:Edward Colston/Archive 2

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It appears unlikely that further discussion on that talk page will lead to a consensus. There is now a need to progress this to the next level of dispute resolution. The sole issue to be addressed should be the basis, in policy and guidance, for the wording of the opening paragraph of the article.

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
It seems to be the consensus was 2 to 1 for inclusion. Thus its hard to see how there was deadlock other than a refusal to accept a decision some users did not like.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

As others have said, this rather does have a wiff of wp:forumshop about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop reiterating the same arguments, the volunteers can read the RFC and see what was said. Lets just make out pitches and let new eyes judge.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of dispute by GPinkerton
There is absolutely nothing about the word philanthropist that disqualifies Colston or anyone else whose ill-gotten gains were laundered into good repute. There is nothing, nothing about its meaning, usage, or etymology that suggests anything but charitable or civic donation. This suggestion that someone must be morally pure to be considered a philanthropist is nonsense based on nonsense. See the RfC for more detail. GPinkerton (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cassianto
Unbelievable to see this here. So we are to ignore the reliable sources that rightfully describe Colston as a "philanthropist", and we shall ignore the community consensus at the recent RfC that favours the use of "philanthropist". And still the woke among us are getting their knickers in a twist about a positive word being attributed to someone who did some bad in his life (by today's standards). This "resolution" smacks of the filer being an out and out sore loser. What happens if this fails, ANI? ArbCom? The supreme bloody court?  Cassianto Talk  13:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus at the RFC - there was "deadlock". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then WP:STATUSQUO exists. What's this, best of three?   Cassianto Talk  15:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , (a) yes, because recent events are sufficient to call into question the prior characterisation in RS, and (b) there was no consensus. Think of this as a Jimmy Savile situation (that's the version from the day of his death). Guy (help!) 13:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Which recent events are you talking about? One set of recent events involve some good people who want to peacefully highlight the historic injustices that took place against black people a few hundred years ago, and who now want to highlight these barbaric practises by allowing history to remain transparent and truthful in order to educate others, or do you mean the recent events that have involved a bunch of Marxists who have hi-jacked this important message in order to cause mass anarchy and disruption by wanting to re-write the history books by hiding and deleting it and who have committed criminal damage against public property?  Cassianto Talk  15:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately with that comment you have thrown your argument from serious to ridiculous and muddied the issue with patently absurd claims about "Marxists" and "public property"! (I mean, who knew Marx, who was very much in favour of public property, advocated destroying it ... or are you just referring to his life-long opposition to slavery and support for Abraham Lincoln?) Monuments are not how history is recorded, but propaganda. There is a long and venerable tradition of moving, removing, and replacing them which has got absolutely nothing to do with "Marxists", "hi-jacking", "mass anarchy and disruption", or "wanting to re-write the history books by hiding and deleting". Do everyone a favour and quit the "cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory. It lowers the tone and will not help secure the description of philanthropist for Colston or anyone else. GPinkerton (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that in a discussion about wanting to stick two fingers up to WP:STATUSQUO and reliable sources, based upon an insatiable need to want to base the outcome on a preferred political preference, the tone was, in the first place, high.  Cassianto Talk  16:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by DeFacto
This dispute arose (IMHO) because a recent event (the toppling of a his statue in Bristol on 7 June 2020) brought a lot of new attention to this article. Some of editors who were new to the article only knew about Colston what they had seen in recent media reports about him, a lot of which concentrated on scandals surrounding his relationship with the slave trade, and not on his other business interests and his historic and influential generosity towards the people of Bristol. Naturally, seeing him described as a 'philanthropist' stuck in the craw of those who only knew of him as an immoral beast. Whereas the concept of him being philanthropic had been described as an established fact in the article right from its inception in November 2004, after 7 June it became the trigger for much turmoil and disruption to the article.

What we need to decide here now (after the original talkpage discussion and then an RfC failed to deliver a consensus to remove the word) is whether (bearing in mind the modern British use of the word 'philanthropist' from the OED given below) he was indeed a philanthropist. My view is that he was, quite literally, and that to expunge that fact from the article would be to fly in the face of what Wikipedia stands for as described in pillar 1 and pillar 2. There is nothing in the definition of the word precluding its application to those who are later (300 years after his death) judged, by the day's 300-year-more-refined standards, to have acted immorally. We can, of course, include a discussion of modern-day opinions about his less savoury (by today's tastes) activities, but we shouldn't indulge in WP:OR and allow that to replace or even distort the reliably-sourced and verifiable facts of what he was and how he was admired in his own times. Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground, not an anarchy, and not a newspaper. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by GoodDay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. If Colston's actions meet the definition of a philanthropist, then shouldn't we mention that he was a philanthropist, in the lead? GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Govvy
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Beating around the bushes again? From one board to another board, I feel like this dispute has become tiresome. I agree this is WP:FORUMSHOP and disruptive of a lot of peoples time. I was for inclusion, words have meanings, we either use the correct words or not at all. Govvy (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The Land
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The essential issue is this: Is someone still a 'philanthropist' if the source of the funds they give away is immoral?

In this debate, I have not seen any reliable source saying that 'philanthropy' depends on funds being acquired in a manner that would today be considered moral and lawful. There are crooks, scammers, monopolists, and racists who are 'philanthropists'. In common English usage this seems not to matter. What matters is that you are very rich and give large sums of money to charitable causes. It is a form of charitable giving that is only available to the extremely wealthy. The Greek roots which mean 'loving of mankind' is really neither here nor there.

This is a matter of some regret to me personally (especially as I work in charity fundraising), but it is how the word is used in the English language, and we should not seek to break new ground about it on Wikipedia. It may be that usage changes and in future people are more cautious about who gets to be called 'philanthropist'. If that changes than so can we, but I don't believe it has yet. The Land (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Greek root (φιλάνθρωπα) of the English word translates as "concessions, grants, privileges, immunities, benefaction, endowment, gratuity", or "letter expressing friendly feelings". "Loving mankind" doesn't come into it and is a massive red herring to distract people who are trying to be too clever! GPinkerton (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by JzG
I think Deb sums this up well. When "philanthropist" can apply to Bill Gates, Mortimer Sackler and David Koch, spanning the gamut from saving millions of lives to funding the arts through profits from addiction to funding an entire ecosystem of think tanks devoted to covert political funding and promotion of environmental destruction for personal gain, it loses any encyclopaedic utility.

Colston spent money gained off the back of slavery on his pet political and artistic causes. This is definitely at the Koch end of things, and it's gratuitously offensive to Black readers to see him described in terms that really make sense only in the context of the casual racism of the 19th and early 20th Centuries. The anthros who were the target of his phila were exclusively white and usually right-wing. Bit of a problem.

We don't need to use the term philanthropist. We can say that in later life he supported political and other causes. Guy (help!) 12:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is falling into ill-informed etymological fallacy. "Philanthropy" in Greek does not just mean "loving humanity". It means something more like "endowment" or "privilege". GPinkerton (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Serial Number 54129
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Deb
From my point of view, the idea that Colston can be described neutrally as a "philanthropist" is flawed, because I don't consider "philanthropist" to be a neutral word. It's an outmoded term that is seldom used today because its actual meaning is both obscure and open to interpretation. It seems to me to be unnecessary to insist on the word when other, less controversial, descriptions are available. Deb (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Pincrete
The sources are clear that he was a philanthropist - by which they mean little more than that he donated substantial amounts of his money to 'good causes' in his home area. The arguments that you have to be some kind of all-round-good-guy, to be a 'humanist' or to satisfy modern notions of what are acceptable ways to accumulate wealth are pure WP:OR. Many 20th century 'philanthropists' would fail that kind of scrutiny - so someone from an age when slave owning and trading was legal, practised in most parts of the world and widely endorsed by thinkers, churchmen and politicians, doesn't stand a chance by modern standards. I'm sorry, but underlying this dispute is whether one seeks to record, in the hope of understanding, or simply to condemn people of previous ages who did things which we now may find inexplicably cruel.

Of course the recent controversy over his reputation should be included later in the lead, but what some seem to want to do is to rewrite the historical record and also impose their own definition of 'philanthropist', disregarding the balance of sources. I am not wedded to this particular word, but it is concise and is the usual term and the one most widely used in RS. Pincrete (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Darwin Naz
1. History records noted this character for his donations to charitable institutions. 2. Describing him as a philanthropist does not make him a good person (there are even instances today when philanthropy is used as a tool to curry favor), therefore, the use of philanthropist and slave trader in one sentence to describe a person is not contradictory nor using the term philanthropist cancel his involvement in slavery. 4. Our feelings and sensibilities (for those who are offended with the use of this term) as Wikipedia editors do not matter in the way the content is presented. 5. Also noting that the entire three-paragraph lede has been peppered with information linking him to slavery. Surely, the reader gets the point. So what is the fuss? Darwin Naz (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Michael F 1967
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by SchroCat
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The RfC has shown no consensus to overturn the WP:STATUS QUO, so why is this point still being pushed? Do we now ignore the decisions we don't like and just keep pushing until we get the answer we want?

1. Colson was a philanthropist. It's the reason a statue was raised for him in the first place. The fact he obtained his money through an extremely unpleasant method does not stop the fact he also gave away large amounts. We can't rewrite history to change what he was or what he did, and we can't change the definition of a word because it is applied to someone we don't like. One part of what Colston did in life comes under most reasonable definitions of the term. 2. The sources state he was a philanthropist, and we have to stick to the sources, or we may as well throw all our policies about citing them in the bin and write from our own POV. Cherry picking the sources we don't like on the basis of a political slant is the road to ruin for an encyclopaedia. People are not binary "good" or "bad", and there is too much grey to rewrite history in the form some people seem to want. 3. We have an RfC that landed on the consensus that the terminology of "philanthropist" was acceptable. Why are we now relitigating? Is it just because some people don't like it? There is no other reason to have to go through the same arguments just because some people are unable to accept the consensus went against them. There is no guideline or policy that suggests relitigation on such a spurious basis is advantageous. It seems more desperate and disruptive than anything. - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC showed no consensus either that it should be changed, or that it should not be changed. It used the word "deadlock".  So, the deadlock needs to be resolved, and this seemed as good a place as any.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you going to BLUDGEON everyone who disagrees with you? Mind you, you are using the DR process as a bludgeon against consensus, so I guess you see no reason to pay any attention to the rules of interaction either. As to the RfC: there was no consensus to change the word. Relitigating because you don't like it is a particularly pointy and disruptive path to take. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a WP:NPA reminder - thanks.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And, again, a WP:BLUDGEON reminder. There is no PA in what I have said, so take it elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by S Marshall

 * Edward Colston certainly made many charitable donations for the benefit of the white people of Bristol and elsewhere; but "philanthropist" is a ham-fisted and tone-deaf way to describe a man who made a fortune in the slave trade. Yes, reliable sources describe him as a philanthropist, but we don't have to use the sources' exact phrasing.  The process of deciding how best to summarize what the sources say is called writing an article.  We should be better at it than this.In my view the RfC failed because no alternative word was presented other than "philanthropist", and it should be re-run with clear alternatives spelled out.—S Marshall T/C 12:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by HalfdanRagnarsson
To begin with, why is this here? It was settled by more than two-to-one, and very resoundingly, at the RfC on the talk page. Still, I'll detail why I voted to retain the description of him as a philanthropist.

Because he was. Colston established several charitable institutions and funds that serve many in Bristol to this day, and played a significant role in the transformation of Bristol into what it is today. Many reliable sources were given throughout the discussion for this. As for any favouritism in his philanthropy, several editors explained that the word need not mean goodness alone, and how nearly all philanthropy leans towards the preferences of the individual in question.

No one denies the fact that he was a slave-trader, or that it was wrong. It was an evil thing, and the article details his involvement in it sufficiently. However, one must keep in mind that this was in an era where slavery was widely condoned, and there were few abolitionists to speak of. While a substantial portion of his wealth came from it, it was not the only thing he traded in. What was evil in him does not blot out what was good in him - neither fact can be erased. I have given the analogy of Caesar in the discussion.

Coming to the objections. Not only were they in a minority, their arguments were incoherent too - effectively, "since his wealth came from slave-trading, the money wasn't philanthropy"(?!) or "he wasn't really a philanthropist" (no he was, easy to prove) to gawd-help-us discussions over the meaning of the word itself. A quick moment of rational thinking dispels them all.

