Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 208

Graham Hancock
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

Designation of the author as a "pseudo-scientist, pseudo-archeologist, pseudo-historian", rather than a journalist.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Graham_Hancock#Proposed_Deletion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Discuss bias in source's used by editors to designate the journalistic works of Hancock, which are heavily cited, as "pseudoscience".

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

Summary of dispute by wooF
I shall not be taking part in this discussion. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 19:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by MjolnirPants
This is begging for a close. I'd do it myself but for the obvious COI here. Note that the filer is alone in their argument, and is simply raging against a well established consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  19:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by J8jweb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by JosephHatton101
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Summary of dispute by Roxy the elfin dog
I shall not take part either. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 19:08, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Summary of dispute by Splitpenny2001
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by KRLA18
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

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

Graham Hancock discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Just noting that not all of the above accounts actually exist and those that do haven't been notified, with many not editing recently. Doug Weller  talk 19:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are too many editors for a moderated discussion, and consensus is against the filer. I will close this when I am at my desktop computer.

McClenon mobile (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

RNA Vaccine
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

RNA vaccine / History.

Guest2625 has removed the inventors name for political reasons.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Reinstate the truth. Don't edit Robert Malone out of history because you don't like his opinion on covid vaccines and you want to delegitimise him.

Summary of dispute by Guest2625
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Conor McGregor
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

Is Sherdog.com the only acceptable source to use for official MMA fight results/outcomes?

Argument A: WP:MMA states "In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder. Do not use your interpretation of a fight result in the record, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Any result that is not referenced or that is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog."

Argument B: WP:MMA, a relatively non-active wikiproject, does not override WP:RS policy. Additionally, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has already ruled that sources other than Sherdog can be used in MMA articles, and specifically in Conor McGregor (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318).

First disputed edit: Results of McGregor v Poirer on 10 July, 2021. (Discussion: Talk:Conor_McGregor) •Argument A says the result is "TKO (leg injury)" with justification being the Sherdog source. •Argument B says the result is "TKO (doctor stoppage due to leg injury)" with justification being six reliable sources. Second disputed edit: Results of McGregor v Poirer on 24 January, 2021. (Discussion: Talk:Conor_McGregor) •Argument A says the result is "KO (punches)" with justification being the Sherdog source. •Argument B says the result is "TKO (punches)" with justification being the CBS source used in the body text of the article.

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

Talk:Conor_McGregor Talk:Conor_McGregor

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

New opinions weighing in on the two disputed edits in order to form a consensus.


 * Interesting that you chose to ignore this. NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good lord, stop with the non-sequiturs. I didn't ignore that, that is the basis of the disagreement. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 09:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't add Cassiopeia but you did add someone with 1 edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While I'm glad they chose to give their opinions here, they did not comment at all on the talk page discussions. Again, this is completely besides the point. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 10:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Bastun
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I didn't get a ping about this, and disagree with the preliminary outcome, so I've reopened.

Argument A: (My emphasis added)

Sources within the body of the article do state otherwise. ESPN and several other WP:RS give the fight result as "doctor's stoppage" in the body of the article. More sources are listed here, above. That is the official result, is sourced, and can and should be used. Which brings us to:

Argument B: "the Reliable Sources Noticeboard has already ruled that sources other than Sherdog can be used in MMA articles, and specifically in the Conor McGregor article. (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318).

I mean - that's pretty crystal clear, isn't it? There is no One True Source. The RfC has ruled, the ruling has not been overturned. It still stands. One or two active editors - one of whom has just been blocked from the article in question for a week - can't enforce their project's guideline over community consensus. They just can't.

So, I move that the first edit (McGregor's most recent result) be changed to match the ESPN source: TKO (doctor's stoppage). But - more substantively - I would like to see confirmation that the MMA project's guideline does not trump Wikipedia policy on WP:CONSENSUS or the outcome of an RfC. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by NEDOCHAN
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. No source has TKO (Doctor stoppage due to leg injury). Not one source. Not a single source lists the result that way. Nada. It is a paraphrase, not an official result. Every MMA page in Wikipedia sources fight results to Sherdog. The MMA infobox contains a link to it.
 * Who, specifically, are these sources paraphrasing? These are all official results just as much as Sherdog is, regardless of MMA article precedent.
 * ESPN - "The official result was Poirier by TKO (doctor's stoppage) at 5:00 of the first round."
 * NY Times "Lost via technical knockout because of a doctor's stoppage."
 * WashPo "Poirier claimed the final chapter of [the fight] on a doctor's decision when McGregor could not continue after injuring his leg."
 * DAZN News "Poirier def. McGregor at 5:00 of the first round after the ringside doctor stopped the fight."
 * CBS "Dustin Poirier scores TKO victory after Conor McGregor suffers leg injury"
 * UFC 1, 2 "Dustin Poirier def. Conor McGregor via TKO (Doctor stoppage) at 5:00 of round one."
 * –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 09:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * How about you show me a source that says, verbatim, TKO (Doctor stoppage due to leg injury) ?NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Each source explicitly says the fight ended with a TKO due to a doctor's stoppage, explicitly says McGregor had a leg injury, and explicitly says the leg injury is what caused the doctor's stoppage. I'm not continuing this discussion anymore as you're just going in circles. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 09:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * How's that verbatim result coming along?NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Each source explicitly says the fight ended with a TKO due to a doctor's stoppage. How's that week-long block from the article going? How's being laughed off AN/I going? I mean, is there a better recent example of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT around the project? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Cassiopeia
Fist of all WikiProject MMA is not dead and but well alive as many of regular MMA editors do involve in the discussions concerning WikiProject MMA. The guidelines using Sherdog as the fight record precisely many sources or editors would indicate slightly different fight method and discussions and dispute get out of hand. We can go on and dig other sources of TKO to KO or KO to TKO, from leg injury to doctor stoppage and so on and so forth. User:FormalDude, Sherdog indicate TKO (doctor stoppage) then Sherdog change it to TKO (leg injury) the next day. Could we compromise to use Sherdog TKO (leg injury) but indicate due to to doctor stoppage in the note section and close this dispute/discussion? Cassiopeia(talk) 09:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fine resolution for the first disputed edit, but the second disputed edit needs to be updated to "TKO" instead of "KO". The very MMA guidelines you're using a justification stipulate that Sherdog should be used "unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise." This source in the body of the text says the result is a TKO, not a KO. –– F ORMAL D UDE ( talk ) 10:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * for UFC 264, it is a TKO. All is good then - TKO (leg injury) on fight method and "due to doctor stoppage" in the note section. If that is agreed by you then we can close this discussion. Kindly info. As for UFC 257, if many source indicate a TKO then we go by that and in the other hand if more source indicate KO, the KO be it then. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 10:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All good on UFC 264. UFC 257 however, the article says the result was "KO (punches)", however the sources in the body text says the result was "TKO (punches)". Per MMA policy we should go by the source in the body text, right? So "TKO (punches)" would be the result. –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 10:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a brief checked, the sources I see is TKO for UFC 257. I think we are resolve the 2 issues here. If you agree then this discussion can be closed.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 10:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. I greatly appreciate your effort helping to resolve these edit disputes. –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 10:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All good then, could you pls indicate on top of this DRN that the issue is sloved and interested editor could closed this discussion. Thank you.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 10:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * TKO (leg injury) on fight method and "due to doctor stoppage" in the note section. Is not what has happened.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Corrected the article. See diff. –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 11:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Note - reopened, as dispute not resolved.
 * As far as I can tell this dispute is resolved. –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 11:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC) User:Bastun has explained their reason for reopening. –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 11:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the resolution, silly to reopen.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Important comment: Even if we were to ignore 's valid points about Sherdog not being the only source that meets WP:RS, the MMA wikiproject guidelines that both and  favor states "In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder." Well, section '2021' of Conor McGregor (body text of the article) states the result as a doctor's stoppage with two verifying sources, while Sherdog does not mention a doctor's stoppage. That means as the article stands, it has a contradictory statement, because the Sherdog result is listed under the 'Mixed martial arts record' section. According to the MMA guidelines that we JUST agreed to for UFC 264, the Mixed martial arts record section should reflect the result as per the body text, NOT Sherdog. –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 12:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Happy to wait for further comment from CassNEDOCHAN (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * And presumably other people who aren't members of the MMA wikiproject? That's kinda the point of dispute resolution. New, uninvolved voices. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Cassiopeia is the one who agreed to change UFC 264 for the same reason. I seriously doubt they're going to change their mind and say that reason is no longer valid for UFC 257. –– F ORMAL D UDE (<b style=";color: #0101C0;font-size:115%;"> talk </b>) 12:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Volunteer Note
This dispute was not previously discussed at Talk:Conor McGregor, and prior discussion at the article talk page is required before a case can be opened by a volunteer on this noticeboard. Then the discussion started, without a volunteer, and appeared to reach a conclusion, and was closed, and then was reopened, all without a volunteer. On the one hand, that is not the way that DRN is supposed to work. On the other hand, that is the way that an article talk page is supposed to work, with the editors discussing among themselves without the need for a moderator. So I am copying your discussion to Talk:Conor McGregor and telling you to resume discussion there. Your discussion seems to be making progress without a moderator. So continue the discussion at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Creep 2
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

As can be seen in the history and, later on, the talk page, user Bluerules and I engaged in a discussion about our respective edits in order to avoid edit warring. This sequel to a 2014 film is about a clever, quirky serial killer who toys with his victims passive-aggressively before killing them. He is compulsively mendacious, manipulative and prone to projecting a deceptive air of vulnerability in both films. Thus a leitmotiv is the impossibility of knowing when, if at all, he is being sincere. My edits in the Plot section were aimed at describing the events of the film from a skeptical distance, avoiding particular interpretations and taking into account the aforementioned character's inscrutability. User Bluerules erased most of those edits and in our subsequent discussion proved that their reason for doing so was the fact that the film's plot centerpiece, namely the serial killer's alleged midlife crisis (which I contend may or may not be as much of a lie as the cancer diagnosis in the first film) is a blatant, established fact that admits no discussion. By doing so, this user was summarily reducing the entire gamut of potential interpretations of the character to his or her own restrictive interpretation. The killer, I emphasize, is a sociopath, a compulsive liar, a master manipulator and a narcissist who films his exploits and edits them into warped "dramas" for his own enjoyment; user Bluerules believes that such behavior is not enough evidence and if the serial killer states (to his victims or to the camera) that he is going through a midlife crisis, then there is no reason to doubt it. By this same standard, user Bluerules proceeds to draw what they believe is an incontrovertible line between truth and lie in other instances of the killer's behavior. I have tried to convince Bluerules that they had molded the plot to THEIR interpretation of the film, not to an aseptic plot contemplating all interpretations, but so far this task has proved useless.

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

Talk:Creep_2

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As many additional opinions as possible. Fresh pairs of eyes need to read through the talk page impartially and with a cool demeanor. I decided to take this step because the interchange was becoming acerbic on both sides.

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

Creep 2 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - If the editors are requesting the involvement of one or two additional editors for discussion in order to improve the article, a request at WikiProject Film is suggested. (The length of the existing discussion on the talk page may be excessive, and the editors might want to start over and be concise.  But first, ask for another editor.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * * Done. AnyDosMilVint (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

AA battery
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 want to add a guide to pronunciation at the start of the article. "The AA battery (pronounced eɪ eɪ or double A) is..." The pronunciation I have added is used in dictionaries and is linked to a Wikipage. For example, "AA" could be read "2A" or "aah", so adding this info is useful. Also, the AAA battery Wikipage has the reading "triple A". Someone keeps reverting my edits.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Get some more opinions of other people to build a consensus.

