Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 195

Talk:Persecution of_Christians#Nazi_section
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 section is largely unsourced and does not accurately reflect what sources say fully. It gives undue weight by mentioning part of what sources say and omitting the rest. I want to add sources, and I want those sources represented with a more complete content. However, this entire discussion may be off-topic for this page. I get consistent opposition to anything I propose, without referencing sources, without offers of compromise or responses to my offer of compromise, and no efforts at collaboration. I am very frustrated and didn't know what else to do but ask for help. Help!

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

This is my first effort after the effort on the Talk page:

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am hoping for some direction to the others to make the effort to collaborate--or an opinion on whether this is off topic--or an opinion on what should be included--or anything that might break up the log jam. I'm getting nothing right now so anything you offer will be an improvement.

Summary of dispute by Objective3000
The article is about the persecution of Christians and the section in question, under the Nazis. Millions of people were persecuted by the Nazis for their religion and their religion alone. Moving the focus to anti-Nazi religious leaders, and even specific individual(s), dilutes the article focus as these people would likely have been persecuted irrespective of their religion. Anti-Nazis were killed as a regular practice. Frankly, I think the section is too long now. For example, it includes: Between 1939 and 1945, an estimated 3,000 members, 18% of the Polish clergy, were murdered for their suspected ties to the Polish Resistance or left-wing groups, or for sheltering Jews (punishable by death). Well, I think about 16% of all Poles were killed. We are talking about 3,000 killed out of a total 5,770,000 Poles killed. And most of them didn’t shelter Jews, or have ties to the resistance. Let’s stick to the subject, systemic persecution of Christians. O3000 (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Slatersteven
As I see it the issue is that the sources do not support the text, that require a degree of wp:or to make them fit.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Persecution of_Christians#Nazi_section discussion
Good day, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to volunteer for this case. To begin with- Each person involved needs to be notified on their talk page by the filing editor. Once that happens, we can begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Is there a template I am supposed to use for that, or do I just go to their talk age and tell them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So I tried to answer my own question in an effort to be less of a nuisance, and couldn't find that such a template exists, so I just went and told them on their talk pages and gave them this link. I hope that's okay, I am still a relative newcomer and this is the first time I've attempted this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The template is DRN-notice, or you can use Twinkle, but a manual message is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the template would have worked better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * May I have permission to go over 200 words if needed so I can include references and quotes? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No. This is exactly what I am tryng to avoid. All I need right now is a summary of what the problem is and what you want to see happen. We will get into the why and how later.Nightenbelle (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry. I will do a summary. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

First Moderator's Statement
Okay the first thing I would like is for each person involved to confirm they are willing to participate, and the second thing is - in 200 words or less, summarize your position and what you would like to see happen at the outcome of this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777's statement
I would like to see inline citations for what's already there. I would like to see both the German Christians who supported Nazism and the Confessing church who opposed it mentioned. I would like to see a source for Slatersteven's definition of religious persecution, which differs from that used in the rest of the article, and I think is OR. Or remove all of this as off topic. Either way, I would like to see Dietrich Bonhoeffer included in this section. In The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer p.22 it refers to Bonhoeffer's death as the death of a religious martyr, so that is a source that warrants at least some discussion of the claim's validity including any alternate views.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven's Statement
Yes I am willing to participate, and really have nothing to add, the sources (as far as I can tell) do not say what the filer is using them to support, they do not explicitly say it. Basically it fails verification.Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So what do you want to see happen as a result of this DRN? Nightenbelle (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not we can include material about people or things that RS do not explicitly say were targets because they were Christian.Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Moderator's Second Statement
Okay so as I understand it- these are the issues at hand

1- Adding inline citations for existing information 2- Inclusion or Exclusion of German Christians who supported Nazism 3- The definition of religious persecution 4- Inclusion or exclusion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer 5- What the sources say/support

Lets begin with the definition of religious persecution since that will somewhat dictate how the other issues are handled. Would each of you please tell me- with a citation/RS what definition you are using to decide who was a victim of religious persecution and who was not? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven's Statement
[] "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs", pretty much sums it up for me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Also this [], yes it talks about violence but again "religious persecution" is persecution because of someones religion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000's statement
I'm fine with that at Religious_persecution: "Religious persecution is defined as violence or discrimination against religious minorities, actions which are intended to deprive minorities of political rights and force them to assimilate, leave, or live as second-class citizens." Or, Slatersteven's for that matter. O3000 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777's statement
Ah, you have immediately gone to the heart of the matter. That is the primary cause of the disagreement here, because there is no such thing as an accepted or standardized definition of religious persecution in any reliable source. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the immigration regulations, omit any explanation of the meaning of religious persecution. The federal courts have recognized it as “ill-defined." Legal scholars have not attempted a definition because, "by and large, scholars do not believe that a unified definition is possible."    Therefore, it has seemed to me that the most reasonable thing to do is to use what's consistent with the 'working definition' assumed in the rest of this particular and specific article. This definition is "those who were persecuted, who would not have been, had they not been Christian." That's it with no other requirements.

As to the subject of this article being the, I would like to know where it either says or implies that because I apparently missed it. "Systemic" is not generally seen as a requisite to qualify as religious persecution, not in any RS, nor are the other sections of this article limited to that. There are no numerical requirements. I don't see how we can justify creating this separate definition for this one section of the article.

Slatersteven says he wants to know  This is a red herring, or perhaps it's a straw man, I get those two confused, but either way, it's a distraction, a 'sleight of hand.'  I say that because, after Eusebius, there are no sources that 'explicitly' say Christians anywhere were persecuted purely and solely for their faith, not in any era, but this article does not see that as disproving that they were persecuted. That's actually quite reasonable of those who have contributed to this article, because in the sources, what is found is not a definition so much as a description of religious persecution.

This "description" is this: if someone is practicing their faith — preaching, or converting, or wearing a hijab, or proselytizing, or leading a home church, or opposing a tyrant, or whatever else their religion leads them to do that gets them noticed by the powers that be — and if they are squashed or harassed or harmed or killed for those activities, then they are victims of religious persecution according to contemporary understanding. According to legal scholar Scott Rempel, religious persecution is determined primarily by what harm is done to the victim under circumstances where religion is a recognizable causal factor. That includes those who were persecuted for actions they took because of their faith--like resisting participation in Roman sacrifice--or resisting Hitler. That's the standard assumed in this article.

In fact, that's the threshold used by the International Institute for Religious Freedom, and other human rights organizations, and even the US state department's OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Consistency in the meta-message requires using the same standard in this section concerning the Nazis as well.

That allows for including the Confessing church even if there is no source that says what Slatersteven wants. (I have no problem including the German Christians, that just needs citing. The disagreement is over adding their opponents, the Confessing church. I think both sides should be mentioned--or neither should--as they existed in equal numbers.)

Hitler did not kill millions, he killed anyone who had even the smallest amount of Jewish ethnicity. No source says otherwise. That's how anti-semitism is defined, as racial hatred; it is not primarily religious. He killed Jews who weren't practicing Jews. He killed Jews who were practicing Christians--the Aryan paragraph was aimed specifically at them. He didn't stop killing those Jews because they had given up their religion. He kept killing them, because they were ethnically Jewish whatever their religion was.

Hitler's well documented hatred of Christianity, on the other hand, cannot be defined as racial, since the Protestants were Germans. It was specifically a religious hatred, which all the sources also say, and certainly hatred of opposition, absolutely. This, and the definition/description of religious persecution used in this article allows for including Bonhoeffer as an example of the topic of this page. All the RS do say his religion was the cause of his opposition to Hitler, and that opposition got him killed. That isn't OR, it's in every source that speaks of him. In The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer p.22 it refers to Bonhoeffer's death as the death of a religious martyr, so that is a source that warrants at least some discussion of the claim's validity.

I don't think it's appropriate for us to redefine the topic according to our own opinions in order to say what we want to say in this section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Moderators third Statement
Jenhawk777 You say that there is no such thing as an accepted definition- yet both other editors provided WP:RS that say otherwise. And while your description is well thought out and reasonable- it is original research and synthesis based on your own opinion. Now, for the record- it happens to be an opinion I share, but its not supported by a RS that you have presented or I could find in a search. As such, WP must accept the sourced definiton. Now- I would like to give you another chance to find a source that specifically supports your definition and present it here. But baring that- I fail to see how we can reject a consensus around "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs" or "Religious persecution is defined as violence or discrimination against religious minorities, actions which are intended to deprive minorities of political rights and force them to assimilate, leave, or live as second-class citizens." (which are close enough to the same thing). As to the inclusion of the rest- thats something to be debated after we have a definition- so that will come soon, but not yet. Now, again, I want to be clear- I'm not here to make a decision- I'm just mediating- but we do have a consensus here. I realize its not what you would like Jenhawk777- so I ask- do you have a source that states your definition explicitly? If not.... the consensus will have to rule over WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add- I did read the article you referenced- I did not see anywhere it defined religious persecution in the terms you did- instead, it seems to agree with and use as a definition the same terms that were used by the other editors. If I am wrong- please include the direct quote I missed and accept my sincere apology. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk's response
Since the sources say there is no standardized international legal definition, simply picking one out of the many definitions available seems a bit arbitrary, which I admit to doing myself. But that's the problem isn't it? Picking one, without including a discussion of them all is arbitrary.

Slatersteven's first reference is a blog which defines persecution as systematic. I actually accept this as far as it goes, but in what way does 'systematic' limit this definition?

In Rempel's article  he says "persecution should be defined as the illegitimate infliction of sufficiently severe harm," and he spends a lot of time defining harm. On page 288 he says that, based on a survey of "thousands of court cases", there are three frameworks for measuring whether harm is persecution: first, the minimal harm model which depends on the persecutor's motive and the State's willingness and ability to protect the victim. The second framework is called the cumulative harm model, and it aggregates experiences over time. The third model uses the concept of systematic harm. This means the blog's definition is basically one third of a definition from the real world and that it leaves out the other two models that are consistently accepted as persecution in courts of law. On what basis do we accept that blog's definition and not the others from case law?

Slatersteven's next reference is a book on politics, however, the book references Grim and Finke's definition of "violent religious persecution" on page 26 as: "physical abuse or displacement of people because of religion." I accept this definition for the most part as well, though it is limited to defining only the violent type of persecution, and if you check footnote 77 on page 126 of a book on using the human rights paradigm to define persecution, it says "The harm or suffering need not be physical..." So, again, on what basis do we accept the one and not the other? They are both sourced.

Here is a training manual for the immigration services that says, where persons experience the denial of the basic human right to religious freedom listed in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this is religious persecution. That's also the way the US Department of State's Office of Religious Freedom uses the term persecution.

On page 28 of the RAIO manual, you will find that the "International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) states that "severe and violent forms of religious persecution, include 'detention, torture, beatings, forced marriage, rape, imprisonment, enslavement, mass resettlement, and death' merely for the peaceful belief in, change of, or practice of their faith.” I summarized that as those who suffer, who would not have suffered, if not for their faith, but that seems like an explicit statement of the same idea to me.

I wanted to add that the alternate definition suffers from the same issues. On page 344, Rempell concludes "the definition of persecution should not include unhelpful or incorrect qualifiers such as..., the requirement that a persecutor inflict a harm for punitive reasons." Religious persecution does not require that one be part of a religious minority. Christians are often persecuted in predominantly Christian countries just as Muslims are most persecuted in Muslim countries. There are no numerical requirements. It is not a requirement that the State be the primary actor.

"When determining whether particular harm or abuses constitute persecution, you must consider their impact on the individual applicant." page 28

The truth is, none of these definitions are substantively different except that I acknowledge the wider and broader usage found in the RAIO. The list and description of the many aspects of religious persecution continues for the next several pages of the RAIO manual, but essentially, it says: religious persecution is suffering harm from a loss of religious freedom, and/or from "arbitrary prohibitions on, restrictions of, or punishment for various religious activities" (page 28), which is the aspect of the definition, explicitly, which says what I said in my summary form.

It seems to me that the broader definition is required by a recognition of what all of these sources say, and that is to some degree, synthesis. But choosing one aspect out of the many is arbitrary and OR. So what can be done?

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to respond. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

slatersteven's Response
As we are not an international (or even national) court of law we do not only use the "legal definition" or words or terms but also their scholastic or common usage. Thus international legal definition is a bit of a red herring. Nor does any of the IRFA training manual (As far as I can see) contradict what I have said, it tells you what you should do, it does not define religious persecution.

