Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 246

Rafida
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

In a series of edits, I revised and improved this article by removing unsourced or poorly-sourced claims and rewriting large parts of the text. I do this regularly to select articles, usually in preparation for GA submissions. Large parts of my edits were undone without due explanation by the user Shadowwarrior8. In particular, please see and. For a second time, one by one, I addressed the problematic bits of the article, this time carefully detailing each issue separately in its edit summary. Another user, Aqsian313, also helped with addressing some of the issues. For instance, he removed a sentence that I had earlier marked by the template. (Please see here.) All these edits were again undone by Shadowwarrior8. Please see here. This is when I took the issue to the talk page, which you can see here. In particular, Aqsian313 commented there in favor of my version of the article.

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

Talk:Rafida

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like to ask you to undo the unexplained mass-revert

Summary of dispute by Shadowwarrior8
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I reverted a series of disruptive edits made by user Albertatiran which involved the removal of encyclopaedic sources with in-line citations (here) and insertion of several unsourced POV edits. (see the edit history of the page) The user was unable to bring any in-line citation as demonstrated in the talk page of the article.

The user's proposed version cant be inserted because it consists of unsourced sectarian POV and removal of sourced content. This issue isnt even a content dispute, because unsourced POV claims have no place in wikipedia in the first place. Content disputes mostly occur when two or more editors differ over how to paraphrase information present in academic sources. On the other hand, the user Albertatiran removed academic sources by engaging in "idontlikeit"-style arguments. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Rafida)
The filing editor did not notify the other editor, but the other editor has made a statement, so I am willing to try to moderate the dispute. The editors should list and notify the other editors who have discussed the dispute on the article talk page. I know nothing of the subject matter, and will expect the editors to provide any background information that is important. Please read DRN RuleA and state that you will follow the rules during the discussion. The purpose of content discussion is to improve the article, so I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article (or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Rafida)

 * Thank you for moderating the discussion. Yes, I've read and will adhere to DRN RuleA. As for the outcome, I'd like the revision here to be undone. I'll also notify the other user who participated in the talk page discussion, Aqsian313, about this ongoing case. Albertatiran (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for notifying! I personally consider Albertatiran's version to be far better than the current one in terms of sources. Albertatiran removed poor sources such as alukah.net, Allama al-Hussein al-Houthi, Maulana Akbar Najibadi all of whom are nowhere close to WP:RS. Encyclopædia Britannica is a generally reliable source in my opinion, however it's articles are edited numerous times again and again like Wikipedia, so I do not regard it to be used on this article. One can just see the much-needed differences between Albertatiran's version and the pre-Albertatiran version If Shadowwarrior8 believes Albertatiran's version contains "sectarian POV", then the two can maybe discuss on changing the wording a bit, but Albertatiran's version is clearly more reliably sourced than the current one. Aqsian313 (talk • contribs) 9:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon I was a bit busy, hence the late response. I have read the DRNA and shall engage in this discussion per the dispute resolution guidelines.


 * What do I want to maintain in the article? I largely want to maintain this edit which the user Albertatiran wants to revert. (which would involve the removal of sourced content as I stated in the dispute summary). However, I am fine with the removal of sources such as 'alukah.net', 'Hussein al-Houthi', 'Akbar Najibadi' etc. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Rafida)
It appears that the current version is that of Shaddowwarrior8. Albertatiran wants to revert Shaddowwarrior8's edits, and says that they have poor sources. Aqsian313 appears to agree and to support Albertatiran's removal of Shaddowwarrior8's edits. Shaddowwarrior8 has not replied to my request that they agree to the rules. If Shaddowwarrior8 does not make a statement within about 24 hours, I will close this thread due to incomplete participation, and will advise the editors who have said what they want to edit boldly. Are there any questions, or any final statements? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator (Rafida)
Rather than providing diffs comparing one version and another, I am now asking each editor to provide the actual wording that they propose to use, in the lede section and in the Definition section. After I have seen the different wordings side by side, we will try to reach a compromise. If you are willing to propose a compromise wording, please provide it also. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Rafida)
Thanks for the follow-up. What follows is the text I'd like to propose, which is borrowed from the version I advocated for in my first statement. In keeping with the common practice around here, references are omitted from the lede below. However, every claim there is already attributed in the body of the article. Albertatiran (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, the following is the wording which I propose to insert in the lede and the "Definition" section: QUOTE