Finally, I must mention that slavery is an evil that has been present throughout human history. We cannot proscribe all actions of historical figures for their links to slavery, because too many are tainted with it - from the ancients to Bonaparte, including a number of rebellious colonists and half the figures of the Empire era. If we start attacking them solely based on slavery and the other wrongs they committed, we'll soon end up hating our own history - though I suspect that it is what the radical mobs (both online and on-the-ground) are aiming at. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by HAL333
I'm a little confused as to why this was brought to dispute resolution, I thought this was already resolved via a consensus in the rfc. Someone can be a philanthropist, regardless of whether they committed grossly immoral acts. Although not quite as horrid as slave-trading, robber-barons gained wealth through destroying smaller competitors and abusing workers. Many of their charitable contributions were more an attempt to preserve their name and build a legacy than actually improve people's lives. Despite gaining wealth through unethical means and not even caring about the underprivileged, I would still characterize them as philanthropists, as Wikipedia does in their articles. As long as the article makes adequate acknowledgements of his participation in slavery, I think it is safe to include the term. I also disagree with those who wish to change it to "benefactor": I personally think that that has a more positive connotation than philanthropist. If someone can obtain several reliable sources which dispute the title "philanthropist" and list an alternative, I may be willing to change my mind. ~ HAL  333  15:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The RFC (unfortunately) did not "resolve" anything - it concluded that there was "deadlock". Hence, the need for further consideration in order to resolve it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Or you could accept that fighting over the inclusion/exclusion of this one word is not going anywhere, & consider if there are other ways to handle the contradiction. -- llywrch (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of dispute by High Tinker
Philanthropy is defined "an act or gift done or made for humanitarian purposes", and a philanthropist is a person who engages in philanthropy. Edward Colston indisputably did this. The meaning of the word is not a naive sum of the translations of it's Greek roots. The most common meaning of the word in a rich person who contributes to charity, the oft quoted "love of humanity" is far second in terms of meaning. The suggested alternative "benefactor" does not scan.
 * Benefactor is also just Latin for "[person that] does good". It would not be an improvement! GPinkerton (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Di cee21
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Edward Colston discussion
TBH: I thought the matter was closed. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's First Statement
I was halfway through closing this when I decided that I was willing to attempt to mediate this dispute. With this many editors its going to be difficult at best. So, I'm going to ask that those involved please be respectful, use short, concise responses, and try to keep focus on the topic at hand. As I see it, the issue here is the inclusion of the word Philanthropist. And part of that disagreement is the definition of the word. Here is what I propose: First- I would like to see what different definitions of Philanthropist we are working with. Next, can we find any common ground among all the definitions, Third- negotiate the contested parts of the definition and see if we can find a compromise, Fourth, decide if Colston fits that definition, and Fifth- how to word the inclusion or exclusion of the word Philanthropist in the article. I expect this to be a somewhat lengthy process, but I think that plan could work if you all are willing.

So... step one- what are we working with. I want to ask that all definitions of philanthropist be listed below- I'm going to ask that we not debate merits of the definitions here. All I am asking is that if you do not see the definition you support listed- that you add it. We will discuss them once we have collected them. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, this is an invitation to WP:OR, the point is not whether Colston fits any editor's or dictionary's definition, it is whether WP:RS describe him thus. Pincrete (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this being an invitation to WP:OR if editors cannot even agree on what Philanthropist means- which is the case at the moment, how can they possibly agree if the word should be currently attributed to him. There is no doubt that WP:RS call him one, but there is a difference between saying "So and so called him a Philanthropist" and stating "He was a philanthropist" One is repeating what others have said, and one is having WP state that the title is still appropriate to use for him today- and that is what is being debated, not whether sources have called him a philanthropist in the past. So... I will continue in this form, but you are welcome to abstain if you would like. And if no one else wants to participate, you can see if any other volunteer wants to tackle a highly contentious case with over 25 passionate, actively involved participants. I am happy to bow out if any other volunteer has a better idea of how to tackle this case and wants to take it on. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that statement pretty much establishes where you fall on this before you start doesn't it and it's not neutral...Thumpwicca (talk) 05:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto on that. Why are we pandering to forum shopping, given there was no consensus to overturn the status quo? If we refute your position to go into OR that hands the argument entirely to those who are unable to accept a consensus. Why are the reliable sources being ignored by DRN moderators? Why is DRN turning accepted practice on its head in rejecting reliable sources and embracing OR? This is such a staggeringly abysmal approach and goes against the policies we have regarding how content should be constructed. - SchroCat (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is much point in trying to get editors to agree on the meaning of the word. What is important is whether readers agree.  And I suspect that they don't.  Some would support the dictionary definition, essentially that anyone can be described as a "philanthropist" if they do good deeds irrespective of whatever bad deeds they do; and some will take a different view, that anyone participating in the slave trade can never be so described.  Therefore, as the English language has a plethora of other words that can ensure that the position is precisely described, we should use alternative words.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "There is no doubt that WP:RS call him one" (a philanthropist) - but some WP editors think the word means something it doesn't, so WP won't! How can that not be WP:OR?Pincrete (talk) 07:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Potential Definitions of Philanthropist

 * Considering that Colston was a Brit, I think it would be best to go with the Cambridge Dictionary definition: "a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money" ~ HAL  333  00:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no point in focusing on dictionary definitions of the word "philanthropist", an archaic term. Contrary to what some have stated above, alternative wording was suggested. Far better to look for an uncontroversial way of describing Edward Colston. This is the issue, and I quote "Presenting Colston as a philanthropist is deeply disrespectful to the tens of thousands of people whose enslavement he helped to fund and organise." You can call this view untypical, but I do not believe it is as unusual as the proponents of the word seem to think. Deb (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC question was: Should this wording be amended so as to avoid describing him as a "philanthropist"? Instead of presenting alternatives, it was asked as a straight up yes/no question.  It could have been: What word best summarizes Edward Colston's charitable activities? (a) "Philanthropist"; (b) "Benefactor"; (c) "Donor"; (d) "Patron"; (e) [Your suggestion here].  I'm arguing that if we re-ran the RfC with clear alternative choices, we might get a better result.—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggested alternatives (like "benefactor" or "... was described in the past as a philanthropist..") either in the RFC or in earlier discussions, but neither achieved any traction because the view of some other editors, unfortunately, seems to be that, because sources use the word "philanthropist", we must inevitably use the identical word. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If we do not use a dictionary, how do we define the definition of the word (which as many have said doe not mean "good person")? For me it just means some one who is rich using their money to curry favour or promote their values through charity. In fact for me it has always been cynically negative, not in any way a positive character trait. I would say the word fits Colston perfectly, this is exact what it means.Slatersteven (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't need to define it because we don't need to use it. For example, we could say "a slave trader who gave a lot of money to local charities".Deb (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just slammed it into dictionary.com and got, a person who practices philanthropy. For philanthropy it gives me: 1. altruistic concern for human welfare and advancement, usually manifested by donations of money, property, or work to needy persons, by endowment of institutions of learning and hospitals, and by generosity to other socially useful purposes.  This exactly confirms my understanding of the word's meaning, and reinforces my view of "philanthropist" as a maladroit and inept way to describe Colston.—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet meaning in the Cambridge English philanthropist /fɪˈlæn.θrə.pɪst/ a person who helps the poor, especially by giving them money, so its clear there is no one dictionary definition.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth pointing out that Dictionary.com is American. I think we should stick to British English. ~ HAL  333  10:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We're Wikipedians, so how about Wiktionary? 1. A person who loves humankind in general; 2. A very generous person or institution.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Its not an RS?Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * pfft, thought I have a quick look through, but this saddens me, some of you are just history washing with a soft sponge. Makes me feel sick that you want to avoid the true. Govvy (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As the article is written in British English, it would probably be a good idea to see how the OED (the definitive guide to British English?) defines it.
 * "A benefactor of humankind; one who behaves benevolently towards others; a practitioner of philanthropy.
 * Now usually denoting a philanthropic or charitable person, but formerly having the more general sense ‘friend or lover of mankind’, and hence applied also to benevolent or friendly gods, animals, etc."
 * -- DeFacto (talk). 10:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Shorter Oxford has "A person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes." No mention there of morality - ie of the person needing to have acquired the money morally nor that they promote the welfare of ALL other peoples, including those in distant parts. Prior to WWII, one suspects most notable philanthropists gave their money to the community they came from and noone thought less of them for doing so.
 * Thesaurus com has synonyms, most of which are morally neutral (eg donor), some are not (eg altruist), some are even mocking (eg do-gooder).Pincrete (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal dictionary (Oxford): "A rich person who helps the poor and those in need, especially by giving money" - which is what he did. Why are we hankering over the meaning of the word? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 10:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it has a lot of shades of meaning, and some of those shades are a bit off-colour when describing Colston.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "Off-colour"? Ouch. People can twist any word they want to be non-neutral, but many of the definitions show that there is no definite positive spin on the word philanthropist as used in the modern context. This is a facile and ridiculous exercise in OR, and the moderator should show some gumption and close it as being utterly farcical. We go by what RS say, not the OR prompted by a DRN moderator in a non-neural fashion. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would join issue with you on all of those points. Firstly, when you say this is OR: We're encyclopaedia editors, so evaluating what the sources say is our core task.  In this case the sources are dictionaries, and we're evaluating them to decide how best to phrase an article.  If that's OR then we need to delete most of the encyclopaedia.  Secondly, when you say we should go by what the RS say:  I think you're slightly off-base.  We should go by what the RS mean, but we don't need to copy exactly what they say at the level of individual words.  Our role is to write what the RS mean in our own words.  Thirdly, even if you were right to say "many of the definitions show there is no definite positive spin", that would still mean that some of the definitions do have a definite positive spin; so we should choose a less ambiguous, more neutral word.—S Marshall T/C 13:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually no, in this case the RS in question, or rather the ones you are refuting, are the ones which describe Colston as a philanthropist. ~ HAL  333  14:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you mind re-reading my previous post? I literally just explained why we don't have to use the exact words the sources do.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, we shouldn't use the exact same words - that would be plagiarism. But we are not discussing the inclusion of a phrase. The issue at hand is whether we should reject the use of a single word widely used in several neutral reliable sources. ~ HAL  333  16:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The idea that "there is no definite positive spin on the word philanthropist as used in the modern context" is flawed for two reasons - first, "philanthropist" has always had a positive meaning (contrast "misanthropist") and second, it's virtually never used in a modern context. How often do you actually hear anyone describe Bill Gates as a philanthropist? Yes, he fits the definition, but it's not a word that's generally used to describe him because the whole concept of philanthropy is outmoded. Bob Geldof and Lenny Henry are modern philanthropists, but we don't refer to them that way, because we concentrate on their actual achievements. In Colston's case, he was a businessman first and foremost.Deb (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Take as much issue as you want - you are arguing from a deeply flawed position based on your POV of what the word "philanthropist" may mean in some cases if a reader deliberately wants to twist its meaning. The reliable sources say "philanthropist", which does not stop the person referred to as being an angel or an arsehole; the word means they give money away, not that they are pure of heart. "philanthropist" 'has always had a positive meaning ? Nonsense. ( and say the opposite.). "virtually never used in a modern context"? Utter nonsense!! Do a search on the website of The Times or The Guardian (let alone a Google search) and see how often the term appears in modern usage. This OR hunt is a pointless waste of time and effort, based on an IDONTLIKEIT reaction to an RfC leading to forum shopping to try and get a word somehow twisted to something it doesn't mean. - SchroCat (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What's this nonsense of "philanthropist" being an archaic term. Let's look at the example of Bill Gates. USA Today called him a philanthropist on June 11. Two days ago, the San Francisco Gate described Gates as a philanthropist before even mentioning Microsoft.. CNBC also used the term on July 11. Infact, almost every news source that discusses Gates also mentions his philanthropy. Such an outmoded term, huh? ~ HAL  333  14:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, SchroCat, I'm certainly arguing based on my view of what the word "philanthropist" implies, as indeed are you. I don't have a whole lot of patience for your cherry-picked examples that show that for some people the term is morally neutral, though.  The point is that for others it's not morally neutral and you can see the reliable sources that say so, above.  We need to find words that any unbiased observer would think are NPOV.  And yes, I know the sources say "philanthropist".  Sources don't have to be NPOV.  Constructing a NPOV article from POV sources is a basic Wikipedian skill.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. My “cherry picked” examples were on the First page of a Google search. Not really cherry picked and not that hard to find. Considering your first statement had more holes than Swiss cheese, I wouldn’t be quite so quick to accuse others of cherry picking. Thank you also for trying to explain basic Wikipedia skills; I must have been ignoring those over the last 9+ years of writing articles, some of which have been on contentious topics and yet still manage to strike the right NPOV note. But, let’s not allow another glaring misrepresentation in your statement go amiss: there are neutral sources that describe him as a philanthropist, unless you consider the DNB to be somehow “non neutral”? (They describe him as “merchant, slave trader and philanthropist”, if you want a reliable, neutral source’s description). - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So (in essence) there is not one dictionary or personal definition. So this is a bit of a blind alley.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you can certainly narrow it down considerably if you ignore archaic usage and concentrate on modern British usage as the article is written in current British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Deb, I agree that the word generally has a positive spin, in the sense that voluntarily putting some of one's own money back into 'good causes' - whether that be concert halls (Carnegie), international awards (Nobel), charitable foundations (Gates) or whatever is generally thought to be a good thing to do. Even when sometimes the donor is buying a place in posterity and salvaging a reputation into the bargain. That is however the problem here, the causes Colston gave to did good to the community from which he came - but the money itself was substantially earned in ways which (with hindsight) are unimaginably repellent to us. The main reason there is a WP article however, the reason there was a statue, the reason buildings were named after him was because of his generosity to Bristol. The reason there is current controversy is because of his lack of humanity to those who were traded. We don't need to resolve that contradiction, people are not either good or bad, especially historical figures living under values far distant from our own. Pincrete (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We are using modern dictionaries.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Technically, Donald Trump meets the dictionary definition of a philanthropist:. Are we all happy for his Wikipedia article to refer to him that way? And if not, why not? Deb (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do RS say he is one, by the way Donnie is (by most definitions) alive, thus BLP might come into it)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. However, it's hard to find impartial sources one way or the other - you'd have to go back well before he got into politics. But I don't think there's any doubt that he has, in the past, given money to good causes. Deb (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We would still need RS saying it, not us looking upon his works and saying they are good. In addition (do I really need more than "do RS say it"? this is exactly what most of us have been saying, yes within the meaning of the act Donnie would be a philanthropist, it does not mean "good person" it means "gives money to charity". Donnie is just the kind of...person...I would say is a classic philanthropist using money he does not need to buy favourable publicity he craves.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice that the article about Richard Branson describes him as a "former" philanthropist - how does that work, I wonder? Deb (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You would have to ask the person who made the edit.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Second Statement
Well since my stating that historical sources have used the word philanthropist apparently means I'm biased (No... I can just read- the word appears in sources- As to whether it remains accurate or not- I can see both sides of the argument so my opinion is neutral) I'm out. Anyone else want to tackle this? Nightenbelle (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good.Thumpwicca (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Its good we have driven someone away? I for one wish to apologise if I have done anything to drive you away.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, when a pretty clear statement of bias dressed in weasel words is the opening gambit of the 'moderator'Thumpwicca (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are reading what you want into what I said, There are no weasel words, no bias, and no opinion on what the end result should be. You are so stirred up to fight that you saw one where there wasn't one. I truly do not have any preconceived idea of how this should go. I thought I saw a path to get to a solution- you didn't like that path, you lashed out. Fine. You have the right to say you don't want someone to mediate- But I am concerned that the rest of the mediators are not going to want to attempt to moderate this based on how many editors are involved, how quick they are to jump on anyone trying to help, and how ya'll have been treating each other even on this page. But I wish you luck just the same. Hope ya'll can find a compromise. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