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

AA battery discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor says that they want to get the opinions of other editors. That can be done with a Request for Comments.  If the filing editor wants assistance in preparing the RFC in a reasonable neutral way, that assistance can be provided if it is requested.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - If there is a request for assistance in preparing an RFC, the assistance will be provided, and this case will be closed. Otherwise this case will be closed without action.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is an ongoing debate on the talk page about how scholarly opinions should be framed in the lede. (Forgive my use of the word "opinion" as that is itself the talk page debate. I'm just not sure how else to phrase it). The question is whether the scholarship should be presented in the voice of Wikipedia as conclusive/statements of fact or presented as opinions in the manner of "some scholars critique X in such as so manner" or "some scholars say" or "critiques/opponents of the anti-gender movement say" etc. My opinion is that these scholarly opinions are opinions nonetheless and should be presented as such. Two other editors argue they should simply be presented as "the" scholarly position on the matter. I believe (and hope) I have characterized the dispute charitably to both sides. I welcome User:Buidhe's correction if I have not.

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

Talk:Anti-gender movement

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Input from other experienced editors can generate more substantive discussion and reach a conclusion of how to phrase this topic.

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

Summary of dispute by Newimpartial
If I understand Ergo Sum correctly, they are saying that the discussion of the "Anti-gender movement" by social scientists needs to be taken out of Wikivoice, and attributed to "some scholars" or "opponents" of the movement, because certain other scholars - namely, Catholic theologians - support the movement. My own view is that the support of Catholic theologians for the anti-gender movement should be noted in the article, but should not affect the WP:NPOV of the article which needs to reflect on-topic scholarship, not theology. Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is my position.  Ergo Sum  03:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Buidhe
The issue is that Ergo Sum has yet to come up with any reliable sources written from the perspective of Catholic theologians about the anti-gender movement. Personally I suspect that such sources don't exist, since theology is not the study of political movements (even those that originate in religion). All we can do in this case is report what reliable sources say about the anti-gender movement, per WP:OR. If a source doesn't discuss the anti-gender movement, it can't be considered. And when most or all RS agree, unnecessary qualifiers should not be introduced in order to downplay the support in actually existing RS for certain claims, as that would violate WP:WEIGHT. For another example, many scholars would agree that some event being a genocide is an opinion. But we shouldn't write "Some historians say the Armenian genocide happened, but the Turkish government disagrees."

I think Catholic teaching on sex and gender is a separate topic that is only partly related to this article (for one, the CC existed for 2,000 years, the anti-gender movement only since the 1990s). In articles about Catholic theology, citing Catholic theologians who write about sex and gender, but not about the anti-gender movement, would not be original research. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Mathglot
I was a late arrival to the TP discussion, and just added myself here. What is being brought here as a content disagreement looks to me more like incomplete mastery of policy and guidelines, notably WP:Verifiability and WP:DUE. I personally don't see how presenting views about content is going to go anywhere here; seems to me it will quickly devolve into questions about interpretation of those two policies, and perhaps others. I also question whether appropriate criteria have been met before bringing this here; the WP:DR page lists many avenues of approach to resolve disputes before coming here, and I'm unsure if any of them have been tried. But if the criteria have been met, then I'm willing to take part. Mathglot (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing party has notified the other editors. One of the other editors has erased the DRN notice, which means that they have seen it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Anti-gender)
I will try to act as the moderator for this dispute. Please read the ground rules. You are expected to have read and to understand the rules. If you are not sure about the rules, ask questions rather than ignoring the rules. Be civil and concise. Do not post overly long statements that make you feel better, but that are too long to understand quickly. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of the discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about the other editors. Discuss edits, not editors. Now: Will each editor please provide a one-paragraph summary of what you either want changed in the article, or what you want left the same that another editor wants changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Anti-gender)
I see no changes that are necessary to the lead, which fully complies with policy, in particular, WP:NPOV.

Most of the dispute, such as it is, takes place at Talk:Anti-gender movement. Claims made there that the Lead is POV are incorrect, and based on a faulty understanding of policy. One post there (diff) attempts to place publications in scholarly journals into the position of being one participant in a dispute, and therefore requiring double-quotes and WP:INTEXT attribution. Excerpts:

and then goes on to place Catholic theologians in the position of an equal and opposing view to scholarly journals taken collectively as a monolithic whole:

Both of these assertions are incorrect, and reflect a basic misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy.
 * Articles in independent, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals are not participants in a dispute or a movement.
 * When articles in scholarly journals represent the preponderance of reliable sources on a topic, summarizing their content does not require INTEXT attribution or double-quotes. The majority view may, and should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
 * Conversely, Catholic theologians are a main participant in the dispute. They originated the dispute.

One cannot equate fully independent scholarship from a multiplicity of reliable sources with pronouncements of the principal creator/participant in a dispute. The Lead is fine as it is, and majority opinion scholarship should not be characterized as a "side", nor should it be placed in quotation marks or have in-text attribution. Mathglot (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator (Anti-Gender)
I will reply to the one statement that has been made by a participant and will restate my introductory request. A content dispute is any dispute over the wording of any article in article space that is read by readers. Mathglot says that this is an issue about the understanding of policy, which is almost certainly true; but if an issue about policy affects what an article should say, then it is a content dispute that is based on a policy question. And the purpose of the policies is to govern the content of the encyclopedia that is read by readers. So it is a content dispute, at least if there is a question about the wording of the lede section or any other part of the article.

I asked the editors to state, in one paragraph, what they wanted changed, or left the same, in the article. One editor has discussed the policy reasons for what they want left the same, without stating what language in the article is in question. The other editors have not yet replied.

So I will ask each editor, again, to provide a one-paragraph summary of what they want changed or left the same. An additional explanation of why they want that, supported by policy, is optional at this point. I will want reasons, but first we will define what text of the article is being disputed. (That is my choice as the moderator of this discussion. Another moderator might approach this differently.)  Be concise in stating what the issue is about the wording of the article.

Also, do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors (Anti-Gender)
In response to 's request for a definitive restatement of each editor's desire outcome, here is mine. My proposal is essentially this edit: 1) rephrase from "scholars" to "some scholars" in the second paragraph because "scholars" alone suggests unanimous scholarly opinion, which is not the case, 2) move the sentence about "empty signifier" etc. to the second paragraph so that criticisms of the movement are kept together and identified as criticism rather than written in wikivoice (in the spirit of WP:CRITICISM), and 3) remove the Graff 2016 ref and the statement it supports as both are clearly POV and do not qualify as an RS (explained in greater detail on the article talk page).  Ergo Sum  20:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newimpartial - My view is that the correct treatment, per WP:NPOV and to avoid WP:WEASEL and WP:FALSEBALANCE, is to (1) retain "scholars" rather than "some scholars" in the first instance; (2) maintain the location of the "empty signifier" sentence as it is, to maintain a distinction by topic rather than marginalizing the RS on the subject by labeling them as "criticism"; and (3) retain the Graff 2016 ref as it clearly qualifies as a RS on this topic - which the sources Ergo Sum agrees with, the Catholic theologians, do not, at least when it comes to factual descriptions of gender identity and the existence or otherwise of "gender ideology".

My view is also that it may well be appropriate, per WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE, to include citations from Catholic theologians in the article, but only on the question of whether or not Catholic theologians support the anti-gender movement, and not on questions (such as whether "gender ideology" is a real thing or an imagined conspiracy) on which they have no expertise. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (Anti-Gender)
It appears that there are four points of disagreement as to the wording of the article:
 * 1. Whether to say "scholars" or "some scholars" when stating that the movement has been characterized as moral panic.
 * 2. Whether to move the reference to an "empty signifier".
 * 3. Whether to remove the Graff reference and the statement that it supports.
 * 4. Whether to include statements by Catholic theologians supporting (or not supporting) the anti-gender movement.

I will comment that the name of the movement is confusing, because, if I understand correctly, the movement is not opposed to the concept of gender, but rather is opposed to another movement or viewpoint known as gender theory. The so-called anti-gender movement supports a traditional view of sexuality that is based on Catholic religious teaching. However, Wikipedia should use the name that is used by reliable sources. So we have to be very careful to avoid increasing the existing confusion. Do all of the editors agree with this understanding?

Are there any other article content issues? Please be concise.

Are there any questions?

Are there any issues about the article that do not have to do with article content? (If so, we should identify and discuss them, but article content is more important.)

Will each editor please state, briefly, what their policy-based reasons are for 1, 2, and 3. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Mathglot (Anti-Gender)
Skipping the four points for now, and responding to your understanding:
 * yes, to "confusing", and to "supports a traditional view of sexuality based on Catholic religious teaching".
 * no, it is not *primarily* about being opposed to gender theory, although it includes that. It's more of a loose grab-bag of stuff. This quotation from the article does a good job of capturing the sense of it:

Back later to respond to your points. Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

List of computer algebra systems
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

computer algebra system MathHandbook for free was added, but someone removed it without evidence many times

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

please direct me what to do

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

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

Bret Weinstein
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Two main points: 1. I proposed a change to a quote in the article to make a quotation appear less slanted and negative towards the subjects. It is just a minor tone change.

2. The use of "spreader of disinformation" in the article implies the subject deliberately and knowingly lies, about a subject concerning public health no less. The, admittedly reliable, source provides no evidence for such an extraordinary claim. This is libel, or close enough, in a BLP without any solid evidence to support it.

Discussion of these issues was shut down before any consensus was reached. Even after a user voiced support for point 1 and another user acknowledged that "disinformation" is problematic per point 2.

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

Talk:Bret_Weinstein Talk:Bret_Weinstein

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There is still a discussion to be had about the points and their resolution is far from clear. Ideally, I would like to be able to simply continue the discussion in the relevant talk page, but that soon proved impossible. So if the discussion could continue here, with input from other editors as a bonus, that should help a lot.

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

Same questions repeatedly asked different ways and on different venues. The discussion is not going anywhere and is unlikely to produce any changes to articles. WP:WoT<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;"> Adakiko (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yegourt
Although I'm interested in following the dispute or RFC on this topic, please don't let my silence from blocking your progress on it. I don't feel very strongly about Bret Weinstein anyway. It is unfortunate that both of Dylath's discussions promptly got closed in the Talk page, so I'm not surprised to see them arrive here. In any case I feel that the discussion should continue. An RFC might be better, but given the double-close I'm not too sure if that would go anywhere productive either. Robert, I think "a mediator conduct moderated discussion" would be the most suitable assistance here. Yegourt (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Alexbrn
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The "fears" thing is a sourced quotation and is good. Gorski's quote is accurate to the source and WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The OP has now launched an RfC. Since this is now at five (!) noticeboard and a RfC I'm unwatching here to reduce the clusterfuckage on my watchlist. Alexbrn (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Hob Gadling
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As Adakiko said on the Talk page, that discussion was going nowhere. It was just a repeat of 1. "the reliable source is wrong", 2. "but it is a reliable source", 3. GOTO 1, reworded. There was no hope that that situation would change. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Sjmantyl
Fundamentally this is about guilt by association. Practically anyone who express doubt in official guidelines about Covid-19 is lumped together. Just see how many sources are grouped in main criticism: [] This includes both those trying to 'do science publicly' as well as ,well, kooks.