But it does say

"For the purposes of the present Declaration, the expression “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” means any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis." (my Empahsis)

That seems to be fairly close to my definition.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000's Response
Agree that we should not use legal definitions. The important part of any definition is that any negative effect must be specifically based on religious (or non-religious) characteristics of the persecuted. In this article, we need only focus on whether persecutor(s), in this case Nazis, did so because of religion. That aside, I would suggest that Jenhawk’s arguments would be more effective if they were more concise. O3000 (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mediator's 4th statement
Okay progress at last! We can all agree that the legal definition is not the most appropriate. Thats something!!

So what we seem to have in common is- Intolerance, discrimination and/or harm based on religions or non-religious characteristics of the persecuted. Does that definition suit everyone?

And Jenhawk777, I do appreciate your carefully crafted response, but I do think O3000 has a point and your purpose would be better served with a more informal, concise tone. This isn't intended to be an series of academic essays, rather a discussion between colleagues and peers. Rather than compose your response as a research paper- try to condense your points into two or three sentences, maybe a paragraph and add inline citations as necessary.

So- Does the definition above suit everyone? It still leaves some room for interpretation, but at least it is a good jumping off place and- it would give everyone one set place to begin. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000's Response
Clarification: In this particular case, persecution of Christians, non-religious does not apply. Other than that, I'm fine with the description. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this article is specifically about religious persecution of a specific group, motive is a requirement. If the Nazi's shoot you for attempting to assassinate Hitler, and you happen to be left-handed, that's not persecution of sinistral people. Jenhawk777 added to the article TP that 18% of the Polish clergy were killed by the Nazi's. But, I think about 16% of all Poles were killed. It is not persecution of the clergy if they were just caught up in the mass slaughter of 5.7 million Poles. It's persecution of Poles. O3000 (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777's response
I agree with Nightenbelle's definition and with Slatersteven's statement and definition. I disagree with Objective3000's because it adds the requirement of proving motive, which generally can't be done, which is where all of this started. Sorry that I am wordy. It's just who I am. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What we have just agreed to as our working definition is without defining exactly how that is determined. As Nightenbelle says, that . There is no need to add proof of the motive of the persecutor to this. That addition would exclude about two-thirds of what is genuine religious persecution, and I could not support that. Religious persecution can be, and most often is, determined from the level and type of effect on the victim.


 * If the Nazi's shoot you for attempting to assassinate Hitler, and it turns out it was a trumped up charge, and you were tried in a kangaroo court with no evidence or witnesses, and you were hung immediately before any possibility of appeal or attempt to prove your innocence, but you did have a long history of Christian teaching and theology that opposed everything the Nazis stood for, and it was well documented that they hated Christians like you specifically, then it might be worth considering that you were being killed for practicing your faith and doing your job as a preacher instead of what they claimed as justification for your murder.
 * To my recollection, I did not add anything about the Polish clergy except a Talk page reference. I agree the Poles were persecuted. That's an important statement for this discussion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Mediators 5th statement
Please refrain from back and forth editing.

So motivation is still an area of contention. Rather than hypotheticals- can we please find resources that discuss motivation as a requirement? On both sides? Hypotheticals require us to put our opinion into an article- which we are not to do as editors. We have to only report what RS say.

Objective3000's Response
Well, either the article includes only those that were persecuted because they were Christian, or everyone that was persecuted for any reason who happened to be Christian. The former assumes a motive related to their religion. The latter is, frankly, ridiculous as it would include people that were persecuted because they were black, homosexual, Soviets, political prisoners, Roma, and disabled who happened to be Christian. They were not persecuted because they were Christian. We have other articles about various groups the Nazis persecuted. O3000 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk's response
I am so sorry, I did not know that was wrong. Please accept my genuine apology.
 * Religious persecution requires religion as a cause, we all agree on that. But all the sources I have so far referenced indicate that can be determined in multiple ways; it doesn't require an explicit statement on the part of the persecutor to prove religion is a causal issue.  It does require that there be some overt action that leads the victim — and/or other observers and/or the court — to conclude religion was a factor: and someone in a reliable source needs to say so.
 * I am thinking that, perhaps, the issue here is, does religion have to be the only cause, the primary cause, or just a cause of persecution to qualify as religious persecution and inclusion in this article? And second, what will we determine as acceptable from the sources as demonstrating this: the victim's own words, other commenters/observers contemporary with the victim, or will only the persecutor's direct confession do? All the sources I have checked indicate that religious persecution is often just one of many motivating factors for the persecutor — they are also driven by ethnicity and economics and political views and so on — so that will impact how we answer these. This matters for the entire article, not just this section.
 * Again, sorry, and thank you for putting yourself through this. It will make WP better in the end in spite of us. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Human Rights and the Refugee Definition Comparative Legal Practice and Theory, on page 163, says "Since the nexus between persecution and [religion] must be established by a neutral and objective assessment of the act of a persecutor (and not an assessment of his or her subjective intentions) it is not the reason for persecution which is actually the problem in assessing cases..."


 * Beginning on page 339 of Rempell's article, there's a discussion that includes the motivation of the persecutor. In the first paragraph it says "...an intent to punish  ... is "neither a mandatory nor a sufficient aspect of persecution” because ... persecution simply requires that the perpetrator cause the victim suffering or harm.” and at the bottom of the page, "“The fact that a persecutor believes the harm he is inflicting is ‘good for’ his victim does not make it any less painful to the victim, or, indeed, remove the conduct from the statutory definition of persecution.”  It's the flipside of what we're discussing, but it does indicate that intent on the part of the persecutor is not a defining factor.


 * I don't know if this is what you are looking for or not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

slatersteven's Response
Policy is clear (per wp:v) a source must explicitly say something, if it is not blindingly obvious it fails verifiability. Now we all agree that "religious persecution" is "persecution based upon religion", the only bone of contention is the idea that whether or not just being a christian who is persecuted counts as persecuting someone because of their religion. That would fall under wp:or, as the editor is making a judgement.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Mediator's 6th Statement
I'm sorry, but Jenhawk777 The sources you provide fail to explicitly state anything other than determining motivation is problematic. They do not justify your position that persecution as a result of actions based in religious beliefs equals religious persecution. They must explicitly say that to count I'm afraid. Otherwise, Slatersteven is correct that is WP:Synthesis and OR. That combined with the agreement of the other two editors not to include that aspect of the definition equals a consensus at this point. I'm sorry.

So-
 * 1- Adding inline citations for existing information (Does anyone argue this isn't necessary? Does anyone have a problem with this?)
 * 2- Inclusion or Exclusion of German Christians who supported Nazism
 * 3- The definition of religious persecution
 * "Religious persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals as a response to their religious beliefs"
 * 4- Inclusion or exclusion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer
 * 5- What the sources say/support This has been covered by policy really- sources must explicitly say something to be used. We cannot extrapolate, assume or in anyway synthesize.

So Now that was have a definition- what about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? What do the sources say about the reasons why he was persecuted. Do any of them say that he was persecuted/killed because he was a Christian... Or do any sources specitfically say the actions that caused his perseuction were because of his Christian faith- this can't be assumed- it has to be specifically stated. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

slatersteven's Response
ON 1 I have long argued we have way too much dubious content there and yes, it all need citing.

As to the rest, if RS say X was persecuted by the Nazis for being a christian, yes we could have one or two examples, but I would rather we just discussed it in more general terms. We cannot have a list of Every Christian persecuted by the Nazis, even it is was due to their faith.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree on 2- I don't want to go through the list of Every Christian to die under the Nazi regime. So you are okay with mentioning a few specific examples as long as they are explicitly covered by RS and confirmed by those RS to have been persecuted because of their Christian faith? Nightenbelle (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they would have to be notable examples, and not too detailed. Its a big enough article as it is.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I also note we have this Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany, so we really do not need a huge section in another article.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Objective3000's Response
The article covers a period of 2,000 years, and religious persecution is common. Given this, I don’t see adding any individuals, with or without inline cites or even if sources say the person was specifically persecuted for being a Christian. If we look through this lengthy article, names are generally used of persecutors, not those persecuted. Groups like Jehovah's Witnesses and Bruderhof make sense for inclusion in the Nazi section as they were persecuted en masse by the Nazis. These are obvious examples of Christian persecution as they were all persecuted. O3000 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is an article on Bonhoeffer, which is where material about Bonhoeffer belongs. O3000 (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk's response
It's okay, don't be sorry. It's just the way these things go sometimes.
 * 1 I agree with both you and Slatersteven on #1, but it doesn't matter in the end.
 * 2 The German Christians did support the Nazis, but if a statement of persecution for religion is necessary to be included here, why are they being included? They weren't persecuted at all.
 * 3 Eh. I object to the term systematic, but it doesn't really matter at this point, so whatever.
 * 4 I only have sources that say Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church were led to oppose Hitler and joined the resistance because of their religious beliefs as their primary reason for doing so, and that they were persecuted for that opposition, but that's all there is anywhere. I have a source identifying theirs as a "theological-political" resistance, but there are no sources that say their persecution was purely based only on their religion and had nothing to do with their participation in the resistance. Separating their motives and actions and the results seems like splitting hairs to me, and the sources don't do that, so if we are doing that, then they can't be here.
 * 5 I agree without question concerning RS, and I agree I don't want a list of every Christian that died either. For many, religion was not the primary cause of their resistance, it was just an aspect of who they were, and therefore deserves no mention here. Religion has to be a primary cause of resistance for it to be seen as a cause of persecution. Diocletian never said "go out and kill Christians because they are Christian." He said, 'everyone must sacrifice and those who won't must die', and those that died are all counted as Christian martyrs because their primary reason for resistance was their religion. Just like Bonhoeffer and the CC. I wanted to stay consistent with that, and I think this inconsistency is a problem, but so be it. I concede, so long as the discussion of the German Christians, and the rest that isn't really about those who were persecuted, is removed. So I agree with Objective3000. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is what is found in pretty much all the sources: "...hatred and animosity pursued Bonhoeffer...His name was included on a secret list of enemies who must not be allowed to escape even if the whole state collapsed...


 * Alfred Delp and Dietrich Bonhoeffer had both adjudged the nature of Nazism from the viewpoint of their Christian faith, which led them into opposition to the regime, and resulted in their deaths. Their fate and that of the many other churchmen who were executed after 20 July 1944 is standing proof of the implacable enmity of the Nazis toward the churches."


 * Beginning on page 328 is the conclusion of the book which is worth reading: "The persecution of the churches was the outcome of two of the most significant aspects of the Nazi system... [one being its] ideological fanaticism. The Nazi's ambition to destroy the existing order of society went hand in hand with their determination to propagate a new German racial [worldview]. Their attack on the traditions and institutions ... attempting to drive them into obscurity to die out as unlamented relics of the past. ...there can be no doubt of Hitler's innate antipathy to Christianity ... a 'hoax' and a 'gangrene' which must be cut out (329). And on age 338, "It found in Dietrich Bonhoeffer a martyr whose life and example have become a watchword throughout the world. The courage and energy of Martin Niemollöer in the face of political persecution have redeemed some of the vacillating compromises of weaker men. ...If the era of Nazi persecution has revealed that man is still ready to worship the false gods of nationalism and expediency, it also produced men whose readiness to suffer for their faith saved the church from total apostacy..."


 * By our definition, that's inadequate, but by all that's good and courageous in this world, that just seems wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Nightenbelle's Final Statement
Then is sounds like we have reached a point where we are all on the same page. While Bonhoeffer does deserve recognition and a page of his on, he does not qualify to be highlighted specifically on this page. Do you guys think you can work on finding the inline sources and inserting them based on talk page discussion or do we need to continue the mediated discussion here for that? It sounds like everyone agrees they need to happen. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777
We must remove the section that needs sourcing because our definition for inclusion requires persecution directly for faith and the German Christians were not persecuted--for any reason. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats the idea- unless someone can find a reliable source that says otherwise. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Eighth Statement by Replacement Moderator
I am reopening this case at the request of User:Jenhawk777. The other editors will be notified within a few minutes. Jenhawk777 is requested to make a statement below explaining why they have requested re-opening. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The statement by User:Jenhawk777 is limited to 200 words, as are any other statements. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not explain the issues any better than shorter statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Explanation by User:Jenhawk777

 * A section in the article includes the German Christians who supported Hitler; it has no inline citations. We agreed it needs citations, but I had asked about just removing it instead. It doesn't meet the definition of persecution we agreed to. That removal was not discussed.
 * These quotes are used as proof there was consensus on keeping it: Slatersteven says  just as Objective3000 says  That's about adding Bonhoeffer.  The German Christians were a group not an individual, and they were already in the article, so there would have been no discussion of adding them.
 * However, if I am mistaken, and Slatersteven and Objective3000 actually thought these statements were about the German Christian paragraph, then there is consensus to remove it, not keep it. It seems to me it can't be interpreted both ways.

statement by User:slatersteven
Unsourced content should be removed, but I am not the only one there. I am not sure I understand the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ninth Statement by Moderator
Jenhawk777: Exactly what is your issue about article content that is why you wanted this dispute reopened? It isn't clear. Please identify one to three changes to the article that you are requesting. Do not say that unsourced content should be removed; say what unsourced content should be removed. Be specific and clear.