At the nub of this is just what many of the concerns above has been about, a clear statement that only one result will be tolerated. That this will just be dragged on, and on, until the community is bludgeoned into acquiescence.Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ExactlyThumpwicca (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Please hold Discussion until a volunteer steps up
Since there is not currently a mediator, I am going to request that discussions be kept to a minimum until one re-opens this case. Just to keep things from getting out of hand. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

American Descendants of Slavery
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have been disallowed to make edits for the American Descendants of Slavery article, even after taking every precaution to draft a thorough, properly cited selection. I have been flagged with COI, even while the article is under semi-protection.

I would like for my edit requests to, at minimum, be judged on the content, veracity, and verifiability of the sources of that content before being rejected out-of-hand, and for the last two weeks, it has been just that. Two weeks ago, I was initially discouraged to edit as I lodged a complaint in the Talk: section of this article, as I was scolded by Doug Weller to follow format and process. Over the last couple of weeks I've worked to educate myself on how Wikipedia works, and I drafted a fair, balanced, encyclopedia-worthy selection for revision...but it was subsequently denied by the same Mr. Weller before other editors were called in.

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

Talk:American_Descendants_of_Slavery#NPOV, Talk:American_Descendants_Of_Slavery#Semi-protected_Edit_Request, Talk:American_Descendants_Of_Slavery#Their_skepticism_concerning_immigration_has_attracted_criticism_and_the_suggestion_that_they_are_dividing_African_Americans

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I cannot divine the reasoning of why Doug Weller, a person with a long history of service on Wikipedia, has especially given an appearance of gatekeeping & seeking to maintain a slanted narrative about the American Descendants of Slavery. However that is what is happening in effect. What I seek, even as there are "COI concerns," that edit requests be judged, accurately, on their content and source. It is not happening now.

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

Summary of dispute by Rsk6400
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by TruthSayer21
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

American Descendants of Slavery discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Vowel length
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A user named Nealmcgrath has been waging a campaign on this article to make the point that the article is wrong about long and short vowels in English. I have tried to explain on the Talk page that his interventions relate to a separate issue (the use of the terms 'long' and 'short' in classroom teaching materials for reading) but he doesn't seem to get the point. I have removed some of his material from the article because it is unsupported by references and is in my opinion off the point.

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

Talk: Vowel length. Section headed "Traditional definitions are WRONG"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Suggest writing a new section in the article setting out this user's views, with proper support from references and advice from other users.

Vowel length discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Comment Please list all involved editors and notify them on their talk page. A volunteer cannot open the case until this has been done.

2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

On 19 July, Haqqın.az (a news website tied to the Azerbaijani security services per Eurasianet), made a report, claiming that Serbia transported arms to Armenia via Georgia. Which was then confirmed by Azerbaijan's deputy foreign minister Khalaf Khalafov (http://archive.is/DPhoF). GevHev4 started removing this information without any consensus reached, and with a deadlock in the talk page.

These claims aren't from some low-budget troll sites, it is a claim confirmed by an Azerbaijani official. I request a third opinion.

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

Talk:2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Showing that these claims do actually carry importance.

2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Bob Crane
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:FlightTime, who seems to have admin privileges, deleted important improvements to Bob Crane, en masse without with giving any good reason, barraging me with false accusations via canned templates, abusing the trust bestowed by this community.

There is no response by User:FlightTime except deletion and templates.

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

User talk:0mtwb9gd5wx

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ask FlightTime what precisely he finds as trivia, with fact correction, and look to see if there is a pattern of biography cleansing in FlightTime's history.

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

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

Cochin Jews
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 passage "Saint Thomas, an Aramaic-speaking Jew from the Galilee region of Israel and one of the disciples of Jesus, is believed to have come to Southern India in the 1st century, in search of the Jewish community there. It is possible that the Jews who became Christians at that time were absorbed by what became the Nasrani Community in Kerala."

This passage should be deleted however, Jossyys disagrees. This is pure speculation and irrelevant to Cochin Jews. There are no references to the Cochin Jews being converted to any religion by any scholars who have studied the Cochin Jews. Many groups especially in Christian groups in Kerala speculate on their links to Jews due to known similarities in some the practices of the Abrahamic religions. However this does not constitute a connection to Cochin Jews.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cochin_Jews#Remove_Christian_speculation

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A third party opinion on someone knowledgeable on the matter.

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

Cochin Jews discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Preliminary Volunteer Comments - I am not opening or closing the case at this point, but have a comment and a suggestion. First, the filing editor has not notified the other editor, and needs to notify them.  Second, if a neutral opinion is being requested, Third Opinion would be an alternative.  While this dispute could be resolved by moderated discussion, a third opinion may also work and is simpler.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Times Radio
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A user wishes to include non-notable presenters in a list of presenters on Times Radio. This has been referred to dispute resolution. User has also been referred to WP:LISTPEOPLE. This states notable people can be added to a list. However, WP:WPRS states "a simple list of a station's on-air staff should not be added". From previous experience of lists, only those who are "notable" should be included in a list of presenters. User has also suggested just because someone is on a national radio station, they automatically become notable which has been dismissed.

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

Times Radio Talk Page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Consensus on whether non-notable presenters should be included on a list of presenters.

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

I have withdrawn from the discussion on the talk page, and I have already made it clear on the talk page that I have withdrawn. I have no idea why Funky Snack is pursuing this issue. The matter is for others to decide as far as I'm concerned. GDBarry (talk) 07:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Andysmith248
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Times Radio discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The first problem is that the filing editor has not notified the other editors. There is also an issue about the choice of forum to be used.  There is an RFC concerning the listing of one person as a presenter.  It would be a good idea either to close the RFC and have moderated discussion about all of the presenters, or to withdraw the request for moderated discussion and extend the RFC to include all of the presenters.  I am leaving this request and the RFC open, but advising the filing editor to choose one forum.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Withdraw - I'm happy to withdraw this discussion and continue it on Talk:Times Radio if and when it cos up again. Meanwhile, GDBarry has said he wishes not to get involved in the conversation again so feel the RfC can also be closed.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 07:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * As I said right back in my comment at 06:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC) "No.  I do not agree to Option A.  I am simply withdrawing from the discussion."  It was quite clear then and it's still clear now.  Instead of simply accepting that I was withdrawing from the discussion two days ago, you chose to hound me from pillar to post, first onto an administrator's talk page and then onto the Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents page after I reported you for harassment.  You have caused me so much distress that I may not be contributing to Wikipedia again, certainly not under this user-ID.  Why did you simply not accept that I was withdrawing when I said I was?  GDBarry (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You're doing it again. Stop it. This discussion is about Times Radio and not your accusation of harassment. It was evident from El_C that harassment hadn't taken place and the case was therefore closed. As I say, I have requested for this and the Rfc discussions to be closed. That is the end of the matter now.  - Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 08:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If hounding me from one page to another when I was trying to have a quiet discussion with the admins doesn't count as "harassment", then I don't know what does. I don't understand El_C's decision since I clearly presented the evidence.  There is someone seriously wrong with Wikipedia if I can't report people for harassment without being harassed in the process.  GDBarry (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Again, stop it. This is not a forum for accusations. This is purely for a discussion on the article which I have asked to close.  I have also put it to  and  whether they're happy for me to close the RfC.  -  Funky Snack  ( Talk ) 08:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Woman
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 basic issue of the dispute is about the leading being not precise nor open defined. The article is about the gender "Woman" but it is equated with the biological sex. Now sources are exchanged and there is no perspective that the dispute can be settled with sources.

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

Talk:Woman

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

It would be allready helped if a wider group of editors would join, but most importantly the different sources should be integrated.

Woman discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed the other participants. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hyksos, the Exodus
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I have made edits to the articles Hyksos and the Exodus from mainstream, highly respected, scholarly sources which is stating the majority view of scholars in this discipline on the origin of the first Israelites. What I have entered is almost verbatim from the sources. The link to the sources (Faust, p.467-477 and Shaw, 2002, p.313) cite multiple other sources demonstrating it is the view of most scholars. Another two editors are removing this without reason, and without providing a source to the contrary. They seem to be doing nothing but POV pushing and reverting without explanation. Lastly, one user is removing content I added to a direct quote from Manfred Bietak without any explanation provided. Not once. The quote, as it was, was shown out of context because it did not include all of the paragraph and flow of text being quoted.

I want to follow the correct procedures to resolve this, and I am using perfectly valid sources and content. The other two users are engaging in bullying, POV pushing behaviour. Please help.

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

I have tried to discuss this on: Talk:Book_of_Exodus Talk:Hyksos

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am being bullied by a POV pushing editor, along with one or two others, despite the content I am adding being perfectly in line with Wikipedia policies. The content I added is almost verbatim from a highly respected scholarly source, and is the view of most scholars. The other editors have provided no source rejecting this, just their own personal opinions. I do not want to violate 3RR either. I need help from others with knowledge about policies, and unbiased views on the content.