I believe Bret Weinstein is trying to work under good faith. He is reputable scientist with proper tract record of publications. In podcasts he has revisited topics and issued corrections, demonstrating attempt of getting issues right. Current article gives the appearance of malicious intent. Thus, I suggest settling for neutral tone would be in order.Sjmantyl (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by XOR'easter
I've participated in other conversations on that Talk page but watched this one from the sidelines. In my view, 's summary is accurate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - It is not entirely clear what sort of assistance the filing editor is requesting. Are they requesting that a mediator conduct moderated discussion, or are they requesting assistance in preparing a Request for Comments, or some other form of assistance?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Comment - The filing editor states that their effort to discuss certain issues was shut down, and that use of the article talk page soon proved impossible. I have reviewed the efforts at discussion on the article talk page, and I see that a gatekeeper closed a discussion of the issues being raised here.  One section was closed with the note that it was relitigating a closed discussion.  I was unable to find an RFC or similar closure of the issue of the use of the term 'misinformation'.  The gatekeeping appears to be a violation of talk page guidelines and appears to interfere with efforts to discuss article content.  However, DRN is not a conduct forum.  The problem with the article talk page can be dealt with in either of two ways.  The gatekeeping of the talk page can be reported at WP:ANI, but that will end any discussion here.  Alternatively, I can try to facilitate discussion here at DRN in place of the article talk page, which should not be necessary but apparently is necessary.  Do the editors want facilitated discussion?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Filing Editor Comment - Thank you for looking into it, Robert McClenon. The entire premise of this DRN is that I want a discussion, but it does not look like it is going to happen here. Based on your helpful breakdown of the situation, I will do both. I will lodge a complaint about the conduct of Hemiauchenia in WP:ANI regarding WP:TPG violation and also start an Request for Comments regarding the use of "disinformation" in the article. Dylath Leen (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * DRN obviously isn't going to help. I'm not sure if I'm "involved" enough to be a party, but I don't plan to participate here.  There is a talk page discussion which seems to be working fine; if Dylath doesn't get his way and keeps complaining a block is the needed outcome, not more discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 18:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Comment - I have asked Dylan for a brief description of the dispute and have looked through it since the beginning. I agree that the phrase he wants to reword may not seem neutral to some, but it is a quote from the source. Even if the source may not be telling the truth, it is the only "reliable" one available. I suggest that the filing editor prepares a Request for Comments because a DRN will most likely not help. I hope that this conflict does not result in any blocks MrAgentSochi (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)MrAgentSochi

Four Weddings and a Funeral
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

Edits of Revision as of 22:07, 16 June 2021 to eliminate chauvinistic, ableist, and anti-LGBT-affirming language was reverted on 18:36, 17 June 2021 by another user with an unsubstantiated reason.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Weddings_and_a_Funeral&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a ruling on using inclusive language.

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

Four Weddings and a Funeral discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Medical genetics of Jews
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The sources for this article outside the section on Nazism and Controversy are based entirely on self-reported data with no verification methodology for how subjects were verified as Jewish at all. Such evidence was requested in order to support the claims made by the article in the Talk but none was ever provided. I re-worded the article to reflect the speculative nature, but those edits were removed without reason or reply in the talk. I recently added a new section Nazism and Controversy which identified this problem of this subject being comprised of nothing but self-reported data to try and mitigate the issue. However there is still an issue as the article is not factual outside this section.

From my understanding Wikipedia does not allow self-reported studies which is this entire article except the section included and so I would like to see the article removed or revised to reflect the unverified, speculative, and anti-semitic nature of it. If the Wikipedia team can supply the verification methodology used to determine the Jewishness of subjects included in the cited studies then there would be no issue, but thus far no one has been able to provide that or even addressed the question and the content of this article has been identified as antisemitic hate speech by verified members of the Jewish community. (Both myself as well as several who were cited in the controversy section)

P.S. - I tried redacting the email in a photo I wanted to upload as evidence from the OCR that was sent to me from Hayden B. Siegel (mentioned in the article) but it wouldn't let me. If the article is to remain up how can I add this without sharing his email? It is on the document he scanned over to me so I tried blacking it out in MS Paint but then Wiki wouldn't take that. I want to provide good information but I don't want to violate his privacy by giving his email out to everyone. Is there a way to accomplish this?

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

Requested the article be removed outside the dispute method here in the Talk. - Ignored Requested verification of sources Jew verification methodology. - None provided, waited a few weeks before taking next step to allow authors time to reply. Re-worded the article to reflect it's speculative nature of the Jewish identity of study subjects and re-requested verification. - None provided and article revised back to original. Added a new section, re-requested verification again, and filed this disp

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Remove the article due to it violating the Wikipedia rules on studies with Self-Reported data. If that proves impossible remove the self-reported data rule to maintain congruency in reporting across Wikipedia or revise the article to reflect it's speculative and antisemitic nature.

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

Alternative medicine
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

On the Talk page, this dispute had appeared to reach a consensus via compromise, after input from two other editors, and was reworded satisfactorily to the editor that objected in the first place (me) until another user reverted that compromise edit.

From what I can see, the first sentence of the Efficacy section clearly violates WP:RS/AC by stating there is a "scientific consensus" about this controversial topic, when there is not, that I can see anywhere in the "sources" or anywhere on the internet. But the lack of source material indicates to me that this is an attempt to synthesize statements by individuals to justify some kind of "gut feeling" about the topic. Here is the issue: according to WP:RS/ACA "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view ... Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material."

Currently, the article says this: "There is a general scientific consensus that alternative therapies lack the requisite scientific validation, and their effectiveness is either unproved or disproved." and then lists citations, which do not even remotely support this, as far as I can tell.

I am bringing this here not because I'm waving the flag for any particular view. Personally, I deeply respect science and the scientific method, and I am strongly against "quacks". But to state on Wikipedia, for the general reading public, that there is a "scientific consensus", when there is not, is not something I'm comfortable with as an editor.

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

Talk:Alternative_medicine []

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This is a controversial topic, and I believe making the statement "there is a scientific consensus" should bring scrutiny and outside help, as per P:RS/AC, this statement must be supported, and I believe it currently is not.

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

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

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

Alternative medicine discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. Also, there appear to be two related discussions on the article talk page within the last few days, and the filing editor has listed the editors in one of the discussions.  The other discussion is closely related, and the filing editor should also list and notify one other editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I listed 4 other editors above, in the section where it asked for that. Is that not sufficient? Thanks for your assistance. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - I have added an editor who also took part in the second discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that that second discussion with the user you added is a completely separate issue, and not one I'm intending to dispute here. I'm only disputing the "scientific consensus" issue, so I don't think that user needs to be included, right? Thanks. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - The scientific consensus referred to at the beginning of the Efficacy section has a tautological aspect to it, so that there is a scientific consensus, as a result of the definition given of alternative medicine. If the therapy can be demonstrated to work, then it becomes scientific medicine.  If the therapy has not been demonstrated scientifically to work, but there is a scientific hypothesis as to why it should work, that is being tested, then it is experimental medicine rather than either alternative medicine or scientific medicine.  So if there isn't a scientific consensus that a particular therapy or approach is ineffective, it may not be alternative medicine after all.  The statement is true, even if it has a tautological aspect.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Layla Love
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

My fact-checking is being reverted. I found 14 false or misleading claims in the biography. I’m being accused of making a personal attack by corrected them. Hello

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

 

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to get my edits reinstated and my question of notability claim.

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

Brenton Tarrant
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

Hi,

There is an issue with fact that Brenton Tarrant page doesn't exist. Because this a sensitive issue dealing with a terrorist attack would like to discuss the subject with other Wikipedia editors. It's very suspicious that this page doesn't exist and it seems that there is a political agenda behind it. As a matter of principle I think that Wikipedia is above these kind of things. Would like to hear your opinion and will be happy to accept any decision

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By vote

Summary of dispute by zzuuzz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I've merely helpfully told where the best place for discussion is, so I'm not sure how that's being disputed. As things stand, time has progressed since the attack and trial, meaning more potential sourced information, and the article on the attack has got fat. People on the attack's talk page have recently raised the issue of the article's size. In terms of Wikipedia policy, this is probably the most relevant vector to a new article, and I encourage HelenHIL to study the guideline at WP:PERP. I would observe however, that outside of this attack this person is not especially notable, and our draft article really shows that. Robert McClenon's advice below is good, and again I'd recommend input from the more widely watched page about the attack itself, rather than this obscure redirect talk page which hardly anyone reads. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Brenton Tarrant discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - This is not the sort of dispute that the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is intended to address. However, I am leaving this request open in order to discuss what the filing editor, or anyone else, can do next.  Brenton Tarrant is currently a redirect to Christchurch mosque shootings.  There is a draft at Draft:Brenton Tarrant which is currently unsubmitted.  The way to begin discussion of whether there should be an article would be to submit a draft for review.  The current draft does not, in my opinion, have enough information to substantiate an article, and the guideline on biographies of persons known for one event applies (and especially applies to criminals).  If the filing editor, or anyone else, wants to discuss whether to have an article, they should expand the current draft and submit it for review.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * However, see the guideline on criminals. We do not normally have a separate article on a criminal if all of the relevant information can be included in the account of the crime.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Socio-Economic Planning_Sciences
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

Hello,

Please note that I am editing this page to make it current. I am the senior associate editor for the journal and was just adding links to the page from our journal website before it started getting flagged. Appreciate your help.

Sincerely, Jomon A. Paul

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

I do not have a discussion link to share. I am reaching out directly given the copyright messages I have been receiving.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am just adding content to make the socio economic planning sciences wikipedia page current for the benefit of those visiting this page in my role as its senior associate editor.

Socio-Economic Planning_Sciences discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Gini coefficient
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I recently started editing reliability articles on Wikipedia, I added a new technique using the Gini coefficient in assessing the degree of aging of non−repairable systems. However, a user deleted my edit based on his personal opinion, neglecting my references. The user deleted my edits, and we started a constructive discussion on the talk page, then he stopped responding on the talk page, and went ahead and deleted my edits again. In my opinion, his motive is personal, and he is disregarding all other matters. The use of the Gini index that I am suggesting was presented in the last Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium in May 2021.

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

I defended my case legitimately with references and evidence on the talk page. The user stopped responding to the discussion on the talk page and deleted my edits again.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to understand the proper process to handle such disputes and deal with user's personal opinions.

Summary of dispute by Limit-theorem
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This is clearly original research and WP:REL, not encyclopedia level by any stretch. I would gladly support these edits and help with their phrasing/introduction if one can find any such discussions in any textbook. But, alas, there are no significant secondary sources on this use of the Gini in the standard literature and the papers added are new and, really, really, low impact (0-9 citations, and such publication as the one called the "13th Iranian Statistics Conference"). The topic of the Gini inequality metric is vast and one cannot add every single low-impact paper unpublished or in no-impact journals on a novel use of the concept; it would make the page grow to hundreds of pages. (Also, I apologize for the delayed response as I wasn't notified until 48 hours after the posting of this). Limit-theorem (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Gini coefficient discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There has been some discussion, but it has been minimal. A Third Opinion might be useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu Sentiment
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The article is inaccurate and I suggested corrections. I also created new content to go under a subheading. The page is semi-locked. Every time I add the corrections and new material, there are three editors who remove it almost immediately without proper explanation. The comments were 'not to make a new page here', and 'unconstructive'. It was neither a new page, nor unconstructive. It updated a stagnant, politically biased and hostile page. The editors are in fact accepting propaganda from political activists on both sides of the debate in America rather than accepting unbiased evidence from scholarly sources.