Both: Should the paragraph about German Christians be removed? Be brief and clear. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777
Apparently, what I most objected to has now been removed and slightly rewritten. No one pinged me to let me know, so I just discovered it, but it's now good enough for me to support the content of the first four sentences as they are. I don't know who did it or when, but I thank them.

As to referencing, I'd just like to see a little clean up, that's all. These sentences have a pile of 9 references all in a row at their end, that need to be inline citations of those sentences they actually refer to, with the extras removed. It's impossible for anyone to check them as they are.

The sentence that begins, "The Third Reich founded its own version of Christianity ..." is an aspect of how the Nazis persecuted the churches, so it's relevant to the topic, and should be kept. However, in order to fully represent what sources say about it, I would like to see a second sentence added--"This is what (sources) say led to the development of the Confessing Church and what Protestant opposition to Nazis there was." This makes no claims concerning persecution, so perhaps we could agree to add that one statement without fighting over it.

That's it. The rest has been fixed.

Thank you for doing this. It's amazingly wonderful that you responded as you did. You listened. I'm deeply grateful.

I also respect, appreciate and admire Slatersteven's objectivity, reasonableness and commitment to good content (no matter how irritating their opponent is), but I will be sure and tell them that personally.

Thank you both. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven
Given there are 9 sources in that paragraph, no not a blanket removal. But yes much of it needs removing or re-writing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree how it was sourced was awful. But its just a question of reworking.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tenth Statement by Moderator
Is there anything else that needs to be mediated? I will close the case if there is nothing else to mediate. If there are any remaining issues, please make a statement of not more than 100 words for each issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Jenhawk777
Not for me. The German Christians are no longer mentioned. All my original complaints have been addressed. I didn't get to add in what I wanted, but that was consensus, and I said from the start that I was okay either adding balance or removing imbalance, and since removal has happened, I'm good. I assume whoever has been fixing the rest of it will finish inline citations. Thank you again for your willingness to help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

United States
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

THe editors reviewing this page have used it to smear the ADOS movement instead of objectively tell the movements background. As that the ADOS movement greatly effects the US presidential election in creating the reapartions discussion in the US this is extremely dangerous.

The below must be corrected as that when I correct they adjust it back to be biased.

The issue with the version posted is it is biased toward the bottom of the opening the prior editor is selectively adding material. In the section they add a blurb about Yvette Carnell in my view too early but keep removing the next blurb about Moore. You can add both or neither but can not have just one to present bias. One of its founders, Yvette Carnell, was a board member of "Progressives for Immigration Reform", described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-immigration group.The other founder Antonio Moore wrote on liberal think tank Institute for Policy studies site Inequality.org on economics and race for several years.

Please add both sentences on the 2 cofounders or omit both the latter is likely proper to omit both that high up as that there is a section lower that it can be added.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Descendants_of_Slavery

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please add both sentences on the 2 cofounders or omit both the latter is likely proper to omit both that high up as that there is a section lower that it can be added.

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

I don't know what this has to do with an article on the United States, but Truthsayer21 has said he's one of the founders of ADOS but is not declaring his COI, either here or at Editor assistance/Requests where he's also complained. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Joey Gibson (political activist)
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

Joey Gibson has according to several sources maintained that his organisation Patriot Prayer is NOT Right Wing. He has spoken AGAINST right wingers on several occasions.

Yet the wiki page falsely claims as follows:

"Joseph Owan Gibson (born November 8, 1983)[1] is an American political activist and the founder of the far-right group Patriot Prayer, which has organized protests in Portland, Oregon, and other cities."

Here is the news article that is referenced : https://www.columbian.com/news/2017/jul/02/joey-gibson-aims-to-liberate-conservatives-via-his-patriot-prayer-group/

"Vancouver’s Joey Gibson always paid some attention to politics but had little practical interest in the process. Then he took to the streets outside the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last summer.

There, the leader of the Patriot Prayer online community-slash-movement, whose organizing and activism has garnered national headlines after recent clashes on college campuses and the streets of Portland, was caught on camera tearing up a demonstrator’s anti-police cardboard sign.

“Why would you destroy my property?” asked the man, who was wearing a T-shirt that read “F*** the police.”

Because Gibson, 33, was fired up. But then he felt bad for ripping up the sign.

He handed the guy a $20 bill, and the interaction ended with a handshake.

Now, a year later, Gibson said he is still evolving as an activist and organizer. On Facebook videos and YouTube, he preaches “Hatred is a disease.” He counts the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. among his political heroes. He once invited a transgender person to speak at one of his rallies because he said it’s time all people were accepted."

OBVIOUSLY HE IS NOT A RIGHT WINGER AND HIS ORGANISATION IS NOT "FAR RIGHT"

This is an obvious attempt at smearing a man whose hero is Martin Luther King, Jr.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joey_Gibson_(political_activist)#False_characterisation_-_contrary_to_source_given%2F

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Let everyone know this: Biographies of living persons 1) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." DO NO HARM.

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

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

Joey Gibson (political activist) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. hello, i am willing to moderate this dispute, any objections? also as this dispute is of a political nature please dont insult each other or propagandize. wikipedia is not a soap box. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Petfinder
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 tried multiple times to add objective, verifiable facts to this page and every time I do, the same person comes and removes it and provides inaccurate reasons, while being incredibly rude and unprofessional. Nevertheless, every time he does so, I go back and try to revise my post to satisfy him but no matter what I do, the post keeps getting removed. Instead of acknowledging and leaving the facts on the page, the person is now splitting hairs and picking out single words that he doesn't like, instead of leaving the facts where they are on the page. I've asked several times how to add evidence if he is so upset by the citations I've made, but I get no response. I have also cited verifiable sources and these keep getting rejected too. The explanations make no sense whatsoever and seem to be simply having fun harassing and bullying me. Please make that stop.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TruthInAdverts#August_2020

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Assign an editor who isn't doing this just for fun and to push the public around. I'd like to be treated with respect and get HELP to make a post proper if you feel it isn't, but I seek DIALOGUE, not bullying, as well as a FAIR resolution. Calton has made it very clear that no matter why I type, he will come up with a reason to delete it. Please provide dispute handlers not associated with him as I can envision him getting his friends to help bully me.

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

Petfinder discussion

 * Despite what TIA says, there has been no discussion on the talk page of this article for about three years. TIA repeatedly inserts blocks of text sourced to the subject's own website, telling the subject's version of steps they have taken. User:Calton is only one of a number of editors who have had to revert these insertions by TIA. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And the user has simultaneously taken this to WP:ANI at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Meters (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that they're trying to use Wikipedia to win in the court of public opinion in much the same manner as happened back in 2005 with the Bogdanov physics controversy. This in and of itself should justify a WP:NOTHERE block. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh.... 04:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Twenty-two or 22?
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Location of dispute

Users involved

Dispute overview

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Summary of dispute by Call me when you get the chance
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by TomCat4680
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm following MOS:NUMNOTES but he either wasn't aware of this rule or is simply refusing to follow it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it's the former. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Twenty-two or 22? discussion

 * Hello, please have an in-depth conversation before reporting it here, closing case.  Heart  Glow (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

There is a dispute on Portal:Current events/2020 September 7 over whether numerals should or shouldn't start a sentence. This one user User:TomCat4680 is edit warring with me over the issue and this needs to be brought to your attention. Call me when you get the chance 05:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Read my latest edit summary: "per MOS:NUMNOTES: (very first one on the list): Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure: Use: There were many matches; 23 ended in a draw. Or: There were many matches. Twenty-three ended in a draw. NOT: There were many matches. 23 ended in a draw". TomCat4680 (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you started this dispute. The link led me to a TLDR page around here. Call me when you get the chance 06:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well there's the rule that proves my point. There's several other examples listed there but it basically says the same thing I've been trying to tell you the whole time. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I filed a previous dispute regarding removing a sentence on the 'Eugene Scalia' that violated the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. An independent moderator named 'Deb' reviewed the article and agreed that the sentence as written needed to be removed. She did so. Afterwards, the user named Evrik, put the sentence back. I have provided a very lengthy explanation in the Talk section why the sentence violated Wikipedia policy. I just removed the sentence again.

I request that you enforce your own Wikipedia policy and your own ruling on the sentence. If there are ways to prevent Evrik from adding back the offending sentence, I request you do so. Otherwise, can you inform him in the talk section that adding the sentence back is not acceptable and I intend to file a dispute against a user if he does it again. I would prefer not to do that, but bullying against Wikipedia policy should not be allowed. I am grateful for your time.

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

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

'Deb' already ruled the sentence as written violated the Wikipedia policy and should be removed.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please clarify to Evrik that he may not re-add the sentence that was removed. If there are ways in the code to block him form being able to do so again, I request that you do that. If there are further consequences that are possible, I request that they be considered or at least that he is warned in the talk section of any consequences.

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

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

My page: Isla Blair. UK
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 photo of me on my Isla Blair page is NOT me but an actress called Sophie Louise Dann. I'd be grateful if it could be taken down and replaced by a photo of me!

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

I don't know who to contact about the wrong photo being put up as me.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Put up a photo of me, Isla Blair, and not of Sophie Louise Dann!

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

My page: Isla Blair. UK discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

José Luis Martínez-Almeida
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 put additional information that was not relevant (that he was not married) and some information that didn't meet exactly with the source cited, I also write a sentence that [user:Asqueladd] saw as biased, I corrected it whan he showed his concerns on the sentence in the talk and added a non-neutrality template, but when I asked him if we could remove the template, once I had corrected the sentence, he added an advert template on top of the previous one. I looked for assistance with some luck and I found [user:Praxidicae] that pointed out for me the other problems (sentimental situation of the individual and a bad writing in other section). I rewrited all the things so the template can be removed, but I do not know if Asqueladd would have more concerns. Can you, dear volunteer, take a look and tell me if it is okay now and the template can be removed?

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

Talk:José Luis Martínez-Almeida

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Pointing out if there are more problems in the writing that can be perceived as biased and, if there aren't or they are corrected, saying so in the talk page so Asqueladd can see everything is OK and this is not a group of friends trying to promote the subject.

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

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

José Luis Martínez-Almeida discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Patanjali - Indian Yoga Philosopher in Wikipedia
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

Dear Dispute Resolution Board Members, To the right side of the article on Patanjali in Wikipedia there is a summary description box attached with the Heading "Hindu Philosophy". Sir, this is incorrect. I suggest it be renamed as "Indian" Philosophy which encompasses the 3 main non-revealed religions of the world that originated from India or Bharat - namely, Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism. To name them all under the category "Hindu Philosophy" is totally wrong. All three mentioned have derived their thinking and discussions from Vedic and Upanishadic texts and brought out individual contributions like "Bhagavad Gita" (Hinduism), Buddhist Sutras (originating from Buddha) and Jaina scrpiptures (sourced to Mahavira). The reason why this is important is that the current Indian government and its supporting party BJP want to project the image of India solely as a "Hindu Nation". India houses all the 3 religions mentioned above as much as the philosophies they represent. Indian philosophy encompasses all and is more than just Hindu scriptures and thought.

George Chakko, former U.N.correspondent, now retiree in Vienna, Austria. I hold a Master's degree each in both Indian and Western Philosophies (University of Madras and University of Bonn, Germany. In India I studied Indian Philosophy under late Professor and Director of the Centre for Advanced Studies in Philosophy, Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, a renowned Shankara and Vedanta scholar, under University of Madras in Chennai, India. Vienna, 09/09/2020 09:52 am CSET  email: gchakko@gmail.com

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

My email: gchakko@gmail.com Tel: 0043-1-9165167 (Landline) Mob: 0677-616-30657

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Just change the heading from Hindu Philosophy to Indian Philosophy, that' all. Thank you George Chakko

Summary of dispute by The author or authors of the article on Patanjali
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Patanjali - Indian Yoga Philosopher in Wikipedia discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Where is the dispute? I see nothing on the Talk page that merits this approach? Deb (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Arameans
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 underlying issue is the identity debate within this particular ethnic group. The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the accepted term of self-identification within this ethnicity.

This group is currently divided between those who still hold to the identity "Assyrian", whilst others have now adopted "Aramean", amongst others. Organisations in favour of the identity label "Aramean" use the term to apply to the entirety of the ethnic group, as opposed to "Assyrian", and do not argue that they have separated from those who identify as "Assyrian", and vice versa.