Summary of dispute by Ermenrich
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This doesn’t belong here. A single editor is being opposed by multiple ones as can be seen at talk:Book of Exodus and talk:Hyksos. He just doesn’t seem to be able to accept that he doesn’t have consensus for his change. He appears to be wp:forum shopping—Ermenrich (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. There is only you and one other editor opposing what I entered. The other editors in that discussion at talk:Book of Exodus are not denying what you are. You are overriding or rejecting scholarly sources - Faust and Shaw specifically, but also most scholars - with nothing but your own opinion. You have not provided a single source backing up your claim and rejecting theirs. Greumaich (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia is not about ganging up on people to push a POV and override academic sources. It is about referencing scholarly content. The content of respected scholars - in this case most of them - overrides your POV that has not provided anything to back itself up. Greumaich (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Hyksos, the Exodus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

FBI files on Michael Jackson
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved

Dispute overview

This is a complicated issue, with more facets than can be covered in this summary. This is about the FBI files on Michael Jackson that were released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2009.

It's important to understand the context of these files: The FBI did not conduct its own investigation, they only assisted law enforcement agencies with theirs (in 1993-4 and again in 2004-5). As the FBI themselves put it: "Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies for possible child molestation ... The FBI provided technical and investigative assistance to these agencies during the cases." (https://vault.fbi.gov/Michael%20Jackson)

There are no conclusions in these FBI files, they are a 300+ page collection primarily consisting of newspaper clippings or technical analysis of evidence, all aimed to assist law enforcement agencies (as anyone can see at the above link). However the FBI files on Michael Jackson article selectively addresses and responds to the newspaper clippings within the file, or otherwise goes out of its way to refuse claims made accusers.

The FBI merely catalogues these claims, and so there is no need to refute them or add another voice.

The issue is whether or not the allegations within the newspaper clippings should be addressed and refuted within this article. It has been voiced that there is a danger of readers seeing the mention of allegations and believing them, and so information "critical" of Jackson's accusers needs to be added. (Note: Such allegations are already covered in detail elsewhere, eg. Michael Jackson, Trial of Michael Jackson, 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson, etc.)

I would also draw an analogy to a similar article: FBI files on Elvis Presley. This article also features allegations ("a drug addict and a sexual pervert") and his fans ("Presley Fan Clubs that degenerate into sex orgies") but there hasn't been an attempt to refute these.

I believe this article should be impartial to the contents of the files, in the same way the Elvis article is, rather than try to push one particular point of view, and limit commentary to the public reaction of the File's release.

Because of the complexity of this issue, I have laid out the problems in detail on the Talk page, specifically to aid with this dispute resolution:
 * Summary of the major problems with this article.

Thank you.

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


 * Talk:FBI_files_on_Michael_Jackson
 * Talk:FBI_files_on_Michael_Jackson
 * Talk:FBI_files_on_Michael_Jackson
 * Talk:FBI_files_on_Michael_Jackson

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help add more clarity and opinion on what the focus of this article should be.

Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of fans who believe that Jackson is wholly innocent, and so are spending lots of time and energy pushing a "he's innocent" narrative wherever they can. I'm not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but it's important this article does not become a home for such a non-neutral narrative.

Summary of dispute by BD2412
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I doubt that this controversy can be considered ripe for dispute resolution, but I will basically repeat here what I have already said in the discussion.

It is an independently reported fact that the FBI has a set of files relating to Michael Jackson, which were themselves a topic of public interest at some point. There is, therefore, a basis for these to be considered to be independently notable, and (as noted) at least one precedent with the comparable FBI files on Elvis Presley. These files, while to some extent overlapping with content covered in other articles, also reflect investigation of a threat against Jackson apparently unrelated to any other allegations.

The FBI, of course, does not conduct investigations for their own entertainment, but to determine whether a crime has been committed that can be charged. The resolution of an FBI investigation is a binary determination of whether to file charges or not. It is also important to remember that the FBI does not investigate any matter unless either they are asked to help by a local law enforcement agency, or the matter involves a violation of federal law (which includes a fairly wide variety of crimes involving crossing state lines). The FBI has the power to bring federal charges, independently of any state action, where evidence of a federal crime is found. In this case, however, we have a reliable source, CBC News, which examines FBI investigation of the subject and specifically states that the FBI "made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges". Having seen no source suggesting otherwise, this is what should be reflected in the article. Editor theories that the work of the FBI in some way did, in fact, lead to charges, would require a source to that effect contravening the CBC News report. BD2412 T 01:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

First, Factlibrary1, castorbailey and Phil Bridger, all also involved in the discussion, were still not notified.

Second, the FBI has indeed investigated Michael Jackson for 10 years. CBC News, a reliable source accepted under Wikipedia standards, did publish an article entitled FBI investigated Michael Jackson for 10 years. This article alone is sufficient verification.

Third, ThunderPeel2001/WikiMane11 wrote: "Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of fans who believe that Jackson is wholly innocent, and so are spending lots of time and energy pushing a "he's innocent" narrative wherever they can. I'm not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but it's important this article does not become a home for such a non-neutral narrative." After analysis, I have found none of that non-neutral narrative in the article. I do agree with BD2412 who wrote on the article's Talk page ("Removal of Unbalanced tag" section) that the files cover what they cover, and conclude what they conclude. Whether Jackson appears "innocent" or "guilty" is totally irrelevant.

Fourth, likewise, Michael Jackson is currently an extremely touchy topic (sanctions are in place). This is partially because of the large number of individuals and groups who believe that Jackson was/is wholly guilty of grooming and child sex abuse (molestation and rape). Likewise, I am not accusing anyone of this in this debate, but I have noticed a certain pattern ever since the release of 'Leaving Neverland' last year. A number of editors would come and start making radical changes to articles, removing big parts, removing anything as they saw fit, adding templates (puffery, unbalance, etc.), nominating articles for deletion, etc., oftentimes with no prior discussion on the Talk page or before any consensus was reached. Other editors and I had to revert their edits, politely ask them to discuss changes on the Talk page, but they'd fight us even harder, repeatedly making the same edits and accusing us of being unruly. As a matter of fact, such disruption caused several of them to be blocked or even topic-banned. In my observation, such editors tend to remove as many things as possible that seems to point to Jackson's innocence, his philanthropy and some of his achievements.

They'd also, in some cases, add WP:OR and POV such as this: "Skin bleaching creams have been used by other black celebrities to lighten their skin tone. Skin bleaching products have also been known to be the cause of vitiligo and so onset of the disease could have been caused by obsessive skin bleaching. Vitiligo did not cause him to surgically remove his black features." This was so blatant, I alerted other editors and admins, and they all agreed it was very POV pushing and I was right to revert it. This is the cause of some of the ping-pong edits/edit-warring on Michael Jackson articles, and I agree such disruption must come to an end.

And what about this? In this edit, the editor added an allegation that had nothing to do with the Chandler case.

And what about this? The editor wrote in their edit summary: "He wasn't allegedly dead when he molested these kids, that'd be creepy." One, the text did not say Jackson was allegedly dead. Two, the editor made the bold accusation Jackson "molested these kids" even though Jackson was not ever found guilty of such misconduct in any court of law.

Also, a portion of those who believe Jackson guilty, in my observation, do spend a great deal of time and energy (outside of Wikipedia) pushing that narrative. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to do so here, but I could cite a string of sources demonstrating so. Note: My fourth point is a direct response to WikiMane11's argument that Jackson fans are likely to push POV on Wikipedia.

And lastly, I honestly believe the article to be fine as it is, and I do not support the changes made by WikiMane11. In one of their edits, they removed 5 paragraphs with no prior discussion and with no consensus at all! Who does that? As for the "Unbalanced" tag, I only later noticed it had been discussed on the Talk page, but no consensus was reached, yet they added it back two more times. They also kept removing sourced parts of the article (leading to different parts of the FBI website) just because they felt that information is making a case for Jackson's innocence. I am in favour of enriching, improving the article the way admin BD2412 has been doing, but I do not support such drastic and undue removals and rewrite. Israell (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by TruthGuardians
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I hardly consider this issue a reason to have even made it this far to a dispute resolution. Let us take this 1 talk page discussion at a time: First off there’s a claim that the article is not just about the FBI files. It is. I authored this article from beginning to end. It has been edited and improved here and there by other editors and admins. I can tell you that while it is indeed about the FBI Files, the FBI files are partially about the allegation. The sources used to discuss these files also discussed the various parts of the files in a similar fashion. No one here has agreed that there is a bias because it doesn't exist. If Jackson appears to be innocent after reading this article, that's probably because the FBI did not find any incriminating evidence to suggest that Jackson was guilty of any criminal activity. I just presented the information in the article from approved sources.

Then there was a brief discussion as to wether or not this should be a separate article. Yes, it absolutely should. The “Media Reaction” section of the article makes it abundantly clear. There are far less notable topics on Wikipedia with its own article.

Finally, there is a talk page discussion about a balance tag that kinda morphed into a discussion about having to explain that the FBI did in fact investigate Mr. Jackson. They investigated death threats into him, they investigated hard drives, they investigated extortion attempts, and they investigated allegations among other things. Hence their name the Federal Bureau of Investigations. Either way, that has nothing to do with this article being unbalanced. Only one editor sees it as such and decided to start a Dispute resolution because no one else agreed.

In conclusion, the suggested edits are a single person’s POV. Over 3,000 were removed because of the POV of one editor. The editor has yet to provide any sources countering the sourced content of the article. The burden of proof is not with the content of the article, but the counter argument from a single editor. The content has since been restored and even improved upon by an admin and I think it should be left as is, or added to. Nothing should be taken away. Thanks for your time and my apologies that a dispute has made it this far. TruthGuardians (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Factlibrary1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I just don’t believe that the POV of one editor is a proper reason for a dispute resolution. This article does a fantastic job at remaining balance and avoiding potential POV issues. It sticks to the sources, per Reliable sources. As other editors have stated, there are zero sources contradicting the content of this article. If you observe the edit history, you’ll see that there have been many editors to come along and make contributions to this article. Admins too. Not one has had similar complaints about any of its content. The article has been viewed thousands of times since its creation, and still no complaints. The article should remain as is, and added to if needed over time. I would very much recommend removing no content. There is quite frankly no need. Factlibrary1 (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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

The article does not state that there was an ungoing FBI investigation for 10 years. But they did investigate various matters related to Jackson over about 10 years.

There are clear conclusions in the files, regarding nothing illegal being found on the hard drives (that's what nothing on each page means), and not finding any investigation into Jackson allegedly molesting two Mexican boys. Furthermore, the purpose of all those FBI investigations was to determine whether they can find evidence of crimes. If charges did not arise from anything mentioned in those files or the prosecutors who were assisted by the FBI used nothing in those files that itself proves the FBIs conclusion was none of those investigation yielded evidence that Jackson was a molester. This is self evident and the FBI doesn't have to explicitly state that in thos files for it to be true. As the CBC article cites as a source states "Over the next 10 years, they made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges."

The article does not explore the allegations in general. Only the parts of the allegations which are the subject of the FBI files. The lack of details regarding the opinion of a person stating "I would judge that he [Elvis] may possibly be a drug addict and a sexual pervert" in the Elvis article is not comparable to  lack of details about the Terry George articles investigated by the FBI. Those were specific allegations made by a specific person which were investigated by the FBI and it make sense to cite sources regarding what came out, or rather did not, of it. A reliable source is given which proves George indeed cheefully recalled his 1979 interview with Jackson. and the conversation in the cited documentary is about the very same tabloid clippings which were investigated by the FBI. They are not unconnected. Information about Terry George's behavior and statememts  is relevant as to why the FBI investigation into this particular matter did not yield  information which the prosecutors could use to corroborate their charges against Jackson. Regarding the tape investigated for child pornography the investigation was closed in 1997 without any charge which itself proves it was not child porn. To believe otherwise you have to believe that the FBI decided to investigate a tape and its origin, concluded that it's child porn but decided to close the case without any charge. The date of that investigation also shows that the FBI did investigate matters related to Jackson but not directly connected to the 1993-1994 and 2003-2005 cases.