The first problem is the definition, for which I have provided a more qualified source (Oxford Dictionary). The second problem is the comment under the definition subheading is false as it relies upon the view the word Hinduphobia was 'coined' by Rajiv Malhotra, when it is in fact 160 years old, coined by British. The third issue is correcting the comment on Vamsee Juluri which is inaccurate. He does not agree with Rajiv Malhotra and Jeffrey Long. The fourth issue is that I am unable to add new content that pushed back the date of Hinduphobia in America, including structural oppression to 1907. I had written fresh content all with verified sources and the editors continually deleted it without talking. I have kept records of all this material and the communications.

I am an expert on this issue. The way in which this has been dealt with by the editors is highly unprofessional. I note that SpacemanSpiff has recent warnings and that one of the other editors in the talk has also had issues with politicisation in the past.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Notfrompedro#Anti-Hindu_Sentiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SpacemanSpiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MollyPollyRolly#Removal_of_content_and_corrections_edit_warring

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like access to more editors to assist me to make corrections to the page who are impartial, from an entirely different area would be best and to assist me to add some updated content.

Summary of dispute by Jnanashuddhi; RegentsPark; Notfrompedro; SpacemanSpiff
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is no "content" dispute here. Jnanashuddhi keeps attempting to write an entirely new article on the talk page because the main page is edit protected. It has been explained to them numerous times that isn't what talk pages are for but the fact that they declare themselves an expert makes them think they can just keep steamrolling ahead and doing it anyway. They have at least 4 reverts on the talk page attempting to put their own article on there. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Hindu Sentiment discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Martin Eberhard
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

Incorrect edits to the page for martin eberhard including slanderous and incorrect comments. Additional of false information and claims that are part of a legal judgement non-disparagement agreement. Appears users are being influenced to act as proxy in battle to rewrite history, Martin's bio and diminish his contributions. Extensive edits removing citations and external links for no reason except they are "excessive". But looking at other bios, they are not excessive. Removal of catagories for no reason. Several users identified by IP address only. Identifiable users David Gerard and Robby

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

I've tried on talk to offer discussing the dispute in a civil way and to respect Wiki policies.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Encourage the users to respect and believe the person about whom this page is (Martin Eberhard). Note that claims incorrectly made on this page, do not reflect those on other pages (about Tesla, for example) and are clearly targetted to harass and intimidate Martin. This harassment has to stop

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

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

Summary of dispute by 174.205.226.38
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by 65.205.200.226
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Alila Hotels and Resorts
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 expanded and objectively improved the article, assuming good faith. This included the expansion of its content and the removal content that I believe were blatant advertisements. I replaced them with neutrally written content which were thoroughly cited from secondary sources, and fixed poorly listed citations from the previous incarnation of the page. My edit was significant, and due to the relatively newness of my account, my edits were twice reverted by two separate users. The edit was reverted by the first user, deeming it as Spam without further clarification; I left a message on the concerned editor's page after the first reversion was done, but this was unanswered. I later logged a thorough summary of my edits on the article talk page after I restored my edit. This was reverted once more by the second user, who accused me of having a conflict of interest, and being a single purpose account due to my account's age. I left another message on the second editor's talk page clarifying my edits, but this was also unanswered, and I was instead being accused as a SPA in a discussion started by someone else about said user. I elected not to act further by restoring to prevent an edit war.

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

I have left entries on the talk page of the article, and both user's talk pages, clarifying my edits. All of these attempts were unanswered. Talk:Alila_Hotels_and_Resorts, User_talk:Praxidicae, User_talk:Ekuftle

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I wish to demonstrate that my edits were made assuming good faith, and that the content I have written is not spam, and that I am not a single use account by bringing attention towards the dispute and the disputed contents of the article. I also wish one or more users to review and evaluate the objectivity and the degree of improvement of the edits towards that article (before and after), and hopefully allowing for my edit to be restored.

Summary of dispute by Ekuftle
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.

Alila Hotels and Resorts discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

LTE frequency bands
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a dispute about the common name for a 4G LTE frequency band, and a debate about what is considered to be a reliable source. The original name listed in the article for band 26 was "850MHz Extended CLR", but this was unsourced. User:Dnywlsh reverted this edit, and found several sources stating that band 26 is referred to as "800MHz ESMR". User:Joshuarshah and User:Gah4 disagree with the sources, and don't find them to be reliable sources. One of the sources is the FCC (US Federal Communications Commission), who is responsible for licensing these frequencies to the wireless providers, and there is a debate about whether the US government (FCC) is a reliable source or not.

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify if the sources presented on the talk page are reliable, and if the US government (FCC) is a reliable source or not, since they are the organization responsible for licensing these frequencies to the wireless providers.

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

Summary of dispute by Gah4
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

LTE frequency bands discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - There are a few problems here. The filing editor has not notified the other editors of this filing.  There are being allegations of disruptive editing.  If the main question is whether the US Federal Communications Commission is a reliable source for a particular purpose, then that question can be addressed to the Reliable Source Noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - This seems to be a frequent problem here. Yes, I did notify everyone on the talk page. Did you read it? Dv42202 (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a frequent problem here mainly because filing parties don't read the instructions at the top of this page. You apparently did not read the part that says, "Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: . Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes ~ . Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice." (Emphasis added.) Or did you just read it and choose to ignore it? —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * - Why is that necessary, when I pinged all of them on the talk page where the discussion was already taking place? It accomplishes the same thing. I notified them. Why fragment the discussion between 4 different talk pages? Dv42202 (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Note - You just saw one of the reasons why it is necessary, which is that it is easy for a volunteer to check whether an editor was notified on their user talk page, and it would be burdensome for a volunteer to check whether editors have been pinged, which could have been done on many places. The usual rule in Wikipedia is that, when there is a notification requirement, it is only satisfied by putting the notice on the user talk page.  (You can propose to change that rule, and it might not be changed.)  Also, some editors have pinging turned off.  The rule that notification be on the user talk page is common to Wikipedia noticeboards.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Trinity School_at_River_Ridge
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

Marshall277 believes that content from a Washington Post story ought to be in this article. Meters believes that it should not be. The case involves a student who attended the school and was taught by a teacher, who then allegedly sexually assaulted her immediately upon her graduation, and after he allegedly had groomed her for years. Administrators at the the school found out about it and did not bring it to the authorities, even as that teacher was second in command at the school. Meters believes that since the event occurred after the student graduated and took place off campus, it should not be on the schools page.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Third party mediation between the parties.

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

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

Trinity Schools
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

Marshal277 believes that content from a Washington Post story ought to be in this article. Meters believes that it should not be. The case involves a student who attended the school and was taught by a teacher, who then allegedly sexually assaulted her immediately upon her graduation, and after he allegedly had groomed her for years. Administrators at the the school found out about it and did not bring it to the authorities, even as that teacher was second in command at the school. Meters believes that since the event occurred after the student graduated and took place off campus, it should not be on the schools page.

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

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Third party mediation between the parties.

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

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

Patera Building
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

Photographs and an important graphic illustration have been removed from this article on the grounds that they shouldn't appear in WikiCommons files. As they date from the early 1980s, long before WikiCommons existed, the material - particularly a photo from 1982 - cannot be rephotographed as the building no longer stands in that location. Upon advice from another user, I obtained a UK 'Orphan Works' licence specifically for the purpose of a Wikipedia posting. The user who took down this photograph cannot explain why this licence can't be used.

I have requested copyright permission as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission from its owner for the graphic illustration to be placed adjacent to the section 'Structural Innovation by Anthony Hunt Associates' in the article

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



How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By supporting my point of view that the 1982 photograph with its orphan works licence and the graphic image published with the copyright owner's permission predate WikiCommons rules, and conform to pre-existing UK copyright rules, and therefore, they should be allowed to stand.

Summary of dispute by Verbcatcher
User:DoubleGrazing initially asked Nigel PG Dale (Nigel) about his images at User talk:Nigel PG Dale. Nigel (not logged in, but presumably him) indicated that he wasn't the photographer but that he believed it was ok to use the images.

I nominated the images on Commons for deletion, see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:Nigel PG Dale. They were deleted by User:Jameslwoodward (Jim). Nigel asked about the deletions on Jim's talk page. Jim did not suggest a UK Orphan Works license.

Nigel obtained a UK Orphan Works license for one or more of the images. I assume this is the license described here. This license is unacceptable on Wikipedia and Commons because it only applies the license holder and is time-limited.

Nigel uploaded one of the images to Geograph in what appears to be license laundering.

Nigel then uploaded four images to Commons, at least some of which were re-uploads of the deleted images. I nominated three for speedy deletion and made a regular deletion request for the fourth.

In most or all uploads Nigel has indicated himself as the author, although his user talk page indicates that this is incorrect.

I have tried to be patient and to explain the rules and procedures. Nigel claimed that I have "worked against the spirit if Wikipedia", and my actions as "destructive to the purpose of Wikipedia". Nigel is clearly frustrated, but he has failed to understand the image licensing rules and has attempted to bypass them on Commons.

Also see Talk:Anthony Hunt and Talk:Anthony Hunt Associates.

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

Hip Hop
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 wrote a small piece article on 6 elements of the hip hop movement which Ron "Bee-Stinger" Savage coined the term, he also owns the registered name hip hop movement as a service mark at the uspto that also states these elements. This article and refs have been on wiki for 6 years with Ronald Savage picture with no problem with anyone because it is widely known. User Piotr on July 18, 2021 deletes the article, and goes down the page and deletes his picture and doesn't say why other than it does not belong in the lead, (but it's been there for 6 years) than with 2 mins he goes over to Hip Hop Movement page and puts a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Movement that had the same little article on 6 elements of the hip hop movement, I wrote this page, then after he did that he went right over to the Ronald Savage page and deleted Ronald Savage help get the Child Victims Act past in NYS, then deletes all the songs this guy Ronald Savage made off the page and said with the CVA it wasn't in the Daily News source when it was, he said for the records amazon don't count.(This looks personal) I put them all back. On the Wikipedia Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Movement page he wrote to start it off Largely self-promotional, not a real thing, etc. seems to have been written by the subject to whom the topic is attributed. isento : This is the article I wrote that he wants off-wiki this seems personal or weird

In 1990, Ronald "Bee-Stinger Savage, a former member of the Zulu Nation, is credited for coining the term "Six elements of the Hip Hop Movement," inspired by rap group Public Enemy. The "Six Elements Of The Hip Hop Movement" are: Consciousness Awareness, Civil Rights Awareness, Activism Awareness, Justice, Political Awareness, and Community Awareness in music. Ronald Savage is known as the Son of The Hip Hop Movement. Then I redo the pice because he says it doesn't belong in the lead he still has an issue with it, I reduce it and user MrOllie has an issue with it all

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

I tried to redo the small piece article and added a little more info& refs, now user MrOllie has an issue I’m thinking is this Piotr. I even said feel free to edit and it doesn't have to be in the lead, now MrOllie doesn’t want it in the article at all, he was never a part of the convo. It’s just strange it’s only 1 person all the time. #Hip Hop Article content and sourcing dispute #New reversion of the Six elements of the hip hop movement

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As you can see this is coming from one person then he put my other page up for deletion and they deleted that page after they blocked me from editing, I just hope this issue is NOT because of the Bambaataa issues that went worldwide that is just wrong. With me i just want them to stop coming up with every excuse in the world after 6 years of all these pages being up. We can resolve this anyway in the middle as long as the article & his picture is back up. These refs speak for themselves

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

Kunal Kamra
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 subject of the article had a controversy where he heckled another public figure. Despite the fact that more than a dozen WP:RS categorically state that *he heckled* the figure, User:Lard Almighty insists on putting the word heckled in parenthesis or using 'allegedly heckled,' which is in direct contradiction to what the sources listed

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kunal_Kamra#Incident_on_Indigo_flight

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a correct interpretation of BLP and solve the issue.