END QUOTE

Note that in the above version, I also made slight improvements in the lede sentence and last sentence of the "Definition" section. Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator (Rafida)
I have read the two proposed versions. Does either editor have any questions about the reliability of the sources used by the other editor? If so, please state what sources are considered questionable, and we will ask about them at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Otherwise, please state briefly and concisely what your concerns are about the other proposed version.

Are there any other content issues, or any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Rafida)
Regarding sources, I don't consider a Britannica article authored by "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica" a reliable source, especially when there is no shortage of expert material about the topic by the likes of E. Kohlberg and M. Momen, among others. Even if it were to be considered a reliable source, this would have been a case of WP:FRINGE because this particular Britannica article goes against the academic consensus and should receive little or no weight in our article per WP:DUE, let alone replace the experts' views, as Shadowwarrior8 has done in his version. Every reliable source is unequivocally clear that Rafida is a deragotary nickname. Reliable sources are also clear that the title is largely applied by Sunnis (and also by Zaydis, according to some sources) to the majority of Shias for condemning the first three caliphs after the Islamic prophet Muhammad. For instance, please consult the EI article by Kohlberg, cited also in our own article, particularly the first and last pages of his article.

There are other major concerns about the version proposed by Shadowwarrior8 but perhaps we can start with the one discussed above. Thank you for your consideration. Albertatiran (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The main problem with the version of user Albertatiran is that it reduces "Rafida" as a polemical term and denies the existence of shia sects which identified itself as 'Rafida' throughout history. My version is historically accurate as well as academically correct because there have been several Shia sects which identified themselves as 'Raafida' for over a 1000 years. Currently there are many Twelver Shia clerics who identify the Twelver Shiites as 'Raafidites'. While it is true that Sunni and Zaydi scholars use the term 'Raafida' in a derogatory way, this doesnt mean that 'Raafida' sects who rejected the legitimacy of the caliphates of Abubakr and Omar didnt exist. This is explained in several sources in the article. The term "fascist" is often used as a slur by various political factions, but this doesnt mean fascists do not exist. (I'm obviously not suggesting that "Raafida" are similar to fascists, I am just demonstrating an example in wikipedia.) Here are some inline citations with quotations which verify the edits I inserted in the article:
 * (Encyclopædia Britannica)
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE


 * (Kohlberg, 1979)
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE


 * (Esposito, 2003)
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE


 * Here is an academic classification of early Rawafid sects (Melchert, 1992)
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE

Additionally, the religious texts of Twelver Shi'ites are full of praise for the term "Rawafid". Kohlberg's article which is cited above explains this with excerpts from the primary sources of Twelver Shi'is. Furthermore, contemporary Twelver Shia clerics also identify themselves as "Rawafid" or "Rafidah". Here is an excerpt from the website "al-islam.org", which is arguably the most popular Twelver shia religious site in the internet: (source: https://www.al-islam.org/ask/why-are-the-shia-sometimes-called-rawafid-or-rejectors-by-their-opponents-what-did-the-shia-reject/rebecca-masterton ) Another religious website popular amongst Twelver shi'ites is literally titled "The Rafida Foundation". The last two sources are not reliable in wikipedia, but I cited them to demonstrate how Twelver Shi'ah community continues to identify themselves as "Rafida". This is also demonstrated in various sources which I cited above.

There has been several Rafida shia sects which existed throughout history, most of which went extinct, except the Twelver Shia. So the page "Rafida" should present an accurate and precise academic information of these raafida sects, (regarding their history, beliefs, evolution, etc.) rather than giving undue weight to the polemical usage of the term by Sunnis and Zaydis. I would suggest that usage of "Rafida" as a derogatory term is outside of the scope of this article and it is better to document that in a seperate article titled "Rafida (slur)" or "Rafida (insult)".