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

FBI files on Michael Jackson discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There are three issues that need to be addressed before moderated discussion can be conducted here. First, the filing party has not notified the other editors.  The filing party needs to notify them, and they need to agree to moderated discussion.  Second, there is a discussion pending at WP:ANI.  This noticeboard does not handle a dispute that is also pending in any other forum, including a conduct dispute at WP:ANI.  If the parties agree to resolve this as a content dispute and agree to close the WP:ANI case, we can resolve the content dispute here.  Third, some of the editors have been partially blocked from editing the subject article.  That does not prevent mediation, because the editors will normally be told by the moderator not to edit the article anyway.  The editors who were edit-warring need to agree that they will be civil and leave the article alone while discussion is in progress.  So, the filing party needs to notify the other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for making these points. I have added notice to everyone Talk page. Personally I had considered the WP:ANI dispute to be concluded. And all temporary bans are about to, or possibly will have, expired. I am obviously hopeful that the other editors agree to this mediation. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting Israell's comment that Factlibrary1, castorbailey and Phil Bridger have not been notified. This is because I didn't really consider them to be deeply involved (two of them left one comment, and one of them left two comments). I suspect that since they have spent barely any time on this issue that they wouldn't appreciate getting involved in it to this level, however they have now been notified. Additional note: There is a comment on the Talk page alerting all readers to this dispute. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - Notifying User:CaptainEek, who imposed the partial blocks. Any comments are welcome.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - I understand that there are other editors, not listed, who have taken part briefly in the discussion. At this point I will open moderated discussion if three conditions are met.  First, the WP:ANI dispute has to be closed by an administrator.  Second, at least three editors have to agree that that is what they want.  If three or more editors take part, a proposed consensus can be arrived at, and an RFC can be used to establish that as consensus.  Third, the editors agree that the only question is what the article will say, reflecting what reliable third parties have said about the files, and not Jackson's guilt or innocence, or the guilt or innocence of any editors, or anything else.  This is a content forum.  Do the editors want moderated discussion?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert, I wholeheartedly agree that the article should be limited to reflecting reliable sources (ie. not letters from Jackson's lawyers, or op-ed pieces) about the files. However, the issue is further complicated when even legitimate reporting sometimes makes commentary that is factually incorrect. A good example is the linked CBC report that states, "Over the next 10 years, [the FBI] made several investigations of the pop star, none of which led to charges". When actually the FBI state very clearly that they only provided "assistance" to California law enforcement agencies in their two separate investigations (1993 and 2005) of child molestation. And that assistance was only "during the cases". And those cases did lead to charges filed against Jackson. It's possible that an expert is required here to explain these details.


 * Here's former FBI agent, Brad Garrett, trying to clarify this very thing to ABC News on December 23, 2009:


 * "When you look at the files that have become available, they are files where the FBI has been asked by the police to help them with certain aspects of the case. They're really not operational FBI cases. For example, coming to the FBI because they have a forensic capability with computers to mirror-image hard-drives so they can look at evidence inside a computer. Or asking for investigative strategies, or interview strategies, that they may ask to profile at Quantico. So these are really support functions where the FBI was involved in the case."
 * So I feel an added level of scrutiny needs to be added to ensure that things are presented fairly and accurately. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Caution to User:TruthGuardians - You write that: "In conclusion, the suggested edits I believe are border line vandalism."  This is a content forum.  Report vandalism at the vandalism noticeboard.  If you are using the term 'vandalism' to emphasize how strongly you disagree with the edits, read What Is Not Vandalism.  Editing is only vandalism if its intent is to degrade the encyclopedia.  POV edits are not vandalism.  It is very difficult to discuss a content dispute or to discuss POV editing if the claim of vandalism is used loosely.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarification. I will change language. Changed language. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator
I am willing to try to mediate this dispute. Please read the standard ground rules. I will repeat what I said above. We are only discussing article content about the article on the FBI files on Michael Jackson. We are not discussing Michael Jackson, or the allegations against Michael Jackson, or the truth or untruth of the allegations. The article should only reflect what reliable sources have said about the FBI files. If three or more editors make statements below saying that they wish to engage in moderated discussion, we will have moderated discussion, and can clarify its scope. Be civil and concise. We are not talking about each other, and we are not talking about Michael Jackson, except to the extent that the FBI investigated him or assisted in his investigation. If we do not have agreement for moderated discussion, I will close this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

First Statements by Editors
I came to this article only recently, as I was invited rather out of the blue on my talk page to review the conflict as an administrator. As far as I can recall, I have not previously engaged in any discussions relevant to these files or the matters investigated. I have some concerns about a pattern of statements on the talk page emanating from User:ThunderPeel2001. For example:


 * The whole page whiffs of an attempt to use the document to push Jackson's innocence, rather than actually document the contents of the file.
 * The fact that you're asking questions like, "why the FBI did not find anything local law enforcement could use against Jackson?" shows that you're focussed on the allegations against Michael Jackson, and have a bias towards pushing the narrative that's he's innocent.
 * [...sanctions are in place for the topic of Michael Jackson. This is partially because there is a contingent of dedicated Jackson fans who wish to push the narrative that Jackson is completely innocent. ... There are some fans who will use any attempt to push an "innocent" narrative... There is a fan contingent known to push an "innocent" narrative wherever they can.

It is not apparent to me that this article either is or even can be a vehicle for "pushing a narrative", since it is focused on a very specific subject, and the contents of this article do not in any way change the contents of several other articles on the activities to which the alleged "innocence" narrative would apply. There is always a concern when using lengthy primary sources such as government investigative documents that undue emphasis will be given, for example, to lines of inquiry that sound scandalous but which turn up no evidence of wrongdoing. As I have noted on the talk page, where the subject of the article involves a criminal investigation, we do need to state up front whether criminality was found in that investigation, as the fact of an investigation itself creates a cloud of negativity over those investigated. That is why, I would suggest, we have no choice but to reflect what independent and reliable secondary sources deem important within those primary sources. I don't think that any effort is afoot here to push a narrative; other articles that would be the more logical target of such an effort. BD2412 T 04:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robert, thanks for volunteering to moderate this discussion. And thanks to BD2412 for joining the discussion. I hope the other editors agree to join as well, since they have fought so hard against my attempt to stop the bias I believe is present in this article.

Conveniently, I think the comments by BD2412 reflect the exact attitude of bias that I'm trying to flag:

"There is always a concern when using lengthy primary sources such as government investigative documents that undue emphasis will be given, for example, to lines of inquiry that sound scandalous but which turn up no evidence of wrongdoing. As I have noted on the talk page, where the subject of the article involves a criminal investigation, we do need to state up front whether criminality was found in that investigation, as the fact of an investigation itself creates a cloud of negativity over those investigated."

These are legal documents, and this article should reflect their contents. It is not the duty of Wikipedia to shape, twist or present legal documents in a way that better presents their subject. It's factually true that Jackson was investigated by California law enforcement agencies, with assistance of the FBI, for suspected child molestation. Is it Wikipedia's job to attempt to dispel the "cloud of negativity" around this fact? If so, why? If this wasn't a beloved pop-singer, would people feel the need to soften these facts? It's also factually true that Jackson was acquitted in a court of law, and as that's factually true I see now harm in presenting that in the article, if any balance is needed. But I see problems with selectively attempting to discredit elements from the file (while completing ignoring others), sometimes to the point of completely falsely representing the truth, in order to dispel a "cloud of negativity". Facts do not need balancing, they can be presented as they are. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * These are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and the article should not merely "reflect their contents"; WP:NOR quite clearly requires that we base our use of documents such as these on reliable secondary sources, such as the CBC News article referenced at several points in the discussion. That is why statements such as "I believe the FBI would know better than CBC News are improper for the construction of a Wikipedia article, since you are then putting your own interpretation of the primary source documents above that of a reliable source. More directly, the conjecture that "it would seem the contents of the FBI file were partially responsible for the state believing they had enough evidence to successfully prosecute Jackson in a court of law" is unsupported by either the primary source or any secondary source. I can find no document or court opinion from the case referencing any information from the FBI, which would be legally required if anything supporting the state's case had been provided by the FBI. BD2412  T 13:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, the POV push of the FBI not investigating Jackson and not reaching conclusions will be expelled using the sources that back this article. The following sources are all sources that allude to the fact that the FBI actually did investigate Michael Jackson and that nothing incriminating was found and are all used in this article:

1. This Forbes article What you should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary says, “The FBI, likewise, conducted a thorough investigation. Its 300-page file on the pop star, released under the Freedom of Information Act, found no evidence of wrongdoing.”

2. This CNN article FBI files on Michael Jackson published online says, “The files also include notes from the FBI's investigation of a man who sent letters threatening to kill Jackson and President George H.W. Bush in 1992.” It also makes such statements like, “A notation at the end of the case file said it was closed in August 1994 as "No outstanding leads remain for the Los Angeles Office in this matter."

3. This ABC News article FBI Releases Documents in Jackson Probes also alluded to the FBI Investigating Jackson like, “The agency went to London and Manila to investigate other accusations that Jackson had engaged in improper behavior with boys.” AND “The agency also investigated another allegation from a woman and her husband who worked in child services in Toronto, Canada.” AND "…the collection of sexually explicit images in magazine and books" and a VHS videotape that the FBI analyzed as part of a child pornography investigation.” This article also speaks of FBI reaching conclusions like, “The FBI concluded there was no threat.”

4. The title of this NY Daily News Article FBI's Michael Jackson files opened: Feds investigated King of Pop in two child molestation cases says it all.

5. Also, The title of this CBS News article FBI Helped Investigate Michael Jackson says it all. It also says, “The FBI's legal office in London assisted local authorities with a child molestation probe in 1993 and in 1995 U.S. customs officials asked the FBI to analyze a VHS videotape as part of its child pornography investigation.”

6. This BBC News article Michael Jackson: FBI releases classified files on star says, “No intelligence indicating a terrorist threat" existed, the FBI said, although the bureau did provide other technical and investigative assistance into the case.”

7. This E Online article The Michael Jackson FBI Files' Greatest Hits says, “Highlights include a heretofore undisclosed 1995 child-porn investigation, which went nowhere.” It also, like other sources used in the article and sources mention here touches on conclusions as well, “Nothing." What the FBI found over and over again when it did a forensic search of Jackson's computers for the 2003-05 child-molestation case that resulted in Jackson's acquittal.” AND “The tracking was, like, totally super-sucky. No charges were filed.”

So to summarize, the complaint is that the FBI did not investigate Jackson or reach conclusions. These articles overwhelmingly prove the exact opposite. There are no articles that suggest that Jackson was not investigated and that the FBI does not reach conclusions. The entire article should remain as is. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I’ve made some edits to this article in the past and have spent time reading the entire article and cross-referencing it with the sources used. The article uses Reliable sources from beginning to end, there is no bias or POV issues and from beginning to end, the article should remain the same.castorbailey (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This Article uses all reliable sources completely void of any POV and strictly sticks to the sources to avoid No original research. The Article also uses secondary sources to back primary sources as per Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Everything is cited. I would recommend this article to remain as is. Israell (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator
So far, we have two editors participating. I don't think that either of the editors is really talking about article content anyway. One editor is expressing a concern about POV-pushing. The other editor is saying that they don't have a concern about POV-pushing because the article has a specific focus. These are both broad statements, acknowledging that they both recognize that neutral point of view is the second pillar of Wikipedia. But the purpose of this noticeboard is to resolve article content disputes, and content disputes are about particular sections or paragraphs. Rather than expressing a general concern about POV-pushing, DRN encourages editors to identify the specific sections or paragraphs that they think need to be modified (or left as is). So: Are there any specific concerns about sections or paragraphs?

I will also restate some of the rules, that are in the rule page, but may have to be restated. First, be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the author feel better, but do not clarify. Some of the above is long. Second, comment on content, not contributors. So far, that is being followed. Third, do not engage in back-and-forth. There is a back-and-forth reply above. Do not engage in back-and-forth. I will ask you what to say, and you will answer my questions, not each other. That is moderated discussion. If you want unmoderated discussion, that is what the talk page is for. Fourth, be specific as to what you want changed or left alone. That is a restatement of the above paragraph.

Please respond within 48 hours as to what article section or paragraph content concerns you have. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors
Thanks Robert. Let's get into some specifics: The section marked "Part four: video analysis" makes claims about the evidence that were not supported by the FBI files themselves, or any other source. It revolves around |"Part 04" of the FBI files and a VHS cassette seized by US Customs. According to the article: "The tape was analyzed and nothing incriminating or illegal was found on the poor quality cassette".

The above claim is not supported by the FBI files in any way. Nowhere does it say that nothing was incriminating or illegal was found on the VHS. The FBI files themselves simply document an "authenticity examination" and are highly technical in nature. There are no conclusions or discussion about the contents of the video, other than on page two, where the words "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" can be seen.

No other citation is offered for this statement at all.

The section also states: "The VHS was not in Jackson's possession; or is even known to belong to Jackson". Again, this is not supported by the FBI files. And the only citation for this claim is a Guardian article (which is just reporting on the release of the FBI files and contains no original research). It states: "It's not clear whether this was a tape owned by Jackson or found elsewhere." In other words, it also does not support the above quote at all, either. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian is considered a reliable source and is widely used throughout Wikipedia. There are other secondary sources that back this entire section too. Some were mentioned in other sections of the article and some weren’t. Either way, there are no reliable sources available to counter the sources used.