Summary of dispute by Lard Almighty
Actually, it's the other way round. It is the filing editor who wants to make a change to a long-standing version, agreed on the TP in June 2020, so it is up to them to achieve consensus before making the change.

Heckled is a word with negative connotations, and this is a very controversial BLP, with both the subject’s supporters and detractors trying to push their POV over the years (so much so that the article has had to be protected), so we have to be careful. The fact is, the sources are not agreed. Not all use heckled. Of the ones that do, some use the word without qualification, others say allegedly, others put it in quotes, and others use different words as well. When that is the case, the usual course of action is to summarise the sources using an NPOV word like confront, which is actually used later in the article. The agreement that was made in 2020 was to use the words allegedly heckled, putting them in quotes to show that we are quoting a source and not making the allegation (which is what it is) in Wikivoice.

I should also point out that the filing editor has shown a lack of good faith with this edit summary and by accusing me of working for the article’s subject.

I am perfectly happy to try to come up with an NPOV compromise. Removing the quotes and just saying allegedly heckled might be a solution if others feel that is NPOV enough. Lard Almighty (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Kunal Kamra discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Response - A notice has now been put on the other editor's talk page, thanks for reminding me.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 01:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (KK)
I will try to moderate this dispute. Read the ground rules. Be civil and concise. The discussion has not been entirely civil; I will not tolerate any further incivility. I will ask each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want changed or left the same in the section about the Indigo flight. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (KK)
Statement by Levixius: Apologies for the length of this statement, but I wanted to put everything out clearly. I've provided emphasis for a tl;dr. In brief, what I want is for the page to reflect that the subject heckled Arnab Goswami, without any weasel words like 'allegedly' or parenthesis, because that's what the sources say and don't dispute on.

I begin by stating the undisputed fact that the subject of the article had some form of controversy with another public figure, which is the issue of this dispute. Now, I stumbled upon the article and noticed that the lead stated that the subject "allegedly heckled" (with the quotations) the aforementioned figure. Upon research I found multiple sources that categorically state that the subject heckled the figure, without any quotes. The Sources have been mentioned in the original talk page, but some of them are here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Upon further research I found that User:LardAlmighty (the other user in this dispute) was insistent on the usage of that verbiage, reverting any edits that tried to change it. Upon discussion on the talk page, he made two arguments, briefly:

(i) that saying 'heckling' is not NPOV because some sources don't say he heckled., and therefore it is 'controversial'

(ii) he hasn't been charged of any offence, therefore it should be 'alleged.'

For the first argument, the mere omission from stating his actions does not amount to dispute of his actions by any WP:RS, thus it is not disputed by any reliable source at all, and therefore isn't controversial. Further to that, some WP:RS using the words 'allegedly' is not a dispute that the incident happened, but mere denial to make a statement on it at all, you can't infer anything from it. Some sources using allegedly and some categorically stating 'he heckled' is not a 'disagreement' between sources, but merely one denying to make a statement.

For the second, this controversy is not a criminal matter at all, there has been no legal action at all over this 'heckling,' it is merely a public controversy, therefore the fact that he hasn't been charged of any offence is irrelevant, as the BLP guideline on criminal accusations does not apply. Therefore, stating that he heckled categorically and without any quotations of usage of 'allegedly' is not an issue since his having heckled is not of controversy at all. Multiple RS state he heckled, and no RS or even the subject himself explicitly dispute that he heckled. Thus, the use of 'allegedly' or parenthesis amounts to a violation of MOS:WEASEL by implying a meaning that isn't there. LardAlmighty also suggested using 'confront,' which I believe again detracts from the meaning (let alone apply negatively on the figure that was heckled) when there exists no reason to.

Also, the 'agreement to use allegedly' mentioned by LardAlmighty on the talk page was weak. (it is still there on the talk page under the same headline as this dispute) It was with one other user, and given that the article's edit history show several editors that disagree with it but haven't brought it up on the talk page. Lastly, please don't mistake my usage of the f-word in one edit log and the word 'client' for a lack of good-faith, the former was a mere expletive and the latter wasn't meant in an accusatory context.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 17:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Lard Almighty

It is very simple. This is a controversial BLP, with the subject's supporters and detractors trying to push their POVs, so much so that the page has had to be protected. I and others have monitored the page and reverted vandalism and POV pushing. That is what I mean by "controversial". It should also be noted that the editor who first raised this last year has since been the subject of a topic ban on India-related articles, in part for POV-pushing.

As for the use of the word "heckled": 1. The sources do not agree, as I have stated above (and some do use the word alleged or allegedly). Many of the publications listed have a political bias either for or against the subject. We don't pick and choose our sources, ignoring those that show one bias and using those that show another, but we do try to stay balanced. Therefore, in cases like this we should summarise the sources with an NPOV word. 2. Kamra launched legal action against the airline. Therefore, it is clear that he disputes the seriousness of the incident, whether or not he specifically denies that he heckled. As such, we should be even more careful to stay as neutral as possible. 3. With a BLP, we should always err on the side of caution when it comes to accusations (and saying that someone heckled someone is an accusation because the word has negative connotations). Unless it is an accusation that can be made without fear of contradiction in wikivoice (for example subject has been convicted of a crime or has specifically admitted to doing something), we should be very careful. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator (KK)
It appears that the only significant issue is how to characterize the heckling incident. If there are any other issues, please state them. Will each editor please state, in ONE paragraph, why the article should be changed or left the same. I intend to collapse overly long statements, so if you want your statement to be read, make it concise. If you want to propose a compromise, please discuss it in the section for back-and-forth discussion. If the back-and-forth discussion is useful, I will let it continue; otherwise I will close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion (KK)
will add soon, don't close this discussion.  LΞVIXIUS  &#128172; 07:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Rebekah Jones
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

The dispute is regarding Jones' classification as a whistleblower. Some editors, citing Conservative opinion pieces, are insinuating that Jones is either not truly a whistleblower or is lying. This allegation, which appears to be unsupported by reliable and unbiased sources, may be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rebekah_Jones#Blatant_Right-Wing_Bias_Appears_Rampant_in_Edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Mediation and/or arbitration would be appreciated.

Summary of dispute by Llll5032
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

WikiProject Afghanistan
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

There is a disagreement over whether Nastaliq (via Nastaliq) should be used in Afghanistan infoboxes and leads for the native spelling.

A user posted on WikiProject Afghanistan, asking for help reverting edits adding the native spelling in Nastaliq. A user that has been adding the native spelling in Nastaliq responded. The discussion has been ongoing, but hasn't been very constructive and is not close to a consensus.

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

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think a mediator mediating the discussion would lead towards a constructive discussion.

Summary of dispute by Xerxes1985
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I’ve said everything on the previous discussion linked by Danre98 already. The user is constantly adding the Nastaliq writing style to all Afghanistan related articles, this is not the standard script being used in Afghanistan, it’s rather a calligraphic version used in art, book covers, maybe sometimes newspaper titles or similar things, but not the standard script for text. The same is the case for Iran as well, hence why all Iranian related articles have their native names in a standard Perso-Arabic script written on WP, same is the case for Afghan related articles until this user joined. On the other hand in Pakistan the Nastaliq style is the standard script and hence it’s used on WP for Pakistan related articles as well, the user made clear in the discussion that “this is the exact reason why he’s doing all those edit [wars]”, he believes that “we” as Iranics should reclaim that script since it was a person from Iran who invented it and changing the script on all Afghan related articles to Nastaliq is according to him one method for that. This is just pure POV pushing and his personal preference and WP:OR. A good analogy would be that the standard Perso-Arabic script was invented by a person from what is now Tajikistan (See: Rudaki), does that mean we should remove the Cyrillic script from all Tajikistan related articles and add a perso-arabic one? I’ve warned the user countless of times and tried solving it per talk page discussions, but he never listened and just kept on editing. This needs to be stopped Xerxes1985 (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by WikiEditUsername7
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Hello everyone,

I would like to just outline a couple of important points in summary:


 * I have tried to remain calm, cool, and professional throughout the course of our "discussion" on the talk page. Unfortunately, since the jump Xerxes1985 has been the opposite of that. From the beginning Xerxes1985 has been self-admittedly aggressive, rude, unengaging, and unwilling to reach consensus on the talk page. From the beginning all Xerxes1985 has done is threaten to ban me. For what may I ask? I have done nothing but make well sourced edits on pages that desperately needed them.


 * The initial reason why Xerxex1985 did not want the script to be used was because it did not "meet the standards of Persian script on WP". I asked for those standards to be shown to me so that I could take a look at them and follow them, but they were not. Danre98 later pointed out on the talk page that in fact "there is no standard about how to include scripts" on WP.


 * After we concluded that there was no standard related to the use of Persian/Arabic/Pashto/etc scripts on WP, Xerxes1985 moved the goal post for the first time and shifted to pointing out that "Iranian" and "Persian" articles in their entirety were not utilizing the script. That is blatantly false. May I ask that the those involved in resolving this dispute check out the page on the Persian alphabet for reference. Please take a look at the infobox on the right hand side. The entire alphabet, letter by letter is written in Nastaliq script. Once you are finished there, go and take a quick look at the pages of Ferdowsi, Hafez, and Omar Khayyam. These are some of the most famous Persians in all of history. Every single item on Ferdowsi's page that is in a non-english language is in Nastaliq. Look at all the pictures on those pages of the manuscripts, books, and poetry. It is all written in Nastaliq.


 * Next, Xerxes1985 moved the goal post for the second time. The discussion was shifted and Xerxes1985 began to claim that I was the first person ever to utilize the script on pages about Afghanistan/Afghans and no one before me had ever used such a script on those pages. Again, this is 100% false and is a blatant lie. I was most definitely not the first person to add Nastaliq script on those pages. There were already plenty of pages utilizing the script before I ever added it anywhere. Go and check out Ahmad Zahir's (possibly the most famous Afghan of all time) page for reference. Before I ever made a single edit there, the Nastaliq script was being used in the infobox on that page and on many more pages.


 * I am not trying to "reclaim" anything as Xerxes1985 is claiming. Xerxes1985 is trying to twist my words. There is no POV pushing or WP:OR here. The only reason why I ever mentioned that was because Xerxes1985 tried to break the connection between Nastaliq and the Persian/Pashto speaking world. He falsely claimed that Nastaliq was not used in Afghanistan at all and is only used in the Urdu language and only used in Pakistan. That is when and why I said that Nastaliq was in fact Persian in origin and it can, should, and has be used on pages regarding Afghanistan/Afghan.