Another problem with Albertatiran's edits is that it contained several unsourced edits with sectarian POV. For example, Albertatiran wrote in the page: "This nickname has been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify Shias' rejection of their oppressive Sunni rulers." Obviously, this is a POV edit which explictly advances a sectarian victimhood narrative, and it cannot be inserted in wikivoice. I reverted that edit and re-instated the previous impartial tone, which is more in line with the sources presented in the body of the page: "Several Shia scholars view the term in a favourable light to signify Shias' rejection of whom they regard as oppressive Sunni rulers." Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Regarding your first point, your verbose statement is misrepresenting the sources and filled with original research. As a representative academic source, here is the gist of Kohlberg's EI article, already reflected in the version you reverted: Rafida is a pejorative generally applied to Twelvers and less so to a number of (small or extinct) Shia subsects. Over time, some Shia figures reinterpreted the term favorably. Why did they do so? Kohlberg speculates elsewhere that Shias realized that they were stuck with the abusive nickname and simply decided to embrace it. All this is miles away from your OR.


 * Regarding your second point, the one about "oppressive Sunni rulers," what I wrote correctly summarizes the sources (and the academic consensus). Wikipedia is not supposed to censor what you personally find to be "sectarian POV" or "sectarian victimhood narrative" or controversial. Rather, our task here is to summarize and present reliable sources. At any rate, this example does not justify your repeated mass-reverts. The solution to such minor issues is to discuss them on the talk page of the article to reach a consensus there. I'd be happy to discuss it here too but to do so would derail the ongoing dispute resolution process, in my opinion. Albertatiran (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator (Rafida)
I apologize for the delay in responding. Let's try again.

Albertatiran says that:  Can Shadowwarrior8 please provide a reliable source that indicates that some Shia apply the term "Rafida" to themselves? We should not make a statement about "Every reliable source" if some, even a few, reliable sources disagree.

Albertatiran questions the use of the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source. There has in the past been no consensus on the reliability of Britannica. Do you want to submit a question to the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the source in the specific context?

Since it appears that reliable sources disagree, we should provide an assessment of what the majority and minority of reliable sources say. I would like each editor to provide a revised proposal for what you would like the lede and the Definitions sections to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Please be concise in your statements. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors (Rafida)
Hi, thanks for your time. From my earlier response, let me please quote here again:

"Here is the gist of Kohlberg's EI article... Rafida is a pejorative generally applied to Twelvers (the Shia majority) and less so to a number of (small or extinct) Shia subsects. Over time, some Shia figures reinterpreted the term favorably. Why did they do so? Kohlberg speculates elsewhere that Shias realized that they were stuck with the abusive nickname and simply decided to embrace it. "

So, the answer to your first question is affirmative, and my version of the article already says so too. Below, I'm quoting from that version:

From the lede:

"This nickname has been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify Shias' rejection of their oppressive Sunni rulers."

From the body of the article:

"Rooted in early Islamic history, the term is still used in Sunni polemics, but has also been reinterpreted favorably by some Shia scholars to signify 'rejection' of all tyranny and the Shia struggle against oppressive Sunni rulers."

Also from the body of the article:

"Some Imamite Shia scholars consider the term to be an honorific title and identify themselves as . In the contemporary era, some Shias in Iraq and Lebanon view the term as a source of pride and use it as a symbol of revolt against tyranny.'

So, while I'm very much grateful for your help, I'm not sure how this particular question would help settle the dispute.

I agree that it's a good idea to refer Britannica to the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Should I go ahead and submit a question there?