Part four, like the other parts, uses the primary source and 2 secondary sources including the Guardian. Taking the language used from these sources in the editor’s (my) own words is how this section is composed, so as to avoid any copyright violations.

The cited source says, [https://www.theguardian.com/music/2009/dec/23/michael-jackson-dossier-released-fbi “Customs allegedly asked the FBI to analyse a "multi-generation copy of poor quality" of a VHS videotape labelled "Michael Jackson's Neverland Favourites, An All Boy Anthology". It's not clear whether this was a tape owned by Jackson or found elsewhere, and again no charges were laid.”]

Another source in the same section says, [https://www.eonline.com/news/159257/the-michael-jackson-fbi-files-greatest-hits "Michael Jackson's Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology" Label on a VHS tape "connected with Jackson," per the FBI's account. In 1995, the agency was called in by U.S. Customs to analyze the tape. Its findings: The tracking was, like, totally super-sucky. No charges were filed.”]

There are even sources that are not used in the article that draws same conclusions in different words like this one: [https://uproxx.com/music/michael-jackson-timeline-sexual-molestation-charges-leaving-neverland/ “ The file also made a reference to a 1995 videotape labeled in part “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology,” but there was no further information about what was on the tape. Ultimately, their investigation didn’t render enough evidence for the bureau to go forward on federal charges, and the file was “administratively closed” in 2005.”]

In summary, the editor (myself) stuck to the sources used. There are still no sources countering the sources used. My suggestion is to leave the part as is.TruthGuardians (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The words "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" in that section of the document is not a conclusion, but merely the subject of the investigation. Namely they were investigating whether the tape was  child porn or not. In no way is that a conclusion that it was child porn. There is nothing in the files that indicates the tape was in any way connected to Jackson himself and it was sized by customs officials in West Palm Beach, Florida not from Jackson and not in any property belonging to Jackson. The files reveal that the investigation started in 1995 and ended in 1997. The fact that no charges were filed against Jackson or anyone related to this tape itself is proof it was not and couldn't be child porn. Child porn is a federal crime, if any tape with that label had been child porn it most certainly would have been reported by the media even if the tape did not belong to Jackson. There is no reliable source which contradicts this so yes, that the tape was not child porn and it did not belong to Jackson are supported by these files even if the files themselves do not explicitly state those. No need to change anything in the section. castorbailey (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Part 4 should stay the way it is written. There are ample amounts of articles echoing the same words in this section. The source cited was a reliable source that says: “Customs allegedly asked the FBI to analyse a "multi-generation copy of poor quality" of a VHS videotape labelled "Michael Jackson's Neverland Favourites, An All Boy Anthology". It's not clear whether this was a tape owned by Jackson or found elsewhere, and again no charges were laid.” With the tape being found in customs on a day and time that Jackson wasn't even in the same time zone indicates that the tape was not in Jackson's possession as mentioned in the sources. Israell (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator
It appears that the only matters being discussed are about Section 4. Since Section 4 is relatively short, each editor may propose their preferred version of Section 4 (or say, as one did, to leave it as is). You may also provide a one-sentence statement in support of your version, but discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each wording is really a matter for rounds four and five, so focus on what you want the section to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors
Leave the section as is. It sticks to the reliable sources cited. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Leave the section as is. All statements in the section is supported by the FBI files and no reliable source contradict them. castorbailey (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Leave part 4 as is. It’s balanced, void of any copyright violations and uses the reliable sources cited out of over a dozen that could have been used. Israell (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested revision:

"Containing only 9 pages, Part 4 of 7 focuses on the analysis of a VHS video cassette tape labeled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” that was seized by US Customs. The investigation into child pornography was closed by January 24, 1997, and no charges are known to have been filed."

This is factually accurate and supported by sources. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator
Three editors want to leave Part 4 alone. One editor wants to make apparently minor changes to it which however change the emphasis, in particular by adding the tacit implication that unknown charges may have been filed and dropped somewhere. We can handle this in one of two ways. First, we can close this, stating that there is a local consensus for the current wording. The editor who disagrees may file a Request for Comments, but otherwise discussion is resolved. Second, we can try to compromise. Any effort at compromise is voluntary, so it is really up to the editors who support the existing wording, and can leave it alone, or can offer compromises. Any discussion of the other parts of the article can be discussed on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors
I am willing to attempt a compromise with the following proposal as it sticks to the source cites a lot more closely, but removes mention that the tape was “not in Jackson’s possession.”

Containing only 9 pages, Part 4 of 7 focuses on the analysis of a multi-generational poor quality VHS tape seized by US Customs in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1995. The tape was labelled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” but the files do not mention that Jackson himself owned the tape or had anything to do with it. The investigation whether it contained child pornography was concluded on January 24, 1997. No charges were filed.

If consensus is reached on this version, I am willing to edit the article to reflect updated version. If not, then keep it as is. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no objection against this latest version. It is supported by the files and reliable sources. castorbailey (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not object to the proposed compromise suggested by TruthGuardians. It reads a little more cleanly and is fully supported by primary and secondary sources. Israell (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the compromise. Further compromise:


 * Containing only 9 released pages, Part 4 focuses on the analysis of a VHS video cassette tape labeled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” that was seized in West Palm Beach, Florida by US Customs in 1995. The files indicate the presence of child pornography, but it's unclear what connection (if any) there was to Jackson himself. The analysis was complete and the file closed by January 24, 1997, and no charges are known to have been filed.

WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator
Two compromise proposals have been offered. I am asking each editor to !vote Yes or No on the original wording (version zero), the first compromise, and the second compromise. If either compromise proposal is approved by four editors, it will be accepted. If not, then if the existing wording is approved by three editors, it will be accepted as status quo. Otherwise we will see what to do next. Do not propose any more compromise wordings at this time. Just say yes or no to version zero, version one, and version two. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

First Compromise Proposal
Containing only 9 pages, Part 4 of 7 focuses on the analysis of a multi-generational poor quality VHS tape seized by US Customs in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1995. The tape was labelled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” but the files do not mention that Jackson himself owned the tape or had anything to do with it. The investigation whether it contained child pornography was concluded on January 24, 1997. No charges were filed.

Yes TruthGuardians (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes castorbailey (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes Israell (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Second Compromise Proposal
Containing only 9 released pages, Part 4 focuses on the analysis of a VHS video cassette tape labeled “Michael Jackson’s Neverland Favorites An All Boy Anthology” that was seized in West Palm Beach, Florida by US Customs in 1995. The files indicate the presence of child pornography, but it's unclear what connection (if any) there was to Jackson himself. The analysis was complete and the file closed by January 24, 1997, and no charges are known to have been filed.

No TruthGuardians (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

No castorbailey (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

No Israell (talk) 05:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors
Instead of going with version zero, I decided to go with the first compromise proposal as the language in it does appear to be more closely sourced than version zero, and unlike the second compromise proposal, there are actually secondary sources that completely back this entire section as it is written. TruthGuardians (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to take out multi-generational poor quality when the files support that. The files do not indicate the presence of child pornography they only indicate that they investigated whether the tape contains child pornography, obviously based on the tape's label. The files do not include anything that connects the tape to Jackson, besides his name being on the label. If charges are not known to have been filed then charged were not filed. No need to leave the reader with the impression that charges were filed but somehow there is no way to know that for sure. No source support that. castorbailey (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Version zero doesn’t violate any Wikipedia rules, and it was well written. However, First Compromise Proposal does read a little more cleanly. For that reason, I have chosen the first compromise proposal. The second compromised proposal doesn’t even have sources to back its content. It says: “the files indicate the presence of child pornography.” That is simply not true. It’s not indicated in part 4 of the FBI files, nor are there any secondary sources to back up those claims. The only reason why the words “child pornography” is written is because that was the nature of the investigation. The FBI was investigating the possibility of child pornography. Instead, what they got was a tape where the quality was so bad that no images could be determined. Israell (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator
There is a rough consensus that we will adopt the first compromise proposal. I will be updating the article to that effect. Unless there are any other issues, this dispute will be closed as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors
Thanks for your time, Robert. Looking forward to the update. There are no other issues from my end. TruthGuardians (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I see no other issues. castorbailey (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for moderating this dispute, being fair and impartial. There are no other issues for me neither. Israell (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bulgars
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A user by the name of Beshogur edited the Wikipedia for the ancient nomadic peoples the Bulgars

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars

Bulgars are seen as the historical ancestors who gave birth to the ethnic Genesis of the Bulgarian people

There is a long debate on their origins if they were Turkic, Iranic, or of other origins and as these debates rage the account know as Beshogur edited the page with malicious nationalist intentions

It used to say “not to be confused with Bulgarians” but now it says “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks”

He intentionally edited this page to put his thumb in the eye of Bulgarian history and to appropriate it as Turkish

Truth is the average ethnic Turkish person is not even 10-20% of Turkic heritage

By adding “not to be confused with Bulgarian turks” it undermines Bulgarian history and heritage in a big way

Just look at this persons account

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beshogur

It doesn’t take much digging to see this person is a Turkish nationalist set on twisting history

I deeply encourage Wikipedia to return it to “not to be confused with Bulgarians” and removed “Bulgarian turks” from the top banner

This is an insurance to Bulgarian history and heritage

I do not blame Wikipedia however this one bad egg deserves his moderator status revoked immediately!!! He is abusing for nationalistic purposes !!!!

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

by removing "not to be mistaken with Bulgarian Turks" from the bulgar wiki page and remove "not to be mistaken with bulgars" from the Bulgarian Turks page :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Turks

Summary of dispute by Ss84325 Beshogur
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

List of largest empires
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In the List of largest empires page, there is clearly a big mistake about the size of the Portuguese empire and Brazil empire. The Brazilian empire is listed has been bigger than the Portuguese empire at their peaks. This is of course not true, the entire of Brazil once belonged to Portugal. The justification in there is "The reason the Empire of Brazil is listed as having a larger area in 1889 than the Portuguese Empire had in 1820, despite Brazil having been a Portuguese colony, is that the Portuguese settlers had effective control over approximately half of Brazil at the time of Brazilian independence in 1822." Despite the source being reliable, this is false, as can be seen in the talk page, and in the archives, plenty of users provided enough evidence to dismiss this figure. A consensus is not reached because the user TompaDompa doesn't want to reach one and he acts like the page is owned by him.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_7 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_largest_empires/Archive_6 See on the various "Portuguese empires" or similar topics.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think the volunteers should take a good look at all the evidence and sources already provided by various users in order to decide if the size of the Portuguese empire of 5.5 million km2 should be removed and finally reach a consensus. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by various (more than 20)
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

List of largest empires discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz
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 find the article politically biased. It presents only left-wing point of view. It does not cover author's response to the situation with "Cham niezbuntowany" book. The information in the lead (about the "myth" word usage) I find to be extreme case of cherrypicking and offensiveness.

replied to my attempts to make the article more neutral with "vandalism" accusations.

Whether we assume that mr Ziemkiewicz used the word "myth" correctly or not, it does not change the fact, that in multiple interviews (for example here or even in more detail here ) he explains exactly how he defines the word "myth". Using this to claim that he denies Holocaust (and this is the message that is currently placed in the lead of an article) is a very strong manipulation at best.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Balance critical information towards mr Ziemkiewicz with his response to the matter and remove offensive information from the lead.

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

Article's talk page pretty much sums it all - several native polish speakers, including me, pointed out that your understanding of the polish word "mit" is plain wrong.