 * Lastly, but also most importantly, unlike Xerxes1985, I actually tried to find a middle ground and reach a consensus. I proposed that in the lead section we use the default script and in the infobox we use the Nastaliq script. For example, the native language spelling of the city of Kabul in the lead section would be written as کابل and then in the infobox it would be written as . Please note that both of these are identical in meaning, identical in spelling, and identical in language. Unfortunately, the middle ground was not accepted and no consensus was reached. No counter was even given. It was Xerxes1985's way or the highway.

Bottom Line: I want to stress what we are actually "disputing" here. This is a dispute over font... Using vs کابل DOES NOT change the meaning of the word. It is the same language... The same spelling... The same meaning... It is just a slightly different font... Of all the things that the dispute resolvers could be doing to benefit WP, they are instead here trying to resolve this dispute over font... Not even the font of an entire page... Just the font for 3-4 words per page on some articles about Afghans and Afghanistan.

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Volunteer Note - User:Xerxes1985 I have looked through the talk page discussion and it is clear that you have been talking in anything but a neutral tone. You've admitted to being aggressive and rude but continue to talk in that way. Here is just one of the many examples: You are lucky for now that I am inactive, but be sure, there is a lot of trouble waiting for you once I am gonna be back, you’re going to be reported as well. No matter who is right or wrong there is no reason to be talking this way. If anyone continues to do so then I will report you at WP:ANI (this goes for both of you). I will try to remain cool while mediating this discussion and forgive me if I don't respond right away. But I will take any necessary actions if you refuse to cooperate and I truly hope that you reach a consensus. If anyone else wants to mediate this discussion then feel free to do so. MrAgentSochi (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)MrAgentSochi


 * MrAgentSochi I will respond to that in a bit, but can you PLEASE tell the user to STOP removing MY comment and edits on this page ? Regardless of if my comment is placed right or wrong, he is NOT allowed to move MY comment on a talk anywhere else or delete it, this is completely against the WP rules. Xerxes1985 (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * MrAgentSochi Hi! I was not sure if we were supposed to proceed with the discussion here or on the WikiProject Afghanistan page. I have added my latest comments on the WikiProject Afghanistan page. If you'd like me to continue here instead, please let me know and I copy my comments over. Thanks! WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Afghanistan)
I will explore the option of acting as a moderator, to see whether this dispute is one that can be dealt with here. It appears that this is not about the content of an article, but about a style or font for representing the local forms of names. Please read the rules that will be in effect if I am conducting moderated discussion. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Some of the statements above are long and confrontational. If this dispute spans multiple articles, this discussion may go into whether the Manual of Style should address an issue, so be ready to discuss the Manual of Style, but not to discuss the editors. Now: Will each editor please tell me, in one paragraph, what the issue is. What do you want changed or left the same? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Afghanistan)
First Statement by WikiEditUsername7: Thank you Robert McClenon. I will try to keep this short and to the point. What do I want? What I want is for the editors of pages regarding Afghans/Afghanistan to have the ability to choose which font/script they would like to utilize when using native language spelling. This in fact, has always been the norm, which you can clearly see by looking at the many pages I shared as examples previously. When it comes to foreign language spelling on these pages, there is no standard. Some of the pages exclusively use the Naskh script (as in Kabul = کابل‎), some pages exclusively use the Nastaliq script (where Kabul = ), and some pages use both. As you can see, both of these renderings are the exact same thing. They are in the same language, they use the same letters, they are spelled exactly the same, and they convey the exact same meaning (in this case, it is just "Kabul" written in Dari/Pashto). All of a sudden, we have a demand to exclusively move to using one over the other, and on top of that, for all intents and purposes, we have a call for a total ban on the use of Nastaliq on pages regarding Afghanistan/Afghans (and on pages regarding Persians/Iran for that matter) based on the false claim that Nastaliq is not used in the region. This demand does not make sense, as both Naskh and Nastaliq are used commonly throughout the region. Imagine if someone said that Times New Roman is the standard font for the English language in print and that Calibri (or any other font for that matter) should be banned from ever being used on any printed material in the English language. That is the equivalent of what we are discussing and disputing here. I had previously consulted the Manual of Style that was shared by the moderator, and I did not see where using Nastaliq over Naskh or vice versa was in violation of the best practices outlined in the manual. However, I could be wrong and I defer to the moderator on this issue. From my perspective, I felt that MOS:FOREIGNITALIC specifically provided the best guidance and clarification as it pertains to this issue that we are disputing over now. I don't see how using Nastaliq over Naskh or vice versa violates these best practices. In the edits I have been making, I have been following the best practices outlined below, i.e. placing the term in parentheses and not italicizing or bolding the non-Latin scripts.

MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "If there is a reason to include a term in a non-Latin script, it can be placed in parentheses. Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek, Cyrillic or Chinese) should neither be italicized as non-English nor bolded, even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page. However, titles of major works that should be italicized are italicized in scripts that support that feature (including Latin, Greek and Cyrillic); do not apply italic markup to scripts that do not (including Chinese, Japanese, and Korean)."

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

How do we proceed if all users involved have not responded within the designated 48 hour window as per the rules?

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Danre98: The issue is whether Nastaliq, a writing style style/font, should be used to represent the native (or local) spelling of places in Afghanistan. I would want things to stay the same- I don't care much and I don't see a compelling case for either after checking the MOS and Nastaliq sources. However, I could have missed something. I think the suggestion to let the person who adds the native spelling choose the script might work. Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 00:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Afghanistan)
I will try to state my understanding of what the issues are, and am asking whether you (the parties) agree. It appears that the issue is whether the Nastaliq script, which is a calligraphic script or font for writing the Arabic alphabet, can be used for the native-language renditions of names. It appears that two editors have made statements saying that the use of Nastaliq should be optionally permitted. It appears that one editor is opposed to the use of Nastaliq, but has not made a statement.

There are at least three possible ways forward. The first is to close this discussion with a conclusion that we agree that the use of Nastaliq should be optionally permitted. That might not do anything, because a conclusion at DRN is not binding on anyone. The second is to use a Request for Comments somewhere, probably in the MOS, to say whether the use of Nastaliq is optionally permitted. The third is to use a Request for Comments at each article where its use is challenged.

Each editor is asked either to agree or to disagree with my summary of the issue. Each editor is asked to make a concise additional statement. By the way, when I say to be concise, I mean to be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Second statements by editors
Second Statement by WikiEditUsername7:


 * Agree or disagree with moderators summary of the issue: I agree. I would make one minor edit to your summary and remove "which is a calligraphic script". The other option is the Naskh script which is also a calligraphic script/font. So in that regard, both Nastaliq and Naskh are the same and there is no need to distinguish one as calligraphic.
 * How to proceed: I prefer option 1 (close this discussion with a conclusion that we agree that the use of Nastaliq should be optionally permitted). In my humble opinion, this is a non-issue that should never have reached this level of dispute resolution to begin with. If we were debating the use of a non-native language and/or non-native script (like Chinese characters, for example), then there would be a need for a more binding resolution.
 * Comments on second option: I do not see a need to use a request for comment because to me, the guidance for use of foreign language is already clear per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC (if you use foreign language in the article, make sure it is in parentheses and make sure you do not use bold or italics).
 * Comments on third option: I definitely would not want to proceed with this option. We have already spent a considerable amount of time here trying to figure this out. I would not want to have to do this every single time on every single page when editors make such inconsequential edits. If we proceed with this we are setting the precedent for any kind of edit made to these pages to be, for all intents and purposes, filibustered when one editor has a personal issue with the edit. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(2nd) Statement by Danre98: I agree with much of the moderator's summary. I don't want to close this discussion with an agreement on Nastaliq's use as I don't think that will the resolve the dispute. is an inactive editor that probably hasn't seen the moderator's request for a paragraph about what the issue is. The dispute would resume whenever they get on Wikipedia again. I think the second option of an RfC somewhere to determine what the community thinks is the best option. As notes, there are too many Afghanistan articles that are disputed over the difference in script to make Option 3 practical. I think input from more editors would be beneficial- only 3 (2 active) editors are currently involved and would bring a more binding end to the dispute when one of the editors was not part of this (moderated) discussion. However, I am unsure as to where in the WP:MOS the RfC should go (the talk pages of WP:NASTALIQ or WP:FONTFAMILY seem like the more relevant places). I would note that MOS:FOREIGNITALIC does not provide guidance on whether Nastaliq should be used or not, at least how I read it. Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 22:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(3rd) Statement by Xerxes1985: I am not sure why the moderators or anyone are assuming that I didn’t made a statement, I have made it at least 3 times with all the talk pages included, I understand that the admins might be too busy to look through all of them, but I have made a very clear statement in this page here as well, I can surely copy paste that statement again if you really want to but I don’t think that’s much necessary, everybody can just read my first statement which I’ve made here. I disagree with all 3 options, there’s no need to just change all the fonts, because if you permit it occasionally WikiEditUsername7 will just blindly attack every single Afghanistan-related article as well. Just a whole mess, furthermore if you do that you should change all Iranian related articles as well to Nastaliq style if you don’t want to make it a mess. Why change anything has always been working perfectly fine ? The Nastaliq variety is officially used for all documents etc in Pakistan, hence why every Pakistani related article has words in the Nastaliq style included and not the classic style. In Afghanistan official documents or texts itself are written in the classical way, hence why all the articles in Afghanistan have had included the classical style on WP and not the Nastaliq style, until this user joined and went on his personal Nastaliq-crusade to “reclaim our script as Iranics from the subcontinent” (his words). Cheers Xerxes1985 (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Follow up by WikiEditUsername7: My friend, with all due respect, I do not understand why you keep repeating the below: "hence why all the articles in Afghanistan have had included the classical style on WP and not the Nastaliq style, until this user joined and went on his personal Nastaliq-crusade."

What say you to the pages on the National Assembly of Afghanistan, Hotak dynasty, Kabul River, Ferdowsi, Mahmud of Ghazni, Ahmad Zahir, Afghan National Police, Persian alphabet, Babur, Nur Jahan, and the countless other pages that were utilizing Nastaliq before I ever had a Wikipedia account? Repeating a false statement over and over again will not render it true. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (Afghanistan)
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to the moderator. Discuss content, not contributors. Do not allege that other editors are posting falsehoods (even if they are posting falsehoods). One of the purposes of the dispute resolution process is to try to tease out truth. Answer each question in one paragraph, not with a long series of short paragraphs or a wall of text. Be civil and concise. That means be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The first question, and I think I know the answer, is whether this is a dispute about styles of Arabic letters to be used in Afghan articles. Is that the issue?

The second question is: What fonts or styles of letters do you think should be used in Afghan articles?

The third question is: Why do you think what you do on the second question? What policy or guideline, or what rule of common sense, dictates what fonts should or should not be used?

The fourth question is: Are there any other issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Afghanistan)
Third Statement by WikiEditUsername7:

First Question: Almost. The official languages of Afghanistan are Dari and Pashto. Dari includes all of the Arabic letters plus 4 additional ones (32 in total). Pashto contains all of the Arabic letters plus 17 additional ones (45 in total). So it's not only limited to Arabic letters as the additional letters are unique to Dari and Pashto respectively and they are not found in Arabic.

Second Question: Any of the five principle styles outlined here are fine (Naskh, Nastaliq, Diwani, Thuluth, Reqa). However, I am only aware of Naskh and Nastaliq being an option in Wikipedia.