As for your request for proposals, my argument is as before: This Britannica article is not reliable. Even if it were reliable, it's a fringe view that goes against the well established academic consensus. The former says that most Shias accept the first two caliphs, in contradistinction to the latter. The fringe (and factually incorrect) view should receive no weight in the article. The rest of the Britannica article reads like other reliable sources, that is, Rafida is a deragotary nickname, as perceived by most Shias. I can't convey this any better than what I have already done in my previous proposal. However, further down, in the section "Rafida in Twelver Shia tradition," there is room to add more details about how Shias responded to this nickname. Thanks again. Albertatiran (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * How about a middle ground solution? @Albertatiran
 * Split the article. Transfer contents regarding the usage of the term "Rafida" as a slur into a new article titled "Rafida (slur)" or "Rafida (insult)". In such a page, the usage of the term "Rafida" as a slur can be given focus in the lede.
 * While the article "Rafida" itself can solely focus academically on the Shi'i rafida sects that emerged since the 9th century and its history. Do you agree to this proposal? If yes, this discussion can be closed quickly and a lot of time need not be wasted in pointless arguments. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Your proposal to split the page should be put to vote on the talk page of the article. We're not here for that. We're here to discuss your mass-revert of my edits. You have repeatedly claimed that my edits were POV and unsourced and that my version "denies the existence of shia sects which identified itself as Rafida.'" I've patiently debunked your claims, one by one. The right course of action is to undo your unexplained mass-revert and then put your proposal to vote on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Well, I already provided several sources which state that the Twelver Shias (also known as "Imami shias") refer to themselves as "Raafida" in my previous comment.


 * (Kohlberg, 1979)
 * QUOTE


 * (Esposito, 2003)
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE


 * Infact, Kohlberg criticized the claim that Imami Shi'is do not identify as "Rafidi" as false. He stated: "an examination of some Imami Shi'i sources reveals that it is not true." In his elaboration on this, Kohlberg further wrote:
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE


 * As for Encyclopedia Britannica, the current consensus regarding this source according to wikipedia is: "Encyclopædia Britannica is a quality general encyclopedia (including its online edition, Encyclopædia Britannica Online). Its editorial process includes fact checking and publishing corrections." WP:RSP


 * Regarding the lede and definition sections, my proposal remains the same as to the one I proposed in the second statement. While I backed up my edits with quotations from academic sources, the other editor only espoused POV views and original research. Hence, I dont feel any need to revise my proposed version. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Fifth statement by moderator (Rafida)
There has been a proposal to split the article into two articles, Rafida and Rafida (insult). I would like a concise statement from each editor as to their opinion about this proposal.

Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, and do not address comments directly to the other editor. We already know that back-and-forth discussion preceded moderated discussion and has not resulted in agreement. You may make suggestions to the moderator as to what he should say to the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I will ask for an opinion from the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the Britannica as a source in the specific context.

Fifth statements by editors (Rafida)
My proposal was that contents in the page regarding the polemical usage of the term "Rafida" can be transferred to a new article titled "Rafida (slur)" or "Rafida (insult)". The current "Rafida" article can solely focus on the academic discussion of Shia rafida sects and their history.

In my opinion, such an arrangement could present the information in a clarifying manner to a random reader. Otherwise, it may cause confusion to many readers. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Such a proposal should be put to vote on the talk page of the article. That way we can solicit feedback from interested editors who are familiar with the topic. I'd reject this proposal for two reasons: 1) Lack of academic precedence, to my knowledge. 2) A quick recap: When used by Sunnis, the term Rafida is intended to be a slur term to describe (most) Shias. For instance, Wilferd Madelung writes that:

(Some) Shias also describe themselves as Rafida, in the same way that a bullied kid may try to "own" his/her abusive nickname. Etan Kohlberg writes that:

To sum, Rafida is a derogatory nickname for Shias which has been favorably reinterpreted by some of them. In my view, the two applications of the term Rafida are too entangled to be split into separate articles. There would be way too much overlap between the articles to justify the split; see WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Ultimately, as noted earlier, this matter should be decided by consensus on the talk page. Albertatiran (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sixth statement by moderator (Rafida)
One editor has proposed that a separate article Rafia (insult) be split off. The other editor disagrees, but says that this should be put to a vote on the article talk page. We can follow the procedures described in WP:Splitting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