Summary of dispute by Psiĥedelisto
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As far as I can tell, there was no current dispute until engaged in some recent page blanking.

watered down the original wording and opined on 1 July on talk page that it was justified as Holocaust's myth is not necessarily [the] Holocaust is a myth. I deferred to them as they actually speak Polish and I don't. I agree with ' version of the page. also speaks Polish and agrees. So, this is a nothing burger. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 23:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Piotrus
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. RAZ is a controversial figure in Poland. We need to strike the balance while dealing with partisan sources on both sides. I think WP:BLP is very crucial to observe, but the article (and its lead) should also not avoid mentioning that the subject is controversial. Anyway, while more eyes are nice, I'll point out that AFAIK the 'last word' on this comes from my post few weeks ago at Talk:Rafał_A._Ziemkiewicz and nobody has replied to it yet, so... Reviewing the recent's article history, I see that User:AvertSec created their account on July 21, removed some content from the article twice (and was reverted), then jumped straight here without stopping by the discussion page. Something's fishy... --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree that my contribution was removal of content only. I removed information from the lead which I found to be misleading and offensive, but instead I introduced more information about the case in article body. Article size reduced mostly from replacement of two quotes from Otwarta Rzeczpospolita statement with the link to the statement itself. Finally, the reaction to my edit made me conclude that it won't be enough to discuss the thing in article's talk page. Sorry about the mess if you think otherwise. AvertSec (talk) 06:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Rafał A. Ziemkiewicz discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There are other editors involved besides the two listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2nd Volunteer Note - Filing editor has also not discussed on talk page. Other editors have, but not filing editor. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Order of Nine Angles
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 could use a fresh pair of eyes having an outsider perspective on the Nazi-Satanist Order of Nine Angles article. Anonymous and other users keep deleting chunks of article they deem against "NPOV" despite of being supported by numerous Reliable Source articles by BBC and others. I'm not seeing the issue despite of discussion, and I want to assume good faith even though other editors have reverted previous deletions as attempts of sanitation. The last edit again removed half of the infobox for "NPOV"

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like to see someone not engaged in editing the article to give their opinion if there truly is an issue or just clear cut case of WP:SEALION and attempts at sanitation. Thank you.

Summary of dispute by Pavane7
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Order of Nine Angles discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - There is a content dispute. I am willing to try to facilitate discussion.  Participation in discussion is voluntary, and the other editor has been notified.  If they wish to take part in facilitated discussion, we will be able at least to characterize the issues better.  User:Pavane7 - Do you want to try to discuss the content issue?
 * I would be happy to have that discussion. I sympathize, we're dealing with an issue as old as time: Who has the authority to decide the "correct take" when it comes to religion? In these issues, what has been the general approach, Wiki-wise? I'll let User:Pavane7 ‎summarize the dispute herself but she seems to favor the approach of relying on interpreting the texts ourselves but giving more legitimacy to the older texts, while I rely more on RS articles analyzing them and the actions and words of the adherents of O9A, but also give consideration to the texts themselves, but have no particular view which take precedent or are more legitimate than others, as I'm not an adherent.
 * Thanks in advance. I'm quite new to DRN so don't hesitate to correct me.RKT7789 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The dispute is about NPOV and using and giving prominence to unproven allegations and not providing the O9A denial of such allegations.--Pavane7 (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can call them unproven considering O9A nexions has produced material advocating rape which I listed on the talk page and members have been convicted of and charged with such crimes. In fact one of the articles that predates the newest wave of accusations and is already used as reference in the article cover these sexual assaults and pro-rape material. Perhaps we could meet half way and say there's diversity of thought regarding the subject within the group, saying some condone it, others don't? Would that sufficiently cover both sides?RKT7789 (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator
It appears that the editors are willing to have moderated discussion. Please read the ground rules. If you have any questions about the rules, ask, don't guess. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements make the poster feel better, but do not clarify the situation. Reply only to me, not to each other. Do not discuss things back-and-forth. It appears that either the only issue or one of the issues has to do with allegations of rape and human sacrifice, which are serious allegations and which require that Wikipedia address them carefully with attention to due level of coverage and to what reliable sources have written. I will ask each editor to state their initial position concerning coverage of the allegations, in one paragraph. Do not offer a compromise at this point, because that can come later. First we need to know what we are compromising between. Also, if there are any other issues, please state what the other issue is, in one sentence. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not contributors. The key question is what will be in the article, not who contributed to the article.  Do not name or complain about other editors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

First Statement by Editors
O9A members have been tied to murder plots, but this is already covered on the page in length. I don't think the murder/sacrifice aspect needs more covering. I only want that the page covers the sexual assaults aspect, which has been reported by numerous RS sources. Pavane7 was originally unwilling to cover the subject, but did eventually add a section about the subject, even if just to say the claims were false. It's a bit better as it currently is, mentioning the crimes, the pro-rape literature by the group and briefly mentioning how police are concerned by the desire of some of the members to target children. Edit: User:HandThatFeeds makes a good point: "We do not have to provide a rebuttal from the subject to maintain NPOV. As it stands, your new section is overly accepting of O9A's statements while deriding the accusations as those of a "political advocacy group." This is really starting to smell of whitewashing." I'm inclined to agree. RKT7789 (talk) 06:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator
One of the editors has made a statement. The other editor has not made a statement. If the other editor does not make a statement, this case will be closed within 24 hours. Since discussion is voluntary, discussion can resume on the article talk page. If there isn't any discussion then, read this essay, and consider using a Request for Comments to establish what reliable sources have said. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Roman numerals
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'd like to add a new section to the article, describing the convention by which Roman Numerals are constructed in a coherent, logical manner. My content is reliably sourced, and through various revisions has become quality work. However, even after refinement, other editors still refuse to assent to the section going up. Their complaints seem to boil down to one of the following:

1. that the ruleset doesn't describe the system in a meaningful, consistent way (which it does) 2. that it's not based directly on the relevant RS (which it is) 3. that it's somehow redundant and doesn't cover a second approach lacking in the article (also incorrect) 4. that readers will be flummoxed and confused by my content (in spite of my streamlining and clarifying)

The first 3 points are invalid. the only one that's debatable is the fourth, and even that seems to underestimate the intelligence of the average reader. there's nothing wrong with having a basic description and more thorough treatment side-by-side, I don't think this is confusing at all, and I can always mention in the lede how Roman Numerals can be described by two different approaches.

The article as it stands gives a basic overview, but it doesn't describe in detail how the convention works. My section fills in this gap, and it's derived from the RS. In fact, some of my RS also have a 'twin approach' of a basic description next to logical rules, so there's no reason the article shouldn't do the same.

my section can be seen here: Talk:Roman_numerals/Rules

As an aside, I'd be willing to compromise if necessary, as long as the core content is retained. For example, I could leave out the extended section on fractions/vinculums if needed.

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

Talk:Roman_numerals Talk:Roman_numerals Talk:Roman_numerals

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

My section has been blockaded by other editors, notably Soundofmusicals, who simply disagree with my approach, with not much of a valid reason other than IDONTLIKEIT. Thus, I'd like more judgment and input on this matter, so that I can add my content to the article without being stonewalled. Thanks in advance.

Summary of dispute by Soundofmusicals
"Dispute" has continued (off and on) for a period of years. It is between one user and several other users (almost everyone who has recently edited Roman numerals). The "additional" matter that has been "blockaded" is not additional - but repeats the general description of "how Roman numerals work". Only one user (the proposer) considers that this repetition is superior to the existing text. Many cogent arguments against the proposed repetition have been presented by several users but no "new" arguments have been offered in return - (arguments in favour are still the same ones that were brought up originally - attempts to progress towards a compromise have been steadfastedly stonewalled by the proposer. -- Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Spitzak
The proposal has more "rules" than there are different digits used in Roman numerals. It is not any kind of useful explanation, in fact figuring out what patterns are allowed by his rules and why is a difficult logic problem. Current explanation of the numbers is also bloated but much much better.

Summary of dispute by Martin_of_Sheffield
The history of this dispute is documented at great length on the talk pages, where a majority consensus was reached. My part in this is best summed up by the following:"Rulsets are a very 21C idea and we are attempting to force a 2 or 3 thousand-year old system into a modern mathematicians view of the universe. Would it not be much simpler to simply do the following and forget rules altogether? There are after all only a few possible components, not an indefinite number that readers need to construct." which was followed by a table. Subsequently all other participants except Xcalibur/Bigdan201 took this as the basis for development. A further quote:"In any case this discussion really has moved to what version of the table we are going to use, and how it should be incorporated into the "description" section."

- Soundofmusicals

The discussion ceased on 4 June and the article has been stable since then. I'm not sure why Xcalibur/Bigdan201 has resurrected this nearly two months later. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Roman numerals discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - If the editors want to resolve this content issue by moderated discussion, moderated discussion here is available. However, moderated discussion here is voluntary, and it appears that the other editors think that discussion has gone on long enough.  A Request for Comments on whether to add the table is an option and might be more likely to work.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Observation - If the filing editor thinks that other editors have "blockaded" what they are trying to do, that implies that, for some reason, discussion is not working. In that case, a Request for Comments may be less unlikely to break the "blockade" than moderated discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd like to respond to points made above. Soundofmusicals: my content is not a 'repetition', and it's not a replacement for the existing text, but an expansion, covering a different approach taken from RS. I'm willing to compromise, just not so much that my proposed addition is negated. also, this first came up in late 2018, and again recently, because I ended up taking a wikibreak. Spitzak: my proposal (not including extra content) is 7 rules, and my sources have 5-7 rules each. I also don't think it's difficult at all in its current form. Martin of Sheffield: I have no problem with the table, but it's no replacement for the rules. As I said, this is not my own innovation, but a paraphrasing from the sources, to fill a gap in coverage. as for timing, I wanted to make sure progress was stalled before coming here, although I could've filed last month I suppose.
 * I came here as my first stop, to figure out what to do. I agree that discussion seems tied up, and RfC may be the proper course. it comes down to this: I want to improve the article, and other editors won't let me do it, because they either philosophically disagree with it or dislike it. Xcalibur (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a clear case of a very reasonable compromise having been reached by several users with a single dissenting voice. All you have done here is repeat stuff from the talkpage discussions about unidentified "gaps in coverage" and "reliable sources" that you have, for years now, invoked without ever actually citing. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * But I have cited my RS, and the omissions in the article that they fill. They're right there in my section, which I linked in the overview, namely: Allen Shaw's Note on Roman Numerals, NMSU, Math Forum, Paul Lewis' Roman Numerals: How They Work, and Lee K Seitz' LURNC. These should be more than adequate, especially with a scholarly journal. peruse the content, and you'll see basic descriptions (such as we have in the article), alongside logical rules for orthography (which are missing, and I'm trying to add). I don't want to replace any content, only expand the article to cover RS content which is lacking. I also note that Roman Numerals is considered a level 4 vital article in Mathematics, but is only C-class -- perhaps my contributions can make a difference in this. Xcalibur (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon
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

Atzmon, a WP:BLP, has been included in a category, Category:Anti-Judaism for several years. No justification (edit summary) was advanced for his addition to the category. The arguments against his inclusion are as follows. The category definition is "total or partial opposition to Judaism as a religion—and the total or partial opposition to Jews as adherents of it—by persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices inferior.” Atzmon, brought up as a secular Jew, has no known religious beliefs. His criticisms do not come from the standpoint of someone following an alternative religion, as the category demands. He has acquired a reputation for criticising Jewish nationalism and Jewish political modes of thinking including, but not only, Zionism, but has repeatedly said that he is not criticising Judaism, the religion. Another editor has quoted Hirsh as describing Atzmon of using anti-Jewish rhetoric. Whether or not that is the case, his brief examples are secular, not religious. The editor has also quoted Sunshine who describes Atzmon as denouncing Judaism, alleging Atzmon’s criticism of Jewish ideology, though Sunshine’s reliance on a brief extract from an anonymous open letter makes interpretation difficult. However, it is consistent with Atzmon’s criticism of Jewish nationalism and socio-economic-political behaviour and attitudes and does not entail an attack on the religion per se and certainly not from a religious standpoint.

The burden of proof is on those seeking the article's inclusion and I think it fails the test. ‘Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial.’ WP:CATVER I think that this categorisation is controversial and that the material in the article does not support it and advocate the article's removal from it.

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

Talk:Gilad_Atzmon

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing a clear independent interpretation of whether or not Atzmon meets the criteria for inclusion in Category:Anti-Judaism, bearing in mind the requirements for verifiability and avoidance of controversy WP:CATVER, with a rationale, and a route by which the article may be removed from the category if it does not meet the criteria.

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

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

War of 1812
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is an ongoing discussion about the results of the war of 1812, and how those results are shown in the results field, in the infobox. The article notes there is a dispute among historians as to who won the war of 1812, with some historians(Majority) saying it was a stalemate/draw, but others(a significant minority) say that Britain/Canada won. The viewpoint on who won differs between the two countries, with Canadians generally believing they won and the United States popularly say it was a stalemate/draw. I have proposed that for NPOV reasons, the result section in the infobox should reflect both views. The point was previously agreed to and consensus was that both viewpoints should be reflected in the infobox, as that would reflect what the article says - that discussion is here: []. This was changed later by a sole editor without consensus or discussion.

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

[] []

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Both myself and Davide King have debated this and while we agree on somethings, we cannot agree on others, and have both agreed that a third party should look at the issue.