As "Assyrian" is accepted as the catchall name for this ethnicity in academia, due to its former status as the sole label, there are frequent POV edits to Arameans in relation to the modern people that identify with this label. Much of these users argue that "Aramean" and "Assyrian" are ethnically separate from each other, typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers, providing no evidence at all, or providing unreliable evidence.

This is an unending issue that has existed without resolution for over a decade, of which I have dealt with constantly since I joined in 2014.

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

The dispute has been extensively discussed recently at Talk:Arameans Talk:Arameans Talk:Arameans

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think there needs to be a permanent statement that the article Arameans is purely for the ancient people, and the modern people that identity as "Aramean" should be treated alongside "Assyrian" at Assyrian people, in line with the academic consensus that they are in fact the same ethnic group. There could be possibly be a permanent ban on IP users editing the page, as they are typically the propagators of the belief that they are ethnically separate from one another.

Summary of dispute by H0llande
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Optra2021
On the Aramean talk page, user Mugsalot quote: "In the last fifty years, West‐Syriac Christians have continued to PROMOTE Assyrian identity as a means of uniting all Syriac Christians, regardless of religious affiliation, within a single nation...MANY Syriac Orthodox individuals and groups have RESISTED the adoption of an Assyrian identity and ideology..."" Now Mugsalot contradicts himself by saying "The commonly accepted name in academia is "Assyrian", which was formerly the ACCEPTED term of self-identification WITHIN this ethnicity."" Wasn't it resisted??? "Assyrian" has neither been the commonly used term in academia nor is it accepted by most scholars or within these peoples! It is commonly used in English media, because most people who identify as "Assyrians" emigrated to English-speaking countries. I am not sure why Mugsalot is trying to fool everyone here again. He uses endless low-quality sources/references even written by Assyrian nationalists to justify his biased behavior. I invite everyone to read through the talk pages archives on Assyrian people and Arameans to see how high-quality Aramean related academic sources have been vandalized, removed, falsified or never made it to Wikipedia just to fit the narrative of Assyrian POV editing! To make it clear to outsiders what is going on with the endless edit wars: For the last 2,000 years, these various groups of people commonly referred themselves as Suryoye/Suraye (literally "Syrians" in English) in their various Aramaic languages/dialects. The last 100 years some groups started to form national-political movements labeled as "Assyrians" with an identity and ideology based on scholar, e. g. A, B,... . Most Suryoye/Suraye rejected this, leading the formation of their own national-political movement, namely the Arameans based on scholar, e. g. C, D,..., their pre-nationalistic tradition, folklore, culture and literature in the words of their own forefathers in their native tongue that they are descendants of the ancient Arameans. Ancient Assyrians and Arameans used to be two distinct ethnicities. Since scholars, e. g. C and D do not fit Assyrian nationalistic views (Evident in Mugsalot's above comment: "...typically providing primary evidence from ancient or medieval writers..."), sources are invalid in the eyes of him and his companions, therefore they have to be removed or vandalized, thus hurting the mission of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, welcoming high-quality academic sources and Information then creating the corresponding articles, no matter if it is pro-contra Assyrian, Aramean whatever. The current Assyrian people article is clearly POV edited by mixing ancient Assyrians, which is also very controversial in academia that these modern groups are descendents of them or political Assyrian ideologies that are not supported by other scholars or even within the group itself. Pro-Assyrian nationalistic writers such as Mugsalot and Co are referring to WIKICOMMONNAME, but forget that it would only apply, if the overall content is the SAME, which is not the case! Now Mugsalot is heavily destroying English Wikipedias credibility by calling the Arameans an "Assyrian" subgroup, deciding who is who based on his OWN assumptions! Todays Arameans are their own ethnic group, identity, flag, history, organisations, e. g. World Council of Arameans who represents the Aramean nation, including the Assyrians to the United Nations (UN). Arameans are recognised as an ethnicity by the state of Israel. A small "subgroup" wouldn't be able to built such a strong network worldwide. From Mugsalot's text above, it is obvious, he is not interested in finding a solution other than keeping the Assyrian POV.

My suggestion to solve this problem, we should take a look at German Wikipedia and it works perfectly there:

Assyrians and Arameans articles about the ancient, pre-Christian people only.

Assyrians (present) and Aramean (present) about the present people only, similar to how we have Bosnians, Serbians, Croatians, Montenegrians, Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) articles on English Wikipedia. The case between those South-Slavic groups is very similar to that between present Assyrians and Arameans. Serbians claim Bosnians to be Serbians, while Bosnians reject this and claim Serbians to be Bosnians though they speak mutual intelligible languages. Mugsalot already quoted from a source there was no unified "Assyrian" nation to begin with, therefore "Assyrian" is neither the generic term to describe these people as a whole nor are the Arameans a subgroup of anyone. Even within the Bosnians, we have Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats articles. Mugsalot and other Assyrian nationalists are trying to force Arameans and other Syriac groups under the highly disputive "Assyrian" term to be the generic term for these various Aramaic-speaking and Syriac Christian groups, which is not supported by a lot of other academic sources/studies. This would be like if some Italians join Spanish nationalism and forcing other Italians to be Spaniards as well. Ironically, the so called "dialects" Turoyo Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Arameans/Syriacs and Assyrian Neo-Aramaic spoken by most Assyrians are mutual unintelligible. Therefore it should be reflected by creating independent articles to keep Wikipedia neutral and prevent Assyrian POVs.

Syriac Christians or Suryoye/Suraye about the Christian period

The Historian Poseidonios from Apamea (ca. 135 BC - 51 BC), was a Greek Stoic philosopher, politician, astronomer, geographer, historian, and teacher. He says: "The people we Greek call Syrians, they call themselves Arameans" From: See J.G. Kidd, Posidonius (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian_people/Archive_15 --Optra2021 (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Arameans discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. hello i am willing to volunteer to moderate this dispute. any objections? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, go ahead. Sorry, for my long text, but outsiders should get a neutral point of view, what happened, why those countless edit warrings, ... . Hopefully by giving examples, you understand the topic a little bit more.


 * Btw, here is a list of Wikipedians with an Assyrian identity, which has successfully established and infiltrated on English Wikipedia. If you pay attention to those who contributed Aramean related academic sources in the past, they mostly got reported by these Assyrian individuals for allegedly "POV" editing and got blocked by administrators, who are unfamiliar with this matter. There are almost zero experienced Wikipedians specialized in Aramean-related topics, which should be suspicious and alarming. WikiProject Aramea is virtually dead ever since. Mugsalot and others are trying to fool unfamilar administrators by stating "same people" or "WIKI:COMMONNAME". The current English Wikipedia articles do not reflect the reality at all! "Assyrian" is not simply a name, but identity and political ideology reflected in the highly disputive Assyrian people article by forcing various Syriac-Christian groups under its umbrella term. Trying to fool readers, these groups of people are descendants of the infamous ancient Assyrians, which is rejected by many scholars and the Arameans themselves. Holidays such as newly created "Kha-b nisan" an Assyrian nationalist holiday, which not celebrated by Arameans. Syriac-Orthodox people being native outside of the so called "Assyrian" homeland are not seen as "Assyrians" by nationalists yet getting Assyrianized on English Wikipedia to avoid any signs of an Aramean ethnic group, e. g. the town Sadad and its inhabitants are clearly of Aramean descent h ttps://youtu.be/WSZeohqHHmE, but on Wikipedia it says "Category:Assyrian settlements". I could give endless examples.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Assyrian_Wikipedians. Optra2021 (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * If you pay attention, most of those who contribute to Aramean topics are banned because they frequently engage in sockpuppetry, including User:MixedButHumann and User:Aram-Israel, the former of which had written this POV edit which I reverted for the reasons I set out on the talk page, and stated my willingness to find a compromise. WikiProject Aramea was similarly created by User:MaronitePride, another sockpuppet.


 * You've again proven my point that you are relying on either no academic evidence or unreliable evidence, such as referencing a YouTube video. I provided a number of quotes from reliable sources, and I do not mean quoting a philosopher from the 1st century BC, here, to attest that Arameans and Assyrians are considered the same ethnic group. I find it bizarre that Optra2021 is asserting his POV that they are separate from one another, yet passionately defends this edit that is contrary to his argument, which uses the label "Aramean" as an umbrella term instead of Assyrian, as seen in the Iraq section. He, as well as others, frequently engages in accusations of Assyrian nationalism, when in fact I have no relation to this people whatsoever. Mugsalot (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Showing the video was to demonstrate the ridiculous chauvinism by editors like you to twist facts. I highly doubt you understand the issue here, do you? Even if both groups are of the same ethnic stock, both groups reject each others identity and ideology supported by numerous sources/scholars, therefore you can't talk about one ethnic group (it should be clarified what defines them as one ethnic group instead of two or more) from a neutral point of view and this must be reflected on English Wikipedia, not from the point of view by Mugsalot, Assyrian editors, Aramaean editors,... ! Scholar A or B claim these peoples to be descendants of the ancient Assyrians as clearly stated in the POV section of the Assyrian people article, while scholar C or D claim these people to be descendants of the ancient Arameans. People like Mugsalot come in to decide on their OWN PREFERENCE that Pro-Assyrian scholar A or B are correct and pro-Aramean scholar C or D are wrong, therefore only content that suits the narrative of Assyrian POV editing the best, thus vandalizing, removing or block contributions to Wikipedia. Accusing Aramean or contra-Assyrian related contributions to be "POVs". New editors are accused to be sockpuppets and get immediately blocked hence why unfamiliar administrators should be suspicious a large group of Assyrian Wikipedians exist while many Wikipedians specialized in Aramean or contra-Assyrian related topics do not exist or many were/will be blocked due to wrong accuses. Today I was also accused to be a sockpuppet! "...quoting a philosopher from the 1st century BC,..." Numerous references, e. g. 1 to 5 given on the Assyrian continuity article are all simple websites, not academic sources unlike the academic source I provided above, which Mugsalot tried to weaken by saying "philosopher". The quotation is from CAMBRIDGE Classical Texts and Commentaries, 1988, vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 955-956. You know what Cambridge is, Mugsalot!? Again Mugsalot is showing his biased behavior not interested in finding a solution. To teach Mugsalot how to contribute according to Wikipedias policy, here is a contra-Assyrian academic source against Pro-Assyrian scholar Parpola:“a careful reading of Parpola’s articles and the introduction to Assyrian Prophecies reveals arguments that are often circular and flawed, in which, by virtue of an enthusiastic presentation, what remains to be proved is transformed into evidence for a construction that resembles doctrine more than theory” - J.Cooper “Assyrian prophecies the Assyrian Tree and the Mesopotamian origins of Jewish monotheism, Greek philosophy, Christian theology, Gnosticism, and much more” in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 120:3 (2000) p430


 * The Church of the East and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission J. F. Coakley p366 "I refer here to the link created between the modern 'Assyrians' and the ancient Assyrians of Nineveh know to readers of the Old Testament. The link has proved irresistible to the imagination. In modern times, Syrian children have been named 'Sargon', 'Nebuchadnezzar'. etc.; the winged lions of Nineveh have appeared as national symbols; and, in short, the name is now inseprable from a whole bogus ethnology."


 * Pro-Aramean academic source, e. g.:Dorothea Weltecke Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East Page:120 "But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye [Assyrians], who are the Suryoye [Syriacs], Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye [Assyrians], Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye [Arameans], that is, Suryoye [Syriacs]'. Who are the Suryoye [Syriacs] to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference betweenhis and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans."