If either editor wants a question asked about the reliability as a source of the Encyclopedia Britannica for a particular statement, please identify the particular statement, and I will take the question to the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

What other content issues are there? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Sixth statements by editors (Rafida)
I dont think there is any reason as to why Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry on "Rafida" has to be discarded, when other encyclopaedic books refer to Rafida sects in similar way. Here are some quotations from English-language encyclopaedic books:


 * "Encyclopaedia of Islam" (New Edition Online)
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE


 * In "The Oxford Handbook of Islamic theology" (2016), Wilferd Madelung mentions about "rafida" sects that opposed an early Ibadi scholar:
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * Infact, in the above book's index section, "Shia" and "Rafida" are used interchangeably.
 * Infact, in the above book's index section, "Shia" and "Rafida" are used interchangeably.


 * Also, there are other content issues with Albertatiran's edits in the body. For example, the user cited two outdated sources and wrote: "In Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism is the state religion.." but this is incorrect. Saudi government declares Islam as its state religion and "Wahhabism" was the official religious doctrine championed by the Saudi state, until 2010s. In recent years, Saudi government has stopped promoting the Wahhabi movement and its religious clergy today consists of a blend of Sufis and Salafis, as reported in several news-outlets and sources:
 * (source: "Birth of a Nation", "Tablet" magazine, 23 May 2023)
 * (source: "A New Holiday Heralds a More Complex Understanding of Saudi Arabia’s Origins", "New Lines Magazine", 23 February 2024)
 * Hence, I reverted the edits back to: " In Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabism was officially promoted by the state.." Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Britannica's article on Rafida reads,

The above claim is factually incorrect. The (overwhelming) majority of Shias do in fact condemn the first three successors of Muhammad (caliphs). In their view, these caliphs usurped this political position (caliphate) from Muhammad's designated successor, Ali ibn Abi Talib. For them, the first three caliphs thus left the faith. (For convenience, I've cited here only from our article's current sources.) If this Britannica article is wrong about this basic fact, what other errors could it contain? Why insist on citing a Britannica article authored by "The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica" when there are several excellent academic research and reference articles on the topic? (There are exceptions like this Britannica article authored by two well-known Islamicists, which is indeed cited in our article about Ali.)

I'd also like to bring to your attention that the other editor's statement consists of disconnected quotes and original research, like this one: "Infact, in the above book's index section, 'Shia' and "Rafida" are used interchangeably." Regarding his other concerns, perhaps those can wait until a later round, since that discussion would distract us from the question at hand in this round regarding the reliability of Britannica in this context. Albertatiran (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statement by moderator (Rafida)
I have posted a question at the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for Rafida.

One editor has proposed that a separate article Rafida (insult) be split off. The other editor disagrees, but says that this should be put to a vote on the article talk page. We can follow the procedures described in WP:Splitting. I will start the splitting discussion within 36 hours.

Are there any other specific article content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Seventh statements by editors (Rafida)
@Robert McClenon Regarding my proposal of splitting the article, I oppose the initiation of the split discussion before the resolution of this content dispute. Such Rfcs typically takes months to conclude and there are many split proposals that have stayed dormant for more than 1 year. So I support the initiation of a split proposal only after the resolution of the ongoing content dispute.

Regarding other content issues, in the "Context" section there was a statement "Several Imamite Shia scholars consider the term to be an honorific title and identify themselves as." Albertatiran dubiously removed "several" with "some", despite the fact that the source was explictly clear that the usage of the term "Rafida" was widespread amongst the Imami Shia. Infact, throughout that entire article Kohlberg is focused on explaining how the Imami Shias widely view themselves as "rawafid", with citations from Imami Shia religious texts.
 * (Kohlberg, 1979)
 * QUOTE
 * END QUOTE
 * END QUOTE

I think that by now in this discussion, I've summed up all the content issues outside of the lede and "Definition" section. Thank you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 5:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the question about Britannica. Do you think we have a verdict there? To keep the discussion focused, I'd like to present only one or two issues in every round and afterward address one or two of the concerns raised by the other editor. I'll also wait until all those issues are resolved before moving on to new ones. I hope this is acceptable.