Summary of dispute by Elinruby
I am "involved" to the extent that I have been doing a third-party edit on the article, which has suffered from copyvios from old texts with archaic language and complete dismissal of any but cherry-picked texts. In my opinion the entire infobox should probably be deleted rather than have editors spend another decade shoe-horning in complex information. But. If the article must have an infobox, and apparently it must, all of the issues with balance and weight need to be resolved. Adding the defeat of Tecumseh helps. Adding that Washington and York were put to the torch also helps. I would like to see a reference for status quo ante bellum and a clarification that this applied specifically to the border between the United States and Upper and Lower Canada, since many tribes were displaced in the aftermath of this war. Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Davide King
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not going to waste my time repeating obvious things. Just read this summary (fixed typo here).--Davide King (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way,, , , , , and perhaps others should have been added too as they were all involved in some way. Why are they not included or mentioned at all?--Davide King (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * (1) I looked at who was posting on the specific thread, it was mainly you and I, and it was you and I who both agreed third party comment would be good (2) I have posted a note on the talk page for anyone interested to be involved, with a link to this notice so they can certainly join in if they wan (3) Some of them have expressed the view they *Do not* want to discuss it, though I agree, I think  may so I will put something on his talk page and I have added him above - Cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, the infobox does not say it was a draw; it says it was military stalemate which is not disputed even by those who say one side won. What is disputed (by a minority) is that it was a draw; it is not disputed that de facto it was a military stalemate. Military stalemate is also not mutually exclusive that one side, despite the de facto military stalemate per the Treat of Ghent, may have won according to some historians or popular views. What is mutually exclusive is draw and one side won, but we do not say either. We just say it was a military stalemate per the Treaty of Ghent. So I find this discussion unnecessary as per we already had a long discussion that did not got us anywhere and that [took] up the equivalent of 12 printed pages or requires someone reading it on a desktop to hit "Page Down" about 15 times [...]. Besides it's really a variant of a position [Deathlibrarian has] been unsuccessfully litigating for a dozen years since 2008. At least as far as the outcome is concerned, the infobox is perfectly fine.--Davide King (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ykraps
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Like it or not, 'stalemate' is not a neutral term, it is a point of view, and not one that all historians subscribe to. Historians may not agree on the result of the war but all of them agree that it is disputed. Some editors have made this an argument about who won or fringe theories which, to me, shows a lack of understanding as to what the proposal is. If the infobox redirects to the section where the result is discussed, each point of view can be represented and given appropriate weight. This is in line with the infobox parameter guidelines here.[] As things stand, if you are the sort of reader that looks solely at the infobox, you will be left with the impression that stalemate is the universally accepted view, and that is quite wrong.--Ykraps (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces
The dispute is about whether the info-box should say the outcome of the war was a draw or something else. One side says that we should report it as a draw, because that is how it is reported in textbooks and other tertiary sources. the other side says that because a small number of historians and popular opinion in the Province of Ontario have challenged the generally accepted view, claiming it was either a British, American or Canadian victory, we should report that the outcome is disputed. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Red Rock Canyon
The issue is over the infobox, specifically the "Result" section. Previously, the text there had enjoyed consensus for at least 3 years. Then last month some editors proposed a change. There was a short discussion and the change was implemented. Then some other editors objected and changed it back, and opened an RFC (now at Talk:War of 1812/Archive 23). The RFC was poorly worded, leading to confusion among respondents (different editors making identical comments about what they believed the text should be framed their answers as both "yes" and "no"), but it was well-attended, with 12 editors commenting. Even while the RFC was ongoing, multiple editors opened many separate threads on the talk page about the same topic. The talk page quickly became obscenely long. Shakescene archived most of the talk page, including the still-active RFC. The massive walls of text and proliferation of this debate into a half dozen different discussions is bewildering and exhausting. There are too many editors involved for this to be resolved on DRN. I believe the ideal solution is to shut down all the parallel discussions, including this one, and compose a clearly-worded RFC that gives editors two options (the long-standing consensus version and Deathlibrarian's proposed change). Then widely advertise it, including to participants in the previous RFC. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ironic Luck
There was no reason to change that particular set of words from the infobox as the War of 1812 is factually established as a military stalemate which resulted in status quo ante bellum. This led to differing views (in Memory and historiography) of “who really won” the war. A significant portion of the sources stated that the war ended in as a draw or that both sides won. Some claim British/Canadian or American victory.

The reasoning that was proposed by DeathLibrarian reveals a double-standard in the Canadian/British perspective. The same defensive argument proclaiming that British territories (Upper/Lower Canada) won the War of 1812 could be flipped with the American state of Louisiana. Louisiana was not considered American territory by the British (as it was sold to the United States by Napoleonic France in the Louisiana Purchase) and probably would have been returned to allied-Spain if their invasion was successful.

I questioned how the British (and especially Canada) could claim victory when the Democratic-Republicans side of the United States celebrated their victory as they (strictly them) hadn’t lost anything in the war. There was even a Federal holiday to celebrate their victory (The Eighth) and lasted until the American Civil War broke out. The Americans in the modern era (generally) don’t care about the war. Canadian perspective is skewed with the Harper administration placing a large budget into commercial ads promoting nationalism with the “Canadian victory” narrative - when Canada wasn’t even a nation until 1867. Why "British/Canadian Victory-Stalemate" when the Americans felt they won at the time?

I conclude (as of now) that the number of historians that DeathLibrarian brings up as a Canadian/British Victory is an overblown proportion. Some of the sources he brought up stated that both sides claimed victory – perhaps a military stalemate linking to the memory and historiography section is a good idea? Ironic Luck (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
I have read the article that states that Canada won the war. That statement is meant somewhat humorously, and is not meant to imply a British victory. That statement means that the inconclusive war between the United States and Great Britain, in which there was a failed American invasion of Canada, which was British (being the part of British North America that had not become independent in the 1775-1783 war), advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation. The statement was never meant to imply a British victory. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

War of 1812 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Panko Brashnarov
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 began when I was doing my regular gnome tasks on Wikipedia and I added'Bulgarian' in front of the word 'revolutionary' based on other information on the page such as that he went to a Bulgarian school and served in the Bulgarian army in WW1 which led to this edit being undone and being told to discuss my change.

I complied with this request fully and began to discuss this edit with the user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Local_hero who was the person that undone my edit. The back story to this is that Local_hero is Macedonian which is a new nationality that has developed in the past 100 years and they have disputes with other ethnicities about the ethnicity of famous figures. I have tried to fully discuss the reasoning behind my edit with Local Hero however he has essentially tried to shut down the discussion by not beign part of it since it is not in his interest to do so as there is no evidence to disprove the factual accuracy of my edit at least in my opinion.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like someone to take a look at the evidence in the article and any extra evidence in the discussion and decide whether adding Bulgarian in front of revolutionary is factually accurate or not.

I don't mind if the decision is a no, I just want someone to willingly engage in the discussion so we can come to a conclusion with real reasoning.

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

What a thoughtful summation of an entire ethnic group in your Dispute overview and your unbiased belief as to how this applies to my own editing. Shall I opine on my perception of your editing bias, seeing as your edits rarely go beyond throwing "Bulgarian" in historical bios or "North" in front of any mention of Macedonia (where it refers to the modern country)? Please don't disparage my editing as going around disputing the ethnicities of historical figures because I rarely do.

On topic, I think the situation is pretty clear. The editor attempting to make the change finds the ethnic identity of the individual to be clear-cut. Upon reading the article, I disagree and find the present state to be sufficient (i.e. second sentence of the article). Brashnarov was in the Yugoslav Communist Party and fought against the Axis in WWII. He was also the first speaker of the Anti-fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia, celebrated by Macedonians to this day because it declared Macedonia the nation-state of ethnic Macedonians in Yugoslavia and declared the Macedonian language the official language of the state. In addition, nationality is typically put in the lead sentence of biographical articles, not ethnicity. Going by that, Ottoman and Yugoslav would be better suited. -- Local hero talk 21:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Dispute has been resolved, you can close this ticket thanks a bunch. --James Richards (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes ‎
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 adds the name of Polad Hashimov into the infobox as a commander/leader, however there is no any source claiming that he was a leader or commander during the clashes. Azerbaijani sources indicate that he died during the clashes, but do not indicate that he was a leader during clashes, Russian source (provided in article) says that he was from the 3rd Army Corps, but does not says that 3rd Army Corps participated in clashes and Hashimov was a leader at the time of clashes. And even if 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes it does not mean that its Chief was a leader during the clashes (e.g. there is possibility that he was killed before he gave an order to his army to do certain actions during the clashes). The only source claiming that 3rd Army Corps participated in the clashes are Armenian that are not neutral and reliable and even these sources don't claim that Hashimov was a leader during the clashes. In my opinion here we have deal with typical POV-pushing of the product of original research.

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

Talk:2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Yes.

2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * For the record, Azerbaijani editor User:Interfase started blanking and errasing my edit at Infobox on the 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani skirmishes the first one was reverted with the (He was not a commander) Edit Summary here. However in the source provided (Azeri source) says that Gen Polad was the Chieff of Staff of the N Unit, killed in the clashes. While trying to revert it again it was errased with this edit Summary. The section of commanders and leaders means literally that. Commanders and leaders. User:Interfase requested a source saying that Gen Polad was a Commander or Leader or the Azerbaijani 3rd Corps. The issue was taken to talk page and another used brought a Russian (Thrid party Source) corroborating that Gen Polad was a part of the 3rd Corps here. I used the source to replace and back my edit, and User:Interface reverted back my edit and demanded another source indicating that there were no proof the 3rd Corps was taking place at the clashes here. At talk, I placed a Official Armenian Source stating that that the 3rd Corps was present at the clashes and that was run out of ammo. However User:Interfase demanded a Azerbaijani Source once again. In a clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Even he knows he dont have reasons to revert edits like that, demanding different things to justify its reverts. He placed a {cn} citation and a Original Research tag. He have a Heavy POV push of a personal way, I think national preferences should be placed in other place before editing. The article have a slight Pro-Azerbaijani POV, Azeri claims are used as primary sources, for example the claim that Serbia and Georgia were cobeligrents of Armenia and things like that. Dispute resolution noticeboard. Also Azerbaijan claims of Armenian soldiers killed are considered as factual and Armenian assesements of Azeri losses as "claims".Once Twice Thats wrong no neutrality at the article. Another POV push (See edit summary by other editor) Neutral editors should check all the content, or at least send aside their preferences.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The first thing that we need to know is that "Chieff of Staff of the N Unit or Chief of 3rd Corps" and "Commander or leader during the clashes" are different things. Even if the unit participated at the clashes at some period of time we cannot claim that its chief was a leader or commander during the clashes until he was killed. This is that we call original research. Maybe the commander of 3rd Corps during the clashes (even if they really participated at the clashes that is hardly to believe because the 3rd Corps are based in another district) was another officer. Maybe the 3rd Corps participated at the clashes after Hashimov's death. We do not know. We still do not have any source exactly claiming that Polad Hashimov took part in the clashes as a commander or leader. But you trying to keep your version in the article by all means originally collected the different information from the different sources. That is POV-pushing actually. Interfase (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - Keep discussion to a minimum until a moderator volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - Editors are advised that Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions are applicable, to deal with battleground editing in areas that are real battlegrounds. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Names and titles of God in the New Testament
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

A table with Bible verses was erased, and I have tried to show that it is good to include it. I cannot agree with the other editor.

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

Talk:Names_and_titles_of_God_in_the_New_Testament

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Perhaps our point of view is not complete, so a third opinion is appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Bealtainemí
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. "A table with Bible verses was erased", says JLACO, without saying in what way, if any, he thinks the table benefitted the article Names and titles of God in the New Testament to which he added it. Nobody questions the fact that the Hebrew tetragrammaton יהוה, the name Yahweh, appears nowhere in the (Greek-language) New Testament, and that, in its quotations of Old Testament passages that contain that name, the New Testament speaks of God as Κύριος or θεός. JLACO has compiled a very long table comprising certain Old Testament phrases that in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (in its present form later than the New Testament) contain the word יהוה, and links them with New Testament phrases that some see as echoing (even if not translating) the Old Testament phrases. The table does not claim to contain all such echoes and some of the supposed echoes have been challenged. JLACO has not responded to requests to explain what, in the context of the Wikipedia article, he thinks his disproportionately long table adds to the unquestioned straightforward statement that the New Testament uses, in its echoes of the Old Testament, Κύριος or Θεός where the Masoretic text uses יהוה. Flogging a dead horse? Bealtainemí (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Names and titles of God in the New Testament discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.