 * S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"Bardaisan is described as Suryoyo [Syrian] and Aramoyo [Aramean]""Ya'qub of Edessa, in his 'Encheiridion' and elsewhere, speaks of 'we are Suryoye [Syriacs], or Aramoye [Arameans]'.""This equation [Syriac = Aramean] is further elaborated in Appendix II to Michael Rabo's [Michael the Syrians] Chronicle."(See Dorothea Weltecke)


 * S.P.Brock and J.F.Coakley, Syriac Heritage Encylopedic Dictionary p31:"In many Syriac writers Aramoyo [Aramean] and Suryoyo [Syriac] are synonyms; normally this refers to the language, but on occasion they are used as alternate ethnic terms"


 * None of these academic sources and many others made it into English Wikipedia thanks to Mugsalot and Co. or could be accommodated into Assyrian POV written articles and sections. As you can see, the "Assyrian" terminology is highly disputed to be used on the Arameans. Unlike Assyrian POV editor Mugsalot and Co, I am interested in solving this problem. Creating specific, independent articles similar to German Wikipedia would be the best solution and in line with Wikipedia's policy to be a neutral platform without favoring any party. It should be noted Maronites and Chaldean Catholics articles exist on Wikipedia, who also happen to be Syriac Christian groups. Optra2021 (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I'll tackle your evidence firstly. Your provision of a quote from a 1st century BC philosopher is contrary to WP:PRIMARY as it is your own interpretation, and thus unreliable, regardless of whether Cambridge published it or not. Plus it should be common sense that a quote from over 2000 years ago is irrelevant to a conversation about modern identity. Per WP:YTREF, that YouTube is not a reliable source as it is not from a recognised, reliable organisation or agency. It's somewhat suspicious that you're directly quoting the same evidence as here. The quote from Brock & Coakley, available here, discusses content that is again irrelevant to a discussion on a modern ethnic group as it is discussing ancient ethnic terms. If you would continue reading you would see "In modern times the ethnic identity of ‘Aramean’ has been taken up in some circles of the W.-Syr. diaspora as a corrective to the popularity of Assyrian themes", again demonstrating that this is an identity debate within a single ethnic group.


 * Your quote from here, whilst interesting, again discusses content irrelevant to the modern ethnic group as it discusses the ethnic terms used in the literature of a historian in the 12th century. You have actually provided no evidence relevant to the modern ethnic groups. If one was to look at the Aramean Democratic Organisation's website, you can find they sponsor the belief that Assyrians and Arameans are the same ethnic group, "The Arameans (including "Assyrians" and Chaldeans)". and others constitute the fringe that believe that they are separate from one another.


 * One can look to recognised human rights organisations, such as Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organisation or Minority Rights Group International , to see Assyrian is accepted as the common umbrella term for this ethnic group. Or one can see encyclopedias acknowledge that Arameans are Assyrians, eg Ethnic Groups of Africa and the Middle East: An Encyclopedia, p. 30. Mugsalot (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - User:Mugsalot, User:Clone commando sev - There is an RFC in progress on this article talk page. Does the topic of this DRN differ from the topic of the RFC, and, if so, how?  If they are the same or mostly the same, this DRN should be closed.  If they are different, it is important to clarify what the scope of this DRN is.  We don't conduct moderated discussion when another dispute resolution process is also going on.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The RFC was swamped by SPAs and other users who have since been blocked, and has been inactive since 11 August, so I would not consider it an ongoing dispute resolution. Also, the topic of the RFC was the purpose of the Arameans article, whereas this DRN revolves around the usage of the terms "Aramean" and "Assyrian" across all relevant articles. Mugsalot (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Mugsalot just started edit warring on the Arameans article without waiting for the case to be officially closed. He simply reverted it. He is not an authorized administrator to make such decisions and proves my points that he is an POV editor.--Optra2021 (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

CopperheadOS
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

CopperheadOS has a disagreement over, in essence, the spelling of the "developer" name being used in the Operating System Infobox. It has been discussed on the Talk:CopperheadOS. I carelessly broke the 3RR (by a couple hours). Apologies. The editor name,, most recently changing back to 3-p's has not participated in the Talk on this issue.

One side wants the name spelled "Coppperhead" with 3-p's, based only on a lookup at this search link. Comments:
 * The operating system is not mentioned at this search result; the connection is inference.
 * The above search result says "Beta: This is a new service — your feedback will help us improve it." indicating it could be faulty (aka unreliable).
 * The above search result says "For the complete profile, go to the official registry source: ServiceOntario" with a link. My search at ServiceOntario gives "0 results for Coppperhead" (3-p's). A search for Copperhead (2-p's) gave several results but none for the OS company (or I missed it).

The other side wants the name spelled "Copperhead" with 2-p's, based on CopperheadOS website - copperhead.co (trademark statement at bottom), every mention of the company name in all other sources used in the article, and trademark lookup sites.

Side Note, related issue: An editor would also like to add a statement to the article saying the company was incorporated in November 2015, based only on the same beta registry lookup site.

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

Article Talk page only (and I was warned about 3RR on my user Talk).

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Uninvolved eyes and opinions, previous experience with similar issue.

Summary of dispute by Anupritaisno1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

The current incarnation of CopperheadOS is officially developed by a company commonly known as Copperhead. The original OS was developed by an open source development team before the company was incorporated. The open source project and the company split down different paths into the current proprietary CopperheadOS and the open source GrapheneOS. Referring to the developer as simply being the company is incomplete and misleading in the first place. The infobox should likely be changed to distinguish between the original and current developers. The history section can go into detail about it. The continuation of the product by the company and the open source project by the original development team both claim to be the true successors to the project. High quality articles like the golem.de piece present it as open to interpretation. There are a bunch of unreliable sources being used that are simply paraphrasing press releases and social media posts without properly distinguishing between verified facts and the claims from either party. These are primarily based on the company's press releases and statements, and combined with questionable editing of the Wikipedia article (not by anyone involved here) previously led to a very inaccurate article presenting a corporate narrative. The subject matter is not notable enough to have much proper media coverage which makes the many controversies and the active dispute with the open source project quite problematic for the Wikipedia article.

Multiple articles used as sources including the Ars Technica article discuss that the company was founded in Toronto, Ontario to commercialize the open source project. The official addresses associated with the company (it changed) can be used to uniquely identify it and distinguish from any similarly named companies. The date and location it was founded also work. Citing the company itself for the date it was founded would give the same date, but simply isn't necessary when there's a neutral and authoritative source available. The sole use case for the databases offered by Service Ontario and commercial services like Opstart is to obtain an accurate date and legal name for the company. They aren't being used to confirm the connection of the company to the OS. Some articles about the OS were written before the company was founded and others were written afterwards. These articles do not generally try to give specific dates / timelines, so it's nice to have an authoritative source to cite for a precise date. For this article, this is important because otherwise there's going to be a fight about whether the open source project or company existed first. Using an authoritative source for this information was my attempt to put that part of the conflict to rest.

While doing this research, I noticed that the legal company name did not match the one given by the article, and that there had been a previous scuffle about it earlier. I think the article should use the official legal name of the company, particularly since those kinds of information databases cannot be searched without the correct name. It does not make sense to refer to it by the quirky official name in the body of the article where the common name Copperhead is a much better fit. "Copperhead Limited" is an attempt to reference the official legal name of the company but it's incorrect. Contact Service Ontario yourself and you can verify this.

https://beta.canadasbusinessregistries.ca/search/results?search=%7BCoppperhead%7D&status=Active is simply an easy way to refer to the Service Ontario database for people who aren't going to go through the hassle of contacting them or using a commercial service to obtain information on the company as I did.

Summary of dispute by Mr. Stradivarius
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I first came to this article in an administrative capacity, but now on this particular issue I probably count as WP:INVOLVED. The crux of the dispute is whether to use "Copperhead Limited" as the developer name, as used on the company website and in its trademark listings, or whether to use Coppperhead Limited (with three P's) as listed in Canada's Business Registries. The 3-P name is allegedly a mistake made by the Copperhead founder when registering the business. Aside from the business registry, I am not aware of any third-party reliable sources that cover the alleged naming mistake. The dispute is complicated by a real-world dispute between the Copperhead CTO and the CEO; the CTO left the company, later founding the rival GrapheneOS. The real-world dispute, and social media activity related to it, is likely the reason that this article has recently seen an influx of new editors. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 15:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

List of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes
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 seems to be a minor disagreement on rather the episode Joshua is part of season 4 or 5. I have posted sources and Youtube links that show it is part of season 4, but each time I do User:Trivialist claims I am wrong and anything I post is just random links

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Space_Ghost_Coast_to_Coast_episodes Tried to tell user to see talk page in hopes of him talking it out with me but he refuses.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Have others join in on the discussion or have a vote on the subject

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

Summary of dispute by 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:D160:45D8:B8CB:7A7
I noticed Joshua was listed as part of Season 5. The episode has the same opening as all other season 4 episodes the only difference is that it has a 1998 copyright date at the end that is the only thing that makes it different. so I tried to change it but Trivialist decided he wanted to engage in edit warring I tried to tell him to please come to the talk page so it doesnt look like he is fighting just out of bordom or to start trouble. but he refused. I think more people should help and discuss this. Not just me and him.

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

Khichdi
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 old page it was writen that an egyptian and english dish was inspired by the indian dish a user have edited this article and said that the egyptian dish is not inspired by this dish i have reverted him several times and provides 5 links to prove the orginal text but he also and anther user have reverted my info i am asking how to solve that dispute

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

https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#wikipedia-en-help

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

if each one of the three of us can provide sufficient proves and links that ensure his information and i am sure that the other users dont have any proves or evidence about their info

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

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

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One#Points in brackets
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:Tvx1 restores incorrect info to the 2007 Formula One World Championship article. Official final standings in all first and third-party sources clearly represents only one final total for each constructor without any bracketed extra. Points that McLaren scored overall after the finish of Italian Grand Prix are irrelevant to the finite standings and is a clear example of WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION in the context of such table. I have asked many times to provide any sources for this info, but have not received any, so I will provide the sources which I have: https://www.formula1.com/en/results.html/2007/team.html https://web.archive.org/web/20121031021811/http://www.fia.com/sport/Championships/F1/F1_Season_Guide/2007.html https://results.motorsportstats.com/series/formula-one/season/2007 https://www.skysports.com/f1/stats/2007/teams https://www.racefans.net/2007/10/21/2007-championship-final-standings/ https://www.f1mix.com/results/2007-formula-1-world-championship.asp

As you see none of them have number 166 in the season standings. P.S. I have proposed a compromise with putting this amount to the note, but this proposal was ignored by the opposing side.

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I do believe that you can give neutral interpretation of the policies on that matter, which will resolve this issue.