 * The mass-revert in question removed the following text from the lede:

Lede summarizes the article and commonly leaves out sources for the sake of readability. In particular, the above claims appear in the body of the article with reliable sources:

Why was the above reliably-sourced content removed from the lede? I'd like that to be restored.


 * Regarding this edit, the use of "several" is a misrepresention of the source, which is silent about the quantity. In the last paragraph of the source, Kohlberg says that he has listed "a few examples" to show how the term Rafida was reinterpreted in the Shia world. No where does the source say that this new interpretation was "widespread." It may have been so but this particular source is silent about that. Since the quantity is not given here, I replaced "several" with the more accurate term "some." In the same edit, "many Shi'ites" is similarly misrepresenting the source, which is again silent about the quantity. I changed that to "some Shias" in this edit. The same source explicitly says revolt "against tyranny," but this part was earlier removed by the other editor. I put it back in this edit. Since the entry of the Oxford Dictionary of Islam about Rafida is fairly short, it'd have been helpful to quote it here in its entirety to support my statement. Unfortunately, however, the book is no longer available on Internet Archive, that is, I can no longer access the book legally. Albertatiran (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Eighth statement by moderator (Rafida)
One editor opposes a split discussion, saying: Regarding my proposal of splitting the article, I oppose the initiation of the split discussion before the resolution of this content dispute. So I have not started a split discussion, but I will ask what specific content dispute they want resolved. The objective is to improve the article, so please state exactly what change you want made in the article. If you have stated it before, please state it precisely, again, anyway.

The feedback from the Reliable Source Noticeboard is that Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, and that the use of secondary sources is preferred/ Otherwise, there appears to be disagreement about the specific use. So it is best not to include any statements that are sourced only to Britannica.

So please identify exactly what changes you want made in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Eighth statements by editors (Rafida)
Hi, thank you for your patience. There are about a dozen instances of content-removal and unsourced edits by Shadowwarrior8 that I wish to be addressed. I'd like to begin with the following, copied from my previous statement. The mass-revert in question removed the following text from the lede:

Lede summarizes the article and commonly leaves out sources for the sake of readability. In particular, the above claims appear in the body of the article with reliable sources:

Why was the above reliably-sourced content removed from the lede? I'd like that to be restored. Albertatiran (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I'd largely like to maintain the current version of the article, with a little bit of improvements. Since you've asked to state it precisely, I shall start delineating it. The lede and "Definition" section: QUOTE

END QUOTE

The above is the same version which I proposed in the second statement.

I'd like to maintain the current version of the "Context" and "History" sections.

In the "History" section, I am ok with removing sources "alukah.net" and "al-Hussein al-Houthi", as I stated in the Zeroth statement.

[PS: Regarding Encyclopædia Britannica, several sources have already been provided (some of which are already present alongside it in the page) which backs up the contents in the "Definition" section and the lede. So, in any case, it is not used as a stand-alone source. I've read several other academic sources which explains "Rafida" in a similar way. It should be noted that there isn't particularly any incorrect information in the "Rafidah" entry of Britannica. Infact, it's contents are more or less in similar pattern to entries regarding "Rafidah" in other English-language encyclopaedic sources.] Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator (Rafida)
We will discuss the most significant issue first. The most significant issue appears to be the removal of a sentence from the lede:.

This sentence was removed from the lede by User:Shadowwarrior8. User:Albertatiran wants it restored. I will ask am asking Shadowwarrior8 why they removed it, and will ask  am asking Albertatiran why they think it should be restored.

Are there any other content issues that either of you want addressed promptly? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Tenth statement by moderator (Rafida)
I am still asking for a statement of why the removed sentence either should have been removed or should be restored. However, I have another question. The sentence in question was removed from the lede. The lede should summarize the content, or the most important content, in the body of the article. I could not find a comparable statement in the body of the article. Was it previously in the body of the article? If it should be restored to the lede, what should be restored to the body of the article that is comparable? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Tenth statements by editors (Rafida)
Hi, sorry for the late reply.