Third Question: It's common sense. There are a variety of different fonts used in the country and larger region (I have already shared links in previous discussion showing the use of Nastaliq in Afghan books, signs, TV, poetry, art, etc.). Picking one over the other and exclusively using it does not make sense. The pages regarding Afghanistan/Afghans have historically used a mix of both. Some pages only used Naskh, some only used Nastaliq, and some used both (see pages on National Assembly of Afghanistan, Hotak dynasty, Kabul River, Ferdowsi, Mahmud of Ghazni, Ahmad Zahir, Afghan National Police, Persian alphabet, Babur, Nur Jahan for reference). It is totally unnecessary to regulate this and limit it to one over the others. It would just create unnecessary roadblocks and lead to more and more disputes like these in the future. This is not a big deal. All of them are used in Afghanistan, all of them use native letters and spelling, and all of them convey the same meaning. Absolutely nothing of substance changes when you use Naskh vs Nastaliq vs Diwani vs Thuluth vs Reqa. Additionally, the guidance for use of foreign language is already clear per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC (if you use foreign language in the article, make sure it is in parentheses and make sure you do not use bold or italics).

Fourth Question: No other issues

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

(3rd) Statement by Danre98: Sorry, I'm a bit late posting my statement. Yes, the moderator's description of the dispute is accurate. I think the Naskh script should be favored but an editor is allowed to use Nastaliq if they are the ones adding the native spelling. Why? One might say that MOS:FONTFAMILY precludes its use, however I disagree. The stated reasons is that it interferes with Wikipedia's flexibility and it's impossible to forsee what fonts are installed. I'm not sure how using Nastaliq in a limited way would interfere with Wikipedia's flexibility and if the user does not have Nastaliq installed Naskh is shown instead- so not being able to predict whether the user has a Nastaliq font installed is not an issue. This is also different than using a different English font in Wikipedia articles- there is a history and a meaning behind different scripts. Urdu on Pakistan articles uses Nastaliq and part of the why behind it is that almost everything in Urdu is written in Nastaliq. My understanding (which could very well be wrong) is that in Dari (Afghan Persian) Nastaliq is used in some circumstances, like for poetry. Unfortunately I was unable to find a reliable source on how it is used in Afghanistan. Because it is used in some circumstances, I think it shouldn't be disallowed but Naskh should be preferred. I am unaware of any other issues related to this. Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 01:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Afghanistan)
Two editors agree that the issue has to do with the use of the Nastaliq font for writing languages that are used in Afghanistan, and that one editor objects to the use of that font. These editors say that the use of either Nastaliqor Naskh should be permitted. The editor who objects to the use of the font has participated in this discussion sporadically. My preference would be to state that the use of Nastaliq is optionally permitted. I have not been able yet to determine what guideline or MOS page should be either amended or written to apply to the choice of fonts for native names that are written in non-Latin scripts. I am continuing to research the matter of where to address the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I am willing to leave this dispute open, possibly for an extended period of time, while I am researching the need for an MOS page. In the meantime, my advice to Xerxes1985 is to leave any present or future occurrences of Nastaliq alone. If reverting of Nastaliq resumes, the other editors have at least four choices. First, they can leave the reverting alone, in which case Xerxes1985 will presumably revert it to Naskh. Second, they can start an RFC at WikiProject Afghanistan. I am willing to assist in preparing the RFC. Third, they can start an RFC at each page. That seems tedious, and I don't recommend it. Fourth, since Xerxes1985 has been alerted to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan case, they can report the dispute at Arbitration Enforcement. One of the purposes of DRN is to avoid the need for WP:ANI and Arbitration Enforcement, so I urge the editors to try to avoid disruption. Also in the meantime, this case is open for further comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Afghanistan)
Fourth Statement by WikiEditUsername7: The moderator says that "my preference would be to state that the use of Nastaliq is optionally permitted." I am ok with that. Additionally, I am ok with leaving the dispute open while the moderator researches the need for an MOS page. Lastly, can the moderator elaborate on what they mean by "fourth, since Xerxes1985 has been alerted to ArbCom discretionary sanctions under the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan case, they can report the dispute at Arbitration Enforcement." I checked out the link and I don't see anything related to Xerxes1985 on these pages. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by editors
Robert McClenon ''The first question, and I think I know the answer, is whether this is a dispute about styles of Arabic letters to be used in Afghan articles. Is that the issue?''

Perso-Arabic letters yes.

The second question is: What fonts or styles of letters do you think should be used in Afghan articles?

The classic one, not the Nastaliq one

''The third question is: Why do you think what you do on the second question? What policy or guideline, or what rule of common sense, dictates what fonts should or should not be used?''

The Nastaliq style is only officially used in Pakistan, nowhere else, hence why Pakistan-related articles are always using the Nastaliq style, while Afghanistan and Iran related articles never have been using the Nastaliq style on Wikipedia, only on very rare occasion where IP’s or users like WikiEditUsername7 have inserted it. In Afghanistan and Iran itself normal texts in a Book or official document are usually always written in the normal classical style, while Nastaliq is, at best, used for art, special short titles( for example book covers etc) or calligraphy at the very most. It has always been like this accordingly on Wikipedia as well, in Pakistan Nastaliq is used regularly for books and documents as well, hence why all Pakistan related articles have Nastaliq in them. A normal smartphone keyboard for Persian/Dari and Pashto has the classical script as well, not the Nastaliq one, furthermore every online newspaper article and regular online article in Farsi/Dari and Pashto is also always written in the classical way, on the other hand what kind of script is used on a smartphone keyboard for Urdu? Surprise, surprise, it’s the Nastaliq one. What script is used for newspaper or regular articles on Urdu online? Surprise, surprise, it’s Nastaliq.

The fourth question is: Are there any other issues?

WikiEditUsername7 already terrorized countless of articles with his Nastaliq-crusade, he ignored all my warnings and kept on editing which led us here. I get headaches from just thinking about how much of work it would be to revert all of it back Xerxes1985 (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator (Afghanistan)
I think that the matter of what Arabic scripts to use should be addressed somewhere in the MOS. However, while that issue is being researched, I am proposing to start a Request for Comments on the WikiProject Afghanistan talk page. which will ask which of two rules should apply to native forms of proper names: (1) the use of either the Nastaliq or the Naskh script are permitted; (2) only the use of the Naskh script is permitted. If an editor wishes to include a third choice in the RFC, please mention it within a few days, because the RFC will be published within a few days.

Please comment on the proposed RFC and make any other comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A draft of the proposed RFC is available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Afghanistan/Script RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors (Afghanistan)
Statement by Danre98: Thank you for taking the time to research this issue and draft a RfC. I also agree that this is something to address somewhere in the MOS, especially as this is a style issue. The one thing that I think could be added is links to the previous discussion, but that could be linked by any editor (including myself) in the threaded discussion and need not be part of the draft. There aren't any choices that I think are missing from the RfC. Danre98 ( talk ^ contribs ) 18:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WikiEditUsername7: I am ok with the RfC as is and I have no further options to add. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The Game Changers
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

Layne Norton is referenced in the article and has been funded by animal agriculture industries (shown by studies he has authored and he has prefaced this himself in his referenced critique article). This is not mentioned in the wiki article. Two editors are actively removing the COI disclaimer.

This is a reply to: "RBut is describing as a COI disclaimer) that are not referenced by third-party sources.", sorry but I do not know why jps would say this, when he is well aware that reference 19 has pointed this out. Here is reference 19 from the Game Changers article: "Layne starts off, as most all scientific presentations do, by dealing with bias. He admits his biases and states that he was funded by egg and dairy [industry]. In fact, the lab he trained in was heavily funded by animal agriculture. His preceptor was a main consultant for the National Cattleman’s Beef Association and all the articles I have read from his lab have had an industry sponsor. As you will see. most of the articles he cites in his review are industry funded." RBut (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Discussion in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Game_Changers#Promoters

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Determine whether COI should be disclaimed for Layne Norton in the wiki article, for a topic Layne Norton has a COI in, a topic Layone Norton engaged with which is referenced in the article, without the COI preface/disclaimer.

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

Hello, RBut wishes to undercut some of the critiques in the current article with what looks to me like non-notable original research. I think the vision of COI being advanced here is also a bit overbroad. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by jps
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The content at issue is additional *rejoinders* (what RBut is describing as a COI disclaimer) that are not referenced by third-party sources. Consensus seems to be that we should not include this text. jps (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Game Changers discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * RBut is relatively new to this. Dumuzid and I have both seen his notification on the article talkpage. jps (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Game Changers)
I will try to moderate this dispute. First, read the ground rules for discussion. Be civil and concise. The length of the talk page posts has been excessive, which may be a reason why this dispute has continued. Overly long posts may make the poster feel better, but they do not convey information effectively. Comment on content, not contributors. I have a question. There is a great deal of argument about conflict of interest. I would like to clarify that the question has to do with persons described in the article, especially Layne Norton, and not with conflict of interest by Wikipedia editors. If the dispute is about Wikipedia conflict of interest, then this is the wrong noticeboard. If this is about funding of research by persons mentioned in the article, then the issue is one of article content, how to describe the conflict in the article (and that is what this noticeboard is for). I will ask each editor to be specific, and identify one or more paragraphs in the article that either should be changed, or should be left the same. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Game Changers)
Hi, thanks for your help Robert. This is about Layne Norton. He disclaimed he has been funded by animal agriculture industries in his critique of Game Changers that is referenced in the Game Changers wiki article. A critique of his critique (by Dr. Garth Davis) is referenced in the wiki article that mentions he has been funded by animal agriculture industries. For specifics, he has been funded by the The National Dairy Council and Egg Nutrition Center (they have alternative names which have official wiki pages, American Dairy Association and American Egg Board). The grounds and justifications for adding this disclaimer are there, right?