Summary of dispute by Tvx1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I really don't understand why this was escalated to dispute resolution. And I certainly don't understand why I'm being singled out. This certainly does not only deal with the 2007 Formula One World Championship article. There was a general discussion on a how best to deal with the results of competitors who have been penalized by the deduction of a part or even all of the points they had been awarded during the course of a season. I felt it was a constructive discussion with a general positive atmosphere and thus certainly not a dispute. Unfortunately there a clear consensus on one rule on how to deal in the exact same manner with every potential situation did not appear to emerge. Corvus tristis made to the aforementioned article based on a consensus they perceived had emerged an which added some incorrect facts (adding point totals McLaren had never been credited with to footnote). Upon review of the WT:F1 discussion a did not detect that consensus (certainly not for mentioning the aforementioned totals in any way) and thus decided to revert. I feel that filing this for is an overreaction. I also don't understand the accusations of policies being broken. The content as it is presented can easily be verified with reliable sources and care has been taken that our readers are clearly explained that the points between bracket do not count officially.Tvx1 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bretonbanquet
Not sure why this has ended up here, but my input to the discussion was simply that I believe these "points in brackets", i.e. deducted points, points removed from a team's total, "ghost points" if you will, do not belong in a statistical table. They can be explained in text, as they are important. But they no longer exist, and do not exist in source material from which we draw information. Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by 5225C
I participated in the discussion at WT:F1, but at the time this was discussing Racing Point in the 2020 season, and I used the 2007 article as an example. To me, this issue is quite straightforward. In both situations, points were awarded to the championship but were later removed. Since a constructor's points are the sum of all points scored by a constructor's vehicles, how are we going to account for the difference between points awarded and points counted? Points in brackets are the best way. In, the team was awarded points at most races, but were specifically excluded from scoring points at the Hungarian GP and then the Belgium GP to the end of the season. Thus, those points were never awarded and never existed. However, when the team was excluded from the championship, we still show the awarded points in brackets - because they existed. There is no speculation, crystal balling, synthesis, or whatever you want to call it here. The team was credited with 166 points which were later excluded from the standings (ref/ref/ref) The tables account for this. I do not understand why this issue has gotten to dispute resolution, and I disagree that Tvx1 is in any way responsible for inserting false information. I am happy with the current state of the 2007 article and feel it appropriately addresses the difference in championship points. 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 23:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by DB1729
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My only involvement was this comment, which was solely in regards to Racing Point's 2020 parenthetical points. I have no strong opinion on the related, but separate McLaren 2007 issue. --DB1729 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Falcadore
My understanding of the dispute is that User:5225C was defending the usage of 0 (166) to display in 2007 that the McLaren team scored 0 points after being excluded from the World Championship point score but had they not been excluded would have scored 166 points. McLaren however were excluded. What they might have scored is speculation. They did not score those points. Indeed the language is that they were excluded. Not penalised, but removed. Wikipedia via WP:Speculation does not encourage speculation as Wikipedia records what was, not what might have been. The same applies to Racing Point in 2020. They have been been penalised 15 points, so the total points tabulated includes that penalty. As of the time in the timestamp of this post they scored 66 points. Not 81 points not 66 (81) points. There is a bracketted use of a secondary points number but that refers to dropped points due to the scoring mechanism, not due to penalties applied. Regards; --Falcadore (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - Two comments. First, other editors took part in the discussion headed 'Points in Brackets' at the WikiProject talk page.  Why are they also not being identified?  Second, it appears that this is about 2007 Formula One World Championship.  I do not see discussion at Talk:Formula One World Championship.  There might be other editors watching that talk page who are reading to discuss.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because Tvx1 was the one who reverted my edit. Other parties were involved to the discussion, but not into the reverting. I have notified but, I assume that is situation is at the dead end as we have two polar positions. I just want to hear what will be more correct in the terms of our policies. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC) P.S. Is it possible for local consensus (reminder: in WT:F1 we don't have reach such for keeping this extra in the table) to prevail policies? Corvus tristis (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't really know why you would expect discussion about the 2007 article on Talk:Formula One World Championship. I mean, that is a redirect. Moreover the issue was never with the 2007 article alone. It was a more general issue discussed at WT:F1.Tvx1 17:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a typo on my part. There should have been discussion at Talk:2007 Formula One World Championship.  I apologize for causing confusion by my mistake.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * with all due respect, the statement "The content as it is presented can easily be verified with reliable sources" is not correct. The number 166 doesn't appear in the only source for the note and you have not provided any other sources which confirm any relation of Italian McLaren points prior exclusion to final McLaren points. As you said it is not official and it is just your original research in the context of the season standings. Corvus tristis (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep putting the blame on me personally? This is not my original research. I’m not the one who put points between brackets there in the first place. Nor did I write that footnote.Tvx1 12:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you, I just link it with you because you was the one who restored this points in brackets and the one who defended to keep it in the discussion. If you are not supporting it anymore, maybe it is time to remove this stuff and end this pointless discussion? Corvus tristis (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note... part 2 First of all- part of the rules of DRN is no back and forth discussion until a volunteer steps up to take the case. So you two need to stop arguing here. Secondly- all involved editors in the talk page discussion must be notified and invited to participate before we will begin mediation here. If you are only concerned with behavior of one editor- (Ie Edit wars) you may want to try ANI instead of here. If you are wanting to find a compromise for a content dispute- you are in the right place! Just get the other editors involved here and we will begin. Until the other editors are invited- No more back and forth discussion please!!! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, I have notified all the participants. Corvus tristis (talk) 16:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc.
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 disagreement as to whether Elon Musk, J.B. Straubel and Ian Wright should be listed as founders in the Tesla, Inc. infobox. As the footnote in the infobox notes, Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were the original founders of Tesla; Musk, Straubel, and Wright only negotiated to call themselves co-founders after-the-fact, in a lawsuit settlement in 2009. As shown on the talk page discussion, reliable sources consistently and clearly name only Eberhard and Tarpenning as the sole co-founders of Tesla. I believe the infobox should reflect the determination made by these reliable sources, and only list Eberhard and Tarpenning as founders. Editors opposed to this change argue that the lawsuit settlement means the true founders of the company is now a "disputed" fact, which should be recognized by including Musk, Straubel, and Wright as founders as well. This feels to me like allowing the involved parties to re-write history, because the verifiable facts show that the true founders were only Eberhard and Tarpenning. The additional context of the lawsuit and settlement allowing Musk, Straubel, and Wright to call themselves co-founders is better suited for the article's main text, not the infobox.

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


 * Talk:Tesla,_Inc.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you can provide input on whether the lawsuit settlement makes the founders of Tesla a "disputed" fact that warrants mention in the infobox, or if reliable sources clearly show the verified facts to be that Eberhard and Tarpenning were the sole co-founders of the company.

Summary of dispute by QRep2020
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There are two participants who reject the current Founder configuration in the Infobox, two who affirm it, and two who argue that the field should not be used in the specific article at all; two of these participants came to the discussion via a request for outside comment. Clearly there is a disagreement that needs resolution.

My case for rejection is that the Infobox is not an appropriate place for including contingent labels that were "agreed upon" after the fact. The Founders field should consist of only relevant verified historical (abbreviated) statements as that is how any particular standard field of any type of Infobox consistently presents in Wikipedia articles across all categories. If there was a standard field in Infobox (company) template designated Retroactive Founders then that is where Musk, Straubel, etc. would be listed, but there is not. Placing the three retroactive founders' names in the Founders field with a footnote attached to them does not grant some sort of exception especially since the article itself already explains how Eberhard and Tarpenning created the company, coined its name, etc. as well as what happened in the subsequent lawsuit and agreement.

Edit: Italicized text supplants earlier text. QRep2020 (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Stepho-wrs
The editors who think that it should only be 2 founders have equated founding with those who signed the incorporation papers. But there is no legal definition of founder and even WP says at Startup_company that "The right to call oneself a co-founder can be established through an agreement with one's fellow co-founders or with permission of the board of directors, investors, or shareholders of a startup company." Article currently lists 5 founders, with a footnote on the 3 disputed names with details and reference - ie very compact but lets the interested reader know.  Stepho  talk 11:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MartinezMD
I don't see a problem keeping the list of founders as all 5 of the men in question. The three founders in question have proper footnotes explaining that they came later but that a negotiation led to the 5 being listed as such. Who are we trying to please here by saying otherwise? MartinezMD (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by A7V2
The discussion seemed to go a lot into a specific definition of what a founder is, but I feel this is not relevant and instead Wikipedia should reflect what reliable sources say, which as per my own comments I feel are just the two founders. That said, I agree with IPBilly's point that the infobox should only provide a summary, and contain as little information as necessary. So I feel that under the circumstances of it being disputed, the infobox category should either be left blank or have something like "disputed" so that it can be discussed in the article. Given that only one user (not including myself just now) has responded to this idea (which hadn't been raised by anyone else), I'm not sure what the point of this discussion here is? The discussion on the talk page is only a week old and IPBilly's comment just two days old. A7V2 (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by IPBilly
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The disagreement appears to be centered around the criteria for inclusion in the Infobox:founders category; the individuals responsible for originally incorporating the organization or persons whom carry the title "founder". Side A would like to change the infobox to list only the two "original" founders; including the 3 others would be rewriting history because they gained the title only after a court settlement. Side B would like to list all 5 founders because those 5 individuals all have the title "founder". Both sides have produced verifiable sources that support their position. I proposed splitting the baby and removing the category from the infobox entirely because either listing of 2 or 5 founders does not "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article", per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Given that there seems to be no disagreement 3/5 founders were added post-hoc, the key fact is that the "true" founders are disputed/honorary. IPBilly (talk) 13:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc. discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Any reason we can't have the first two and then add the other three as added in the 2009 lawsuit in parentheses? Guy (help! - typo?) 08:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how that helps solve whether the (or any) disputed "fact" warrants mention in the Infobox. QRep2020 (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue of this discussion is primarily caused by different ideas of what a founder is. Some have taken it to mean the people who signed the incorporation papers - and only those people. This does work for the majority of cases. However, the term is only a vague term that just means someone heavily involved during the early periods of the company. Wikipedia's own definition allows for founders to be whoever they agree it to be. It is perfectly acceptable to put all 5 founders in the infobox, as long as there is some (hopefully short) marker to point the reader to a fuller explanation of the controversy.  Stepho  talk 22:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the only one making an argument based on the definition of a founder. Others are simply relying on the determination made by reliable sources as to who the founders are, consistent with WP:NOTTRUTH Stonkaments (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. per WP:NOTTRUTH "In most other contexts, there are more than truths and lies under the sun: there are half-truths, lack of context, words with double or unclear meanings, logical fallacies, cherry-picked pieces of information to lead the reader to a predetermined conclusion, inadvertent reuse of someone else's lies, and even misunderstandings. A statement may fail to adequately convey the state of affairs regarding some topic, without that statement being an actual lie." Reliable sources have made both determinations of the founders, and it is up to us to decide which definition is appropriate and therefore which determination is most appropriate for the infobox. Sort of like how the original roadster was a hacked up Lotus Elise with an electric motor, nobody disagrees that it was a "Tesla" because it carried the Tesla badge, even though it originally started as a Lotus. In that scenario we'd be discussing the definition of "manufacturer", and whether or not a company must manufacture the chassis (or what minimum amount of contribution is necessary) in order to claim it as their own. IPBilly (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In other words, you, me and some of the references are using different definitions of founder. Which is why we simply list them all, add a marker and an explanation the controversy in the text (or footnote in this case). No lies, no hiding but still simple in the infobox.  Stepho  talk 21:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We keep going back to talk of definitions, but who are we to determine how a word is to be used on Wikipedia (or anywhere really)? Or to force a "new" usage via some extraneous introduction of footnotes? My point is we should instead to look at how other Infoboxes for company articles operate and try to maintain conformity, which is to be done by either using verified historical statements as the contents of the fields or by simply by leaving fields out entirely. I think the latter is a bit extreme given how readily available documentation about the creation of Tesla is, but it is certainly more consistent with other wide Infobox usage than mixing statement types (spurred by conflating the concept of a retroactive founder with that of a founder). Also, since we are already treading familiar ground here, maybe we should refrain from discussion until some other uninvolved editor contributes?QRep2020 (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * We keep going back to definitions because the heart of our disagreement is our definitions of what a founder is. My use of the word agrees with the WP definition and Tesla's own usage. Your use of the word agrees with some respectable organisations (eg Britannica). Calling them "retroactive founder"s is the no true Scotsman argument. When it's not clear cut we just list both sides and move on. Unfortunately this is an edge case, so most company infoboxes will not us give any guidance. But yes, I'm happy to hear from more people.  Stepho  talk 23:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not fallacious reasoning on my part and I take offense to that claim. There are those who initiated a company and who everyday English language speakers use "founders" to refer to - and then there are those who are allowed to call themselves founders because of some legal procedure. Call the former and latter whatever you want but there are obviously material differences between the two, i.e. one precedes the other by playing a fundamental causal role in a company's inception.


 * Tabling that matter, I would like to call attention to why this idea that the "definition of "founder" on Wikipedia" is ambiguous is inaccurate. On Template:Infobox_company, the line concerning the Founder field provides: "The founder/entrepreneur/s who founded the company." While it is not a particularly illustrative definition, it is one that does work but not one that "captures" Elon Musk and the two others who were not "in the room" when the company was started. Why? Because while some of us might want to allow a broad definition of "founder", no one has called into question what it takes to be said to have founded some company. The five of them did not found the company - only two of them did that in mid-2003, and then years later three others gained the right to call themselves founders. We might be tempted to think etymologically about all of this, but that is irrelevant: We know what it is to found a company (i.e. to initiate it) and Wikipedia gives us a definition of "founder" that has the word refer to those who founded some given company. The state of Wikipedia's definition of "founder" is not cause for deciding on a new one that could in turn facilitate the five names being list as they are now - it is fine the way it is and the way it is is cause for removing three of the names. QRep2020 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Without arguing for either side, I’d like to point out that according to WP:INFOBOXREF, inline references should only be included in an infobox when the material both (1) requires a reference and (2) does not appear in the body of the article. If we don’t break this rule, then the only acceptable resolutions here seem to be either (A) including all five in the infobox with no inline reference or (B) including only the two original founders in the infobox. The current state of the infobox (C) includes all five with the latter three having an inline reference, whose content is then repeated in the main body of the article. (Option (D) of leaving the “founder” field blank seems to be a nonstarter here.)

If we apply WP:INFOBOXREF strictly, then only (A) or (B) can be a real resolution here. However, we shouldn’t just always blindly follow rules. This may end up being a case where WP:INFOBOXREF shouldn’t apply, so (C) might be appropriate.

Now that I’ve pointed out the relevant infobox reference guidelines, I will say that if the choices are only between (A) and (B), we should prefer (B) over (A), because (A) seems misleading and would confuse people who later read In the main body of the article that three of the founders are disputed. For this reason alone, I believe we should all prefer (B) over (A), even if you genuinely believe that all five should otherwise be listed in the infobox.