1) The lead section should be a standalone summary of the article as most visitors would not continue to read the main body of the article, according to WP:LEDE. This does not mean that every sentence in the lede should be copied from the main article. I've given below the removed sentence and the paragraph in (an earlier version of) the article that it's meant to summarize. (Note the text in bold font). While I'm open to a discussion on the talk page about alternative ways to summarize the paragraph below, altogether removing reliably-sourced content from the lede or anywhere else in the article (without reaching a consensus on the talk page) is unacceptable per WP:REMOVAL. Undiscussed content removal is also almost never done with the intention of improving the article. First, the removed sentence should be restored. Only then there could be a discussion on the talk page about potentially better ways to summarize the paragraph below.

Removed sentence:

Corresponding paragraph in this version of article follows next. Later Shadowwarrior8 removed the name of Islamic State and made some other changes to the paragraph below.

2) In their previous statement, Shadowwarrior8 wrote that Britannica "is not used as a stand-alone source." This is false. Footnote 1 of the article quotes the following from Britannica without providing additional sources. Either the quote below should be removed or Shadowwarrior8 should corroborate that claim with reliable secondary sources. Actually, earlier I listed multiple reliable sources that contradict the statement below (that only a minority of Shias condemn the first caliphs for usurping Ali's right to the caliphate). The onus is on Shadowwarrior8 to show that what follows is the majority view in academia.

3) The are several other cases of content removal and unsourced or poorly sourced edits in the mass revert in question. However, I'd like to wait until the above issues are resolved before putting forward the rest. Albertatiran (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: "The sentence in question was removed from the lede. The lede should summarize the content, or the most important content, in the body of the article" Exactly. As I stated before, the article primarily deals with the Rafida sects and their history. That statement is inappropriate in the lede, since it gives undue weight to contemporary geo-political issues. In my opinion, a main issue with many Islam-related articles in wikipedia is that classical religious doctrines and concepts are mixed with contemporary geo-political agendas in many of these pages. Sunni and Zaydi scholars have been using the term "Rafida" as a derogatory term for more than a thousand years. Ignoring this and giving undue weight to information related to contemporary militant and insurgent groups advances Euro-centric systemic bias and is certainly not an academic approach. Additionally, both the article and it's 1 para lede are very short, so it is undue in the lede. If the article is expanded or a new article titled "Rafida (slur)" is created, then it maybe appropriate to mention information related to contemporary geo-political affairs in an enlarged lede. In reality, trivial differences in editing-style and paraphrasing are not content issues at all. Copy edits that improve the article, with respect to tone, grammar, structure, etc. are not disruptive or removal of sourced content. Lede is a carefully summarized content of the body, and onus is on the editor to reach consensus for inclusion in the talk page. Regarding Encyclopaedia Britannica, I gave another academic source (which is already present elsewhere in the page) pretty directly in my previous statement. Yet, the other editor persists in repeating the dishonest claim that it is the used as the sole source. Despite ten statements, Albertatiran cannot point to any real content issues of mine and presists in repeating the hollow claim that there are "several other cases of content removal and unsourced or poorly sourced edits". If anything, this shows that the other editor is unable to identify any solid issue. On the other hand, I've pinpointed all the content issues by now in this discussion. I tried my best to summarize my points without bludgeoning and I hope you were able to understand all the key content issues. @Robert McClenon Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 6:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Eleventh statement by moderator (Rafida)
At this point I am trying to focus only on the issue of whether to restore the removed sentence. I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Rafida/RFC on Sentence in Lede. After any tweaking, I will move it to the article talk page, and it will become a live RFC for thirty days. In the meantime, you may comment on it. Do not !vote in it until it is activated by moving it to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I am still asking what sentence that either is or was in the body of the article it is meant to correspond to. When I ask questions about how article content is to be changed, I am not asking for discussion of what the other editor has done or why the other editor is mistaken.