The current "Layne Norton, a bodybuilder with a PhD in nutrition and founder of a nutrition and body-consulting company," should be changed to "Layne Norton, a bodybuilder with a PhD in nutrition and founder of a nutrition and body-consulting company, with (or and) previous funding by the American Dairy Association and American Egg Board" RBut (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, thanks for your assistance. You are quite right--the "COI" at issue is with regard to sources mentioned in the article, not actually any editors. I believe the main points of contention are the fifth and sixth paragraphs under the heading of "Reception." RBut wishes to introduce facts which he thinks establish a conflict on the part of reviewers of the film. I believe they are not notable and mentioning critiques does not require the naming of every possible bias of every reviewer/critic/source. RBut obviously feels differently, and I will note for the record that they have largely been civil, even if I have offered some thoughts on how to be more persuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

While we do reference Davis's critique of Norton's review. Davis is a doctor who promotes a POV similar to that of the film, and I believe the text does justice to describing the dispute neutrally. Using Davis as a justification for altering the description of Norton is necessarily adopting the POV of Davis. jps (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from Layne Norton's article disclaiming his previous funding, this article is referenced in the Game Changers wiki article: "Some of my research in graduate school was sponsored by the Egg Nutrition Center as well as the National Dairy Council." RBut (talk) 07:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Statement by Moderator (GC)
It appears that one editor wishes to insert a funding comment about Layne Norton, and another editor opposes the insertion of the comment. Is that correct? The applicable policies and guidelines appear to be neutral point of view and due weight. Are there any other content issues? Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement supporting changing the article or leaving it the same? I intend to collapse overly long statements, so, if you want your argument read, don't make it too long. Also, does any editor have a compromise wording that they will propose should be considered? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Second Statements by Editors (GC)
It simply strikes me that RBut is going a few steps too far in trying to undermine critics of the film. The things he wished to bring up to me are not notable and verge on WP:OR. Apologies to RBut, as I don't mean to speak for them, but it sometimes feel like they wish to advance the position that anyone who is not a fan of the movie or plant-based diets in general is conflicted such that they cannot be trusted. I obviously disagree with this notion and don't think we need to stretch in order to undermine incidental criticisms in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Two editors are against including previous COI (Dumuzid and jps), while I am for it (Rbut). I believe the COI is notable, due weight and relevant. Layne Norton himself has disclosed the funding, pointing out his potential bias, and the person responding to Layne (Garth Davis), has pointed this out too (because pointing out previous funding and potential bias is an important point, as it would be with any other industry, such as the tobacco industry). In my opinion, it is notable, due weight, and NPOV because it is an objective, factual and relevant claim that the person himself discloses. RBut (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator (GC)
Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, why their position is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Also, I will allow back-and-forth discussion between the editors to see if a compromise can be reached. This back-and-forth discussion will continue either until it reaches a compromise or until I conclude that it is repetitive or otherwise not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Third Statements by Editors (GC)
Again, I wish to note the good faith of RBut, but I simply think they are approaching this a bit too much like advocacy. The proposed changes are tangential, at best, and are non-notable details about critics--which, to my mind, would violate both notability and original research guidelines. Moreover, though not weasel words per se, there is something of the same effect here; the proposed changes would leave the impression that there has been no legitimate criticism of the film, which does not seem an accurate summation to me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Every source should be identified so that the reader knows why they are being used. This is the essence of WP:ATT, for example. However, it is not Wikipedia's job to highlight what one editor thinks are relevant conflicts of interest when the only source which so identifies them as relevant/identifiable conflicts of interest to highlight is doing so in a polemical fashion. We use to the rejoinder by Davis as a reliable source for Davis's opinion, but we do not highlight what Davis highlights in WP voice (WP:ASSERT) for wont of keeping WP:NPOV. It would likewise be unreasonable to state something like, "Davis's income is derived mostly from promoting the same sorts of ideas as promoted in The Game Changers". Poisoning the well should not be the goal of WP prose. jps (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The source (Layne Norton) that is referenced in the Game Changers wiki article prefaced his previous funding in the same article. It couldn't possibly be breaking policies and guidelines to further reference the same article disclaiming his funding? He has prefaced this information because it is relevant, which coincidentally follows Wikipedias COI guidelines, confirming notability. RBut (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion (Game Changers)
Dumuzid: Two points. 1. Disclosing previous funding does not illegitimize criticism provided by the source. 2. From the Game Changers article: "In defense of the film, Garth Davis, a vegan medical doctor and best-selling author of a book promoting the health benefits of a plant-based diet" - Do the same guidelines apply to this quote? no source was cited that he is 1. a vegan, and 2. he has a best selling book promoting a plant based diet.

jps: My argument does not rely on Garth being used. Layne himself prefaced his previous funding in the same critique that is used. Layne can easily be quoted. RBut (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What quote do you want to use? Be specific, please. jps (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Layne's quote: "Some of my research in graduate school was sponsored by the Egg Nutrition Center as well as the National Dairy Council". RBut (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why is that at all relevant to The Game Changers movie? More to the point, if you included the actual context for this quote, it would by Norton essentially explaining his opinion on how he was honest and the movie makers were not about potential conflicts of interest. Seem very in the weeds... but if you're going to argue for including a direct quote to Layne Norton, it would be best practice to include the context as well. I think the article is already overlong about all this. I'm not sure you've given a good reason why we should keep adding more and more to it. But we certainly can't just add cherrypicked quotes to make only the points you want to have align with your position. jps (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because the COI is directly relevant to the positions he has taken, hence the author prefacing them. This is like saying somebody that has been funded by the tobacco industry that is critiquing the "dangers of smoking" shouldn't have their funding displayed because it isn't relevant. Your further points are not relevant to the argument (this dispute resolution thread). RBut (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's relevant because the COI is directly relevant to the positions he has taken, hence the author prefacing them. No, this is not the way things work. We need secondary sources that recognize this sort of relevance. We don't have that. One option could be to remove the Norton/Davis discussion entirely... but so far I haven't seen you interested in that. jps (talk) 03:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned below, the source itself listed their COI. To now suggest to further quote the source and their mention of their COI requires a secondary source is extremely illogical. RBut (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Them's the rules of WP. jps (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

RBut -- I agree re: illegitimization (to use an overly long word), but again, I think it is akin to weasel words. While saying something true, you can sort of undercut or "spin" the effect of an entire phrase or section. As to guidelines applying equally, I think they do. The difference for me is that those are essentially the bases of Garth Davis's notability (though the claims certainly should be sourced) whereas previous funding is not the basis of Norton's. Again, the fact that it's not even known to be current is also an issue for me. I'll be interested to hear an outside take. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Funding does not have to be current for you to be biased towards the source of the funding. It is something done in every wiki article. A persons previous funding for an industry is listed if they also happen to be defending it, e.g. "this person is a climate change denier. Has been funded by the fossil fuel industry for so and so". When it comes to Layne this doesn't change. It is just as notable. RBut (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is something done in every wiki article. This is simply not true. It is only done when reliable secondary sources identify it as relevant. In this case, there is one and only one primary source other than the author himself that has even mentioned it. jps (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And the exact same reasoning used to justify adding the critique to the Game Changers wiki article can be used to justify further adding the COI. The author himself decided it was important. RBut (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * RBut, I certainly agree that funding can be pertinent, but I hesitate to say it is always so. This is why we look to secondary sources.  If someone received money decades ago, is that still relevant?  For myself, I stick to epistemic humility.  I really don't know.  That's why I try to find reliable sources to push me in one direction or the other.  Where there is silence, I tend not to leap in to the gap, as it were.  Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My argument is that the reasoning used to justify adding this source to the article can be further used to add the funding, which the same source disclaimed. To now request a different standard is illogical. So from my analysis the addition of funding is justified. I believe it is up to the moderator now. RBut (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to eliminate the source entirely, that's an option here. You haven't really argued that yet. jps (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with Layne's critique. The fact that the COI has the grounds to also be mentioned causes you to now suggest removing the source is troubling to say the least, especially because of your accusations of "we certainly can't just add cherrypicked quotes to make only the points you want to have align with your position" which now seems like a projection. You were okay with the source, as long as it fit your position and their COI did not have to be listed? RBut (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Then we're at a standstill and I judge that you have not made the case that anything should change. jps (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you find 'troubling to say the least' RBut? It would be helpful if you were more explicit.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator (GC)
Since we are at an impasse, we have two ways forward. I can remain neutral and put the question to a Request for Comments. Or I can offer a fourth opinion, which will make me non-neutral. I will only offer a fourth opinion if I know that the parties will accept it, because I don't have another moderator ready to come in if I become involved. If any editor says that they want a Request for Comments, I will set up a Request for Comments.

Back-and-forth discussion may continue in the section for the purpose, but it appears that the editors have agreed that it is not working toward a compromise.

Each editor may make a two-paragraph statement saying how they are willing to resolve this dispute, and why they think that the article should be either changed or left unchanged. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors (GC)
We have right now a paragraph dedicated to a rather extensive critique written by Layne Norton. In that paragraph, we identify Norton biographically and include three of the main points he makes in his critique. One of those points is that he objects to the lack of clear identification of the funding for certain studies mentioned in the movie. He contrasts that with his own research work which is not particularly relevant to the critique but just sits as an exemplar of what he considers to be ethical behavior. Garth Davis writes a response to Norton's critique that focuses on a few issues that he is bothered by and we include some quotes that indicate this. One thing that Davis mentions is that Norton's complaint about COI is disingenuous because research that is not promoting plant-based diets are funded by Big Ag. We indicate that he objected to Norton's "bias" which, in detail, is what RBut wants us to highlight.

The thing is, though, that this is a level of analysis that goes far beyond what we would normally tolerate for summarizing two primary sources. I myself am okay with including these summaries because these are two subject experts talking about the technical aspects of the film. Interesting for the readers, but getting into the weeds is not recommended. Highlighting who funded Norton's research in graduate school is a bridge too far. That's the basic idea. So leave the paragraph as is.

jps (talk) 16:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I agree with jps here. Just unnecessary for an encyclopedic discussion of the film. I am certainly happy to have you opine, Robert McClenon, and will stand by whatever decision is rendered. Beyond that, I don't think much more is necessary. Have a nice day, everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

To resolve this dispute I suggest changing the current: "Layne Norton, a bodybuilder with a PhD in nutrition and founder of a nutrition and body-consulting company," to "Layne Norton, a bodybuilder with a PhD in nutrition and founder of a nutrition and body-consulting company with previous funding by the American Dairy Association and American Egg Board"

I believe the article should be changed to have the COI mentioned because of several factors, 1. The author himself mentions it. 2. Another author critiquing the author's critique mentions it. 3. The author was directly sponsored by industries opposed to the positions the Game Changers have taken, this author is now critiquing those positions. This COI is as relevant as it would be for a scientist previously funded by the tobacco industry that was challenging the "dangers" of smoking. I believe there is a consensus between us that we opt in for the fourth opinion. Whatever your decision, I will concede. Thanks for your time. RBut (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, RBut, people active on the talkpage have collectively created kBs of text to try to answer both of these questions for you. Now, if you want to hear Robert McClenon's opinion on these matters, that's fine, but I am becoming increasingly concerned that you have adopted a pattern where you cannot even articulate your opponent's position. You don't have to agree with us, but you do need to understand what we're saying if we're to have any hope of future collaboration. jps (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator (GC)
My own opinion is that the article can be left as is, and that including the "COI disclaimer" with respect to Norton would be undue weight. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I concede. I legitimately thought I had presented a compelling argument here. 1. Can you explain what in this circumstance (e.g. even Layne prefacing the COI which has a direct effect on his perspective and therefore can bias his critique) makes it undue weight? and another if it does not bother you too much, 2. This is a little off topic but I am a new editor and I'd appreciate any help/pointers. Can you tell me if this follows Wikipedias guidelines, from the Game Changers article this is in the intro: "highlights favorable scientific studies". None of the sources we have used have used the word "favorable". Is this an editorialized and subjective term (POV) that would be considered WP:OR (original research) or can editors add adjectives? Thanks. RBut (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

One country, two systems
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

See section, "Dispute resolution attempt with others regarding my efforts to improve article neutrality and apparent edit warring actions in response" on the Talk page of the article, "One country, two systems"

Assistance in dispute resolution requested. I will make efforts to be a cooperative participant in dispute resolution and work towards a fair outcome. I will make all efforts to follow Wikipedia policies and avoid 3 reverts in 24 hours, or even 48 hours (extra precaution on my part). I reverted my own revert to follow the policy (after realizing my mistake) and will assume good faith in dispute resolution as long as others do the same.

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

See:

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Encourage other users involved to work towards a compromise rather than them continuing to revert my edit in tandem.

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

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

One country, two systems discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Note - The filing editor is also advised that posting walls of text to the article talk page is not discussion, and they and the other editors should actually try to discuss. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)