However, choosing between (B) and (C) is much more difficult and is the main dispute at issue here. To those who believe that (C) is more appropriate than (B), I will point out that you may be tempted to prefer (B) solely because WP:INFOBOXREF strongly and directly disincentivizes (C). Does this reframing of the dispute in the context of WP:INFOBOXREF help others to reevaluate their position? If you originally preferred (C) over (B), does knowing this context make you any more favorable toward (B)? Or do you instead feel that (C) should be preferred over (B) despite WP:INFOBOXREF? &mdash; Eric Herboso 02:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this explication. I promote (B) in part because of "the rules" but also because the Infobox should provide quick verified historical statements for people who are skimming the article to read. Whatever the intention of creating the Infobox as an element for Wikipedia, I doubt anyone would deny that it is used by a lot of users to gleam key information about the subject of the article without having to go through the entire article itself to find it. Even with these inline references, having the five names possibly misleads some of these skimming readers as to the early history of the company because inline references requires an active action, i.e. clicking, to reveal the additional information they contain. QRep2020 (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Amazing! From the same arguments we come to the opposite conclusions. You said yourself that many readers will skim the infobox and come away with only those facts. By listing only 2 founders they will indeed come away agreeing with your conjecture that there are only 2 founders and that there is no more to say about it. But there is more to say about it. There are 3 more people that the company believes are founders. Since "founders" is rather vaguely defined, both 2 and 5 founders have supporting arguments.
 * Similar, the same argument applies if we list 5 founders with no further adornment - skim readers will think there are 5 founders and there is no more to say about it. This agrees with the definition that Tesla and myself use but obviously not with the definition that Britannica and yourself agree with. And again, the reader is short changed.
 * Therefore, there are only 2 honest representations we can make in the infobox.
 * Make no mention of it in the infobox and let the reader find it in the main text. The reader will not be led into either your or my interpretation alone and will have to make up their own mind from the references given. Possibly the founder field can have the words "disputed, see text" or similar.
 * Mention all possible founders with a marker of some type to indicate that some are in contention. Again, the reader is not lead to blindly follow either you interpretation or my interpretation.
 * WP:INFOBOXREF gives the very sound advice that "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." Ie, it does not strictly rule them out but strongly suggests that they are only needed in unusual cases. In our case, whether there are 2 or 5 founders is not obvious. We could argue that the number of founders is expanded in another part of the article. But if we had either 2 or 5 founders listed and no marker then skim readers will not realise that and might come away with the impression that the particular founders listed (2 or 5) are the entire story. Therefore, there must be some form of marker, reference, footnote or similar on whatever we list.
 * Note also that even though the infobox currently has a footnote marker, the explanatory text and its reference are not in the infobox - thus taking up very little space in the infobox. I have no problem if you want to make that footnote a little longer to show that some authorities (eg Britannica) have the opposite opinion than Tesla does.  Stepho  talk 09:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with a lot of what Stepho-wrs has said here, and I disagree that WP:INFOBOXREF is particularly helpful in this case. This policy to me is written in such a way that it cannot be "strictly applied" for it only offers a suggestion: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed..." - to me this says that in unusual circumstances it is perfectly acceptable to include references in the infobox. Also I will point out that explanatory footnotes are not inline references, so this would not be a reason to justify their removal. If others feel that the explanatory footnote itself (if it is decided to keep one) has been adequately cited in the body of the article then they (the citations) could be removed from it (the footnote). I'm unsure why "Option (D) of leaving the “founder” field blank seems to be a nonstarter here.", and Eric Herboso has given no reason for this. To the second part of what Stepho-wrs I agree 100%. Clearly given that there is a dispute, if either 2 or 5 are included then there ought to be a footnote explaining the controversy/dispute, or otherwise the field should be left blank or preferably (as I now feel) it should be listed as "disputed", perhaps with a link to a relevant section. A7V2 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I could live with the Disputed indication, for now. QRep2020 (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Option D is probably a non-starter because it doesn't resolve any of the disputes here, it's very much a "everybody loses" outcome. That said, my reasoning for suggesting that option is as follows: a) it avoids re-hashing this same discussion some time in the future with different parties that have the same opinions. Each side has an entirely rational reason for wanting only two or all five individuals and neither side is "wrong", but both sides can't be right. B) A seemingly definitive statement that the other three are not founders is as misleading as suggesting they are to somebody that doesn't/won't read the rest of the article. I was initially of the opinion that all five should be included but persuasive arguments have been made for only the original two that have swayed my opinion slightly. I think that the casual reader will come to the page with some idea that Musk was one of the founders (right or wrong), and seeing the name not listed could lead to further confusion or a negative reaction of "I'd better fix this", I believe the mindset of trying to avoid future edit wars is against some wiki policy however. C) There is not (as far as I'm aware) a policy stating that every infobox field must be used, by omitting it there is no way that the reader, casual or interested, would be mislead. I'm not opposed to simply noting the disputed status and linking to the relevant section, but I do not know how controversial the founder's dispute is outside of wikipedia and this option may be drawing more attention to the matter than is warranted.16:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPBilly (talk • contribs)


 * Volunteer Note - I see that there has been extended discussion here, and the discussion appears to have been productive. Usually discussion before a moderator arrives is not productive, so I thank the editors for being collaborative.  Do you still want a moderator?  I am willing to come up with a revised set of rules that encourage constructive back-and-forth.  The rules will still say to be civil and concise, because those are always a good idea, and not to edit the article, which you are not doing, because that is a bad idea.  Do you want very lightweight moderation?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would still appreciate a moderator's assistance. Stonkaments (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, moderators are always welcome.  Stepho  talk 22:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

First statement by moderator
Since the participants have been doing well but have said that a moderator will help, I will provide this statement.

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. These rules seem to have been followed, which is good.

The main issue appears to be the infobox. The editors have agreed that there are four options about the Founders field in the infobox.
 * A. List all five people.  An explanation can be p rovided in the text of the article.
 * B. List the first two people.  An explanation can be provided in the text of the article.
 * C. List all five people, but with an explanatory note for the three who were added.
 * D. Omit the Founder field in the infobox.

So are there any other options on the infobox? Also, are there any other issues requiring dispute resolution?

If there are no other options, then we need to decide whether we will resolve the infobox question by a consensus here at DRN, or use an RFC. If in doubt, we should use an RFC. If we are using an RFC, the important consideration is to be sure that it is clear and properly worded.

Each editor should provide a brief statement in the section below. If you comment on another editor's statement, indent your own comments at least two spaces. If you reply to a comment, indent your reply at least two more spaces. Make your own statement also. However, it is probably better at this time only to make your own statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

First statements by editors after moderation started
There is also the option that came up in the above part where we have no names listed and instead put 'Disputed' in the field, perhaps as a Wikilink to the appropriate subsection that discusses the matter at length.

For the reasons I supplied above and elsewhere, I am opposed to A and C (with prejudice for A), my vote is for B, but I will support D or E (assuming E is the 'Disputed' option). QRep2020 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I find all of the 4 options have problems.
 * A. Listing all 5 implies to skim readers that there are exactly 5 and that there is nothing more to know.
 * B. Listing only 2 implies to skim readers that there are exactly 2 and that there is nothing more to know.
 * C. Listing all 5 with a note. A note inside the infobox takes a up a lot of space in what is meant to be a summary. Unless you meant something very short like "Under dispute, see main text" or a footnote link.
 * D. If we omit the field altogether then some well meaning soul will see the missing information and add it - bringing us back to today's situation. Possibly we should fill it with a comment similar to "don't fill this in, see dispute arguments in text".


 * As I see it, we want to keep the infobox uncluttered but not misleading. I see the only tenable options as:
 * 1. List no founders in the infobox but have text similar to "Under dispute, see main text". Same as QRep2020's option E.
 * 2. List all 5 but add a footnote to elsewhere in the page that explains the situation fully. I can see now that skim readers might miss the subtlety of this and just think that there are exact 5 founders.
 * 3. List all 5 but add extra line similar to "Under dispute, see main text". This is starting to get cluttered.
 * 4. List all 5 but for the 3 disputed names add "(disputed)" to that name. Also slightly cluttered but at least it is clear.
 * I could live with any of these. Of course, there should be a section in the main text in all cases.  Stepho  talk 23:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I also agree with including an option E where the infobox would say something to the effect of "Disputed, see [Link to founders section in main text]". It seems pretty clear that any option that involves listing the two or five founders (option A, B, or C) wouldn't accurately convey the full story — though personally I still believe that option B is the most accurate and truthful, as it aligns with the vast majority of reliable sources. As for deciding to do a RfC instead of resolving the dispute here, what would be the reasoning for that? We've received input from everyone who's been involved in the talk page discussion, so in my mind it seems easier to reach an agreement here rather than changing forums again. But I'm not very familiar with this process, so if others think a RfC would be better I'm perfectly fine with that too. Stonkaments (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As it was A7V2's suggestion, it looks like we have a clear majority who can "live with" E. Have we then cause for ending the Dispute and making the edit on Tesla, Inc.? QRep2020 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I see that there are two options missing, E as outlined by those above (having "disputed" or "Under dispute, see main text" or similar) as well as having just the 2 names but a note pointing out the dispute (which I'll call option F). My preference would definitely be for option E, followed by F, then C, then D. I agree with the others that leaving D blank could result in it being constantly filled in all of the time, but I definitely don't like the idea of options A or B as there clearly is a "dispute" (for lack of a better word) between the majority (but not all) reliable sources and the company itself, and having just 2 or just 5 with no note is misleading if one doesn't read the whole article. A7V2 (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator
It appears that all of the participants agree that they will accept having Founder in the Infobox say: "Disputed, see main text". Is there agreement that we can compromise on Disputed?

Are there any other issues, or do we closed as Resolved? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors
I think my preference would be to list all 5, with a clear designation of their disputed status, possibly using superscript to limit clutter. The only reason for this is that it may be difficult to quickly parse the names of the founders (disputed or not) from the text describing the whole situation. This is a low value concern, however, and a simple "disputed" would suffice. IPBilly (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I support “disputed” and closing this discussion. I think any issues with quickly parsing the text could be resolved by making a subsection titled “Founding” (or similar) in the History section of the article, with a clear and concise summary of the history of events, and linking to that from the infobox. Stonkaments (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Second. QRep2020 (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I don't want to come across as though I'm particularly dug-in on this issue, I only meant to give an alternative perspective (which to be clear, is that tables>prose ) regarding the various proposals based on how I use Wikipedia. All considered, my concern with readability is minuscule in comparison to the numerous other issues affecting the article as a whole. IPBilly (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that you agree. I also agree that there is plenty issues affecting the article - you should raise the ones you find especially exacerbating and I imagine others will concur. QRep2020 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

China–United States trade war
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 concerns an impasse in the resolution of competing versions of a section in the above article (entitled Backgrounds) between myself and Mx. Granger (This is my version of the material while this is the opposing editor's version. Prior attempts to get the opposing user to respond to my objections (,, ,  and ) were met with either non-responses which (deliberately or otherwise) doesn't address content issues  or a game-the-system response in which the opposing user attempts to shift the status quo by misrepresenting my position, ramming through his/her preferred changes to the main article on the basis of that misrepresentation and then addressing the extant objections that I had to his/her previous arguments. Contributors will note that at no point do the other editors ever specify (much less justify) on the talk page which part of the section to remove. Contributors will also note that the two series of edit which introduced much of the deleted material (series 1 -, , , , , , , , , , , , , and series 2 - , , , ) stood for a year (one year because this edit marked the introduction of the subsection that documents the relationship between China and the WTO) - for the entire time throughout the opposing editor was continuously active on the main article and did not once modify the content contained in the two series of edits until now.

On a procedural note, can I can inform the author of those two series of edits of this dispute even though he/she was not a direct participant to the previous debate on the talk page? I think that that editor should be made aware of the dispute that's going on here given the drastic changes that are being proposed to it. Flaughtin (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 4

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Reset the section of the article in question to the original state until the outstanding issues as explicated on the talk page can be resolved first.

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

The disagreement is about how much information the background section should contain, and how to write that section in a way that gives due weight. The solution with the most support is to generally limit the background material to information that reliable sources have linked to the trade war. The other three users in the discussion (including me) agree with this solution, but Flaughtin objects. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

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 Thucydides411
There are two problems with the Background section: The Background section should be dramatically reduced in length, and should focus much more on the immediate causes of the trade war. It can briefly discuss China's entry into the WTO, but the main emphasis should be on the trade imbalance, the view that the US trade deficit with China is a problem, the mainstream economic view of the trade imbalance, and Trump's 2016 campaign promises. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is far too long - it should be drastically cut down. We don't need an entire subsection about China's entry into the WTO and an entire subsection about "Conflicts after China joins the WTO."
 * 2) It is extremely unbalanced, presenting various complaints about China's trade practices at length with little discussion of either China's position, or the mainstream economic view (for example, on US trade deficits - namely that they have little to do with Chinese economic policies). Reading through the background section, it's quite clear that it's written from the perspective of someone who is sympathetic to Trump's views on trade. It should read more neutrally.

Summary of dispute by Light show
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. If the dispute concerns what Granger stated, that it should "limit the background material to information that reliable sources have linked to the trade war," then I would disagree. Note the current footnote #39 from the Washington Post explains why background is necessary to help readers understand the trade war: "There was a belief that China would develop a private economy that would prove compatible with the WTO system. Chinese leadership has made a political decision to do the opposite. So now we have to respond."

By deleting the entire section, the article is disconnected from it's causes. The section should naturally be restored. Some articles that I've edited all have detailed background sections: COVID-19 pandemic, Opioid epidemic in the United States, Thorium-based nuclear power. Without those, the articles would have been seriously defective.

As for how much background material is necessary, that would be a more relevant question, so I agree with Granger on that. But as for writing the section in a way that gives due weight, it seems that was properly done. The sources included opinions by Chinese leaders when they gave them publicly. If anything, our press, not being very pro-Trump, has given extra weight to China's opinions, along with complaints by various experts in the U.S. and Europe that the trade conflict was harming certain industries.

One important issue is that deleting thousands of words at one time, ie. diff-1 and diff-2, covering many sections, makes reviewing and editing nearly impossible. The guidelines require that edits, whether adding or deleting, be done in segments, so that other editors can review them. One of the reasons I didn't join the earlier discussions was because debates about 26 subjects at a time was a barrier. It only makes sense, IMO, to restore most of the section on background. --Light show (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

China–United States trade war discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. hello. i will volunteer to moderate this dispute, do you have any objections. also notify other participants on their talk pages Clone commando sev (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections and I have already notified al the other participants. Flaughtin (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Before we begin in earnest, on a procedural note, can I can inform the author of the two aformentioned series of edits of this dispute even though he/she was not a direct participant to the previous debate on the talk page? I think that that editor should be made aware of the dispute that's going on here given the drastic changes that are being proposed to it. Flaughtin (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * dont make them an involved editor but yes you can notify them. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * dont make them an involved editor Can you clarify this? I don't understand what exactly it means. Can that edior participate in this discussion/debate despite not being included on the users involved list? If he/she can't then it doesn't seem like it makes sense for me to notify him/her. Flaughtin (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * i mean dont use the template just go on their page and put something like "hey there is a DRN going on over your edits" and put the link Clone commando sev (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can that edior participate in this discussion/debate despite not being included on the users involved list? Flaughtin (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * yes that is allowed. they just have to be involved but not involved enough to be mentioned on the onset Clone commando sev (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I've notified the editor of this debate. Ready to start it whenever you are. Flaughtin (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Light show Well said. I entirely agree with your position to restore most of the section on background. And I also entirely agree with your observation about that editor's problematic habit of removing reams of material (which that editor doesn't like) across multiple sections in one go. Just because the material in the section doesn't literally mention the current US-China trade war (how can it if it's background information?) doesn't mean it's not linked (directly or otherwise) to the trade war. While we can remove material from the background section (or more accurately migrate the material to the China and the World Trade Organization article), we do not of course mean removing nearly all of the material from the section, as is the case in the extant version of the background section. Determining what material should stay and what material should go is precisely the issue at hand, and as I said in my opening remarks, you'll note that at no point do the other editors ever specify (much less justify) on the talk page which part of the section to remove...which is why we are here.

Clone commando sev - do you have any comments on Light Show's above remarks? Flaughtin (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The solution with the most support on the talk page is to leave out the material that reliable sources don't tie to the trade war. This seems like a sensible solution to me, and is in the spirit of WP:PROPORTION.
 * Alternatively we can try to find a different solution that includes more of the tangentially related material. But the prior version of the section and User:Flaughtin's version of the section are both non-neutral. User:Thucydides411's version would be a better basis to work from if we're going to go that route. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A few comments on your remarks:
 * 1) Why did it take you one year for you to decide to remove the material? For the entire time throughout you were continuously active on the main article and did not once modify the content contained in background section until now, so why are you now suddenly changing your position?
 * 2) The solution with the most support on the talk page is to leave out the material that reliable sources don't tie to the trade war. This seems like a sensible solution to me, and is in the spirit of WP:PROPORTION. - yes, that is everybody's position. Please stop insinuating that my and Light Show's position is not that either.
 * 3) Please be specific as I've asked you to a whole bunch of other times already. Which part doesn't belong, which part belongs and why?
 * 4) PROPORTION is a knife that cuts both ways. By purging the background section of the previous material, the article now gives undue weight to your position that there is no background issue to speak of, which is in contravention to what the accompanying sources in the previous version of the section were all saying.
 * 5) Alternatively we can try to find a different solution that includes more of the tangentially related material. - If that's the case then we must revert back to Light Show's version of the article per BRD as that was the original version of the article before all this edit warring began. Flaughtin (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Re: Granger's suggestion, that we "leave out the material that reliable sources don't tie to the trade war." If we did that literally, the result would likely be more non-neutral. I'm all for keeping it neutral. For instance, one my earliest edits to the article was to delete a large section of material that was clearly non-neutral and irrelevant. But it got worse, with edit wars eventually removing an entire non-neutral section about the Structure of China's political economy system.
 * But as for deleting all sourced WTO details from before the trade war, and relying instead on only recent sources, it shifts to a less neutral tone. For example, Newsweek, quoting Trump,
 * ""They took advantage of us for many, many years. And I blame us, I don't blame them. I don't blame President Xi. I blame all of our presidents, and not just President Obama. You go back a long way. You look at President Clinton, Bush—everybody. They allowed this to happen, they created a monster… We rebuilt China because they get so much money.""


 * Or relying on Time magazine: "China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization has enabled the greatest job theft in the history of our country...Clinton who lobbied for China’s disastrous entry into the World Trade Organization, and Hillary Clinton who backed that terrible, terrible agreement...China’s unfair subsidy behavior is prohibited by the terms of its entrance to the WTO and I intend to enforce those rules and regulations." Along with the Washington Post:
 * ""In 2010, trade attorney Robert Lighthizer told a congressional committee that optimistic Clinton administration forecasts for China’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization in 2001 had not panned out. There was more than a little truth in that, and still is.""


 * So while it's not difficult to find recent sources covering the earlier WTO, they explain with few actual facts and figures that were in the original background section, such as Clinton's hopeful comments. Like other wars, this one has a background that readers should have explained within the article.--Light show (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Structure of China's political economy system - LOL.
 * These quotes and finds are pure gold User talk:Light show. I really want to see the other editor wiggle out of this one. Had no idea there was such a massive fight over the background section before. Flaughtin (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think comments like are conducive to a productive discussion. I'm also not sure how to interpret the phrase  – this article isn't about a war.
 * Anyway, like I said, I'm open to including some of the tangentially related material. But if we do that, we need to do it in a way that follows WP:NPOV and doesn't misrepresent sources. It's hard for me to see how we will decide what constitutes due weight if we aren't doing so based on sources, which is why I like User:ReconditeRodent's suggestion of sticking to material that RSs tie to the trade war.
 * With respect to the sources User:Light show linked: the Newsweek source looks good to me and could be used in China–United States trade war. The Time source is just a transcript of a speech by Trump, and the Washington Post source is an opinion piece (both from before the trade war started), so those two need to be used with more caution. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The point of the recent sources quoted was to show that they shift the focus to criticisms, as opposed to the balanced background details of pre-trade war sources which described the applause, approval, praise and hope for the future.  Even the WTO itself, in an Analysis of the conflict, stated in it's first sentence the purpose was to give "an economic analysis of the trade conflict between the US and China, providing an overview of the tariff increases [and] a discussion of the background of the trade conflict...." In any case, there is an unlimited number of post-trade war reliable sources such as the NYT, Foreign Policy, Bloomberg, and even DW (Germany), along with Newsweek, which describe the issues and criticisms from today's viewpoint.
 * In its background details, the WTO Analysis likewise notes some of the motives for the trade war: "the poor protection of intellectual property rights in China, forced technology transfer from foreign companies investing in China, and the heavy involvement of the Chinese government in its economy through (implicit) subsidization of state-owned companies (SOEs)." --Light show (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the WTO analysis carefully yet, but at first glance it looks like a good source, which we can use to expand the "Background" section as well as other parts of the article. Thanks for finding it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The Atlantic of 8/2018 had a lengthy article about the pre-trade war period: "By letting the country into the World Trade Organization back in 2001, Washington laid the groundwork for the tensions roiling relations with Beijing today."--Light show (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like an acceptable source to me too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Light show - since you have such deep background knowledge of the previous versions of the section, can you proceed with the proposed write-up for the section? Also, can you look at my version of the section and see what part of that section looks acceptable? I'll move anything that you don't think is good to the China and the WTO main article. Flaughtin (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do. --Light show (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Light show - have you finished with the proposed write-up for the section yet? If not how far along the process are you? Flaughtin (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost there. --Light show (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Commented at the article talk page to keep the discussion there. --Light show (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * To give an idea of how much the discussion of China and the WTO in the background could be shortened, I think that everything through the end of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" subsection in this revision could be replaced by this. I agree that the WTO analysis (Bekkers & Schroeter) gives a good overview of the arguments used in the US to argue for the trade war, as well as the mainstream economic analysis of those arguments. I would envision the background continuing with a few of Trump's statements about China, and then a paragraph based on Bekkers & Schroeter. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on your fellow-traveler's (Mx. Granger) criteria, your version is inadmissible because (among the reasons) it draws on two sources and therefore contains the corresponding material which are not directly linked to the trade war. Flaughtin (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, let's directly ask my "fellow traveler," rather than making assumptions., do you think that the text I'm proposing for the beginning of the Background section has too much material not directly linked to the trade war? -Thucydides411 (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If it will resolve this dispute, I'm happy with it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It might also be good to mention that the US and China are the world's two largest economies. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not going to resolve the dispute as I object to the write up for the reasons given above.
 * You justified your purge of the background section (as you did here) on the grounds that the material there did not directly connect to the subject matter of the trade war, but you support the other user's write-up despite the fact that the material there does not directly connect to the subject matter of the trade war either. Why the double standard? Flaughtin (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Clone commando sev can you coment on the above assertion that I made against Mx. Granger? I want to see if there's any confusion on my part. Flaughtin (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'm open to including some of the tangential material if we can do it neutrally. I think focusing the section on material that reliable sources tie to the trade war seems like a good, straightforward solution, but I'm open to other ways to resolve the disagreement as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that you shouldn't insult each-other. also try to come to a middle ground compromise. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Joy (singer)
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 corrected recent edits by user Raolae that unnecessarily deleted citations, removed information according to their personal views without evidence or reason, and made numerous grammatical and factual errors on the Joy (singer) page. User Raolae reverted my revisions 3 times in less than 24 hours. I then engaged with them in a civil and thorough discussion on the talk page in an attempt to resolve the dispute. I provided detailed explanations for my edits, citations, and objective facts. Each time the user has refused to acknowledge the stated facts (including even basic grammar corrections) and ignored any attempt at compromise. The talk page discussion outlines many of the edits I believe need to be rectified.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joy_(singer)#User_Raolae_continually_reverting_edits_and_adding_unnecessary_revisions_to_Joy_(Singer)_page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

You can provide an objective and educated perspective.

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

Joy (singer) discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

United Kingdom
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 only truth is that I have been referred to as an eco-colonialist by the Brazilian government to further their political purposes of deflecting their poor track record of protecting the Amazonas rainforest. However, this is an entirely false statement. Buying land in a foreign country to preserve rainforest is not colonialism. With regards to Green Grabbing - Eco-Colonialism and Green Grabbing are two defined terms with different meaning. Vidal’s article does not suggest that I am a Green Grabber; it only refers to the aforementioned statement by the Brazilian government. Therefore to refer to Johan Eliasch in relation to Green Grabbing is not only deliberately misleading but also libellous and defamatory. I believe I have now explained this very clearly, and please understand that there are implications of libel and defamation, so please be so kind to remove the reference to myself and Cool Earth under Green Grabbing without further delay. Firstly, the Guardian Article does not state that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber", so Wikipedia is inferring that Mr Eliasch is a "Green Grabber". Secondly, the entire topic is essentially based on a single newspaper article which did not gain any traction. That is not responsible reporting. Wikipedia may be an encyclopedia but it also has to be verifiable and accurate. Why doesn't Wikipedia write about the other individuals mentioned in the article? Why doesn't Wikipedia go to the Cool Earth Website? If Wikipedia copied the Guardian article in good faith, it would mention every individual mentioned in the article. The topic has been reported in malicious faith and without foundation. Legal action will ensue should no actionable response be received.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:37.71.1.37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_grabbing

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By removing the malicious accusations

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

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

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