Comment at this time only on the draft RFC. Other issues can be discussed later. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Eleventh statements by editors (Rafida)
Thank you for creating the RFC. It's a bit unclear for me when/where I should add my comment. Anyway, below please find my statement.

Right venue: The mass-revert in question consisted of several content-removals and unsourced or poorly-sources edits, like this one. However, it seems reasonable to first settle the active issues before moving on to the rest. As for the venue, since unmoderated discussion on the talk page failed immediately, this page is the right place to resolve the matters per WP:DRN. (Indeed, this was Shadowwarrior8's second mass-revert. After the first mass-revert, I addressed the problems with that version of the article in separate edits with explanatory edit summaries. All there these edits were again reverted by Shadowwarrior8 without any explanation, besides the usual labels, like disruptive and POV.)

Britannica: In his previous statement, Shadowwarrior8 wrote that, Regarding Encyclopaedia Britannica, I gave another academic source (which is already present elsewhere in the page) pretty directly in my previous statement. This claim is false. The added source (EI2 article by Kohlberg) contradicts Footnote 1 of our article (which quotes Britannica). Below I've given both Footnote 1 and the relevant statement in Kohlberg's article. In sum, Footnote 1 is a standalone statement from Britannica. Either it should be removed from our article or Shadowwarrior8 should establish that Footnote 1 matches the academic consensus, since by now I've given four reliable sources to the contrary.

Footnote 1 of our article, which quotes Britannica:

Kohlberg's EI2 (which Shadowwarrior8 cited to support Footnote 1):

(Those "sinner" companions obviously includes the the first three caliphs, that is, the usurpers. This is implicit in this quote, but it's made explicit in numerous other reliable sources, including the three I gave in an earlier statement.)

Lede: If Shadowwarrior8 believes that the paragraph in question is of minor importance or relevance and that it should be hidden from the majority of visitors to the page (who would not go on to read the full article), then he/she should reach a consensus on the talk page to that effect. Removal of reliably-sourced content is unacceptable per WP:REMOVAL. Quoting from that page, When removing content from a page, it is important to be sure there is consensus to do so.

Moderator's question: The removed sentence from the lede does not correspond to any sentence in the body of the article. Article's lede is its summary and need not borrow verbatim from its body. In this case, the following paragraph in the article essentially says that, for some Sunni schools and currents, the term Rafida signifies that Shias have rejected the true Islam and are thus heretics, against whom violence is justified. The removed sentence, in my view, does a good job in conveying that to the reader.

Removed sentence:

Corresponding paragraph from an earlier version of the article:

Albertatiran (talk) 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Addendum Hi, somehow I missed the last paragraph of your statement; hence the complaint in my own statement about the lack of clarity. As a result, my statement contains other comments too (but so does the statement of the other editor). It was an honest mistake and I'm sorry about that. However, I'd like to ask that we later revisit the standalone quote from Britannica in Footnote 1. By now I've given four reliable sources that contradict that footnote. Albertatiran (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: "I am not asking for discussion of what the other editor has done or why the other editor is mistaken."

Despite your clear instruction, the other editor proceeded to bludgeon an incoherent wall of text in the reply, mainly focused on various allegations against me. It is apparent that the other editor treats wikipedia as some sort of personal battleground, as evident from the editor's behaviour pattern throughout this discussion.

Robert McClenon: "Comment at this time only on the draft RFC. Other issues can be discussed later."

Despite this clear instruction, the user proceeded to comment here and began discussing other content issues. It's clear that the other editor is engaging in disruptive behaviour that has sabotaged the moderated discussion. This sort of bludgeoning behaviour is totally unacceptable and the other editor should face consequences for this. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, since I'm not free for some days, I thought I could comment some suggestions regarding this discussion process as early as possible.

Do you plan to continue this discussion process during the RfC? Either way, I propose the initiation of some disengagement measures since it has become clear that this discussion is an extended and lengthy process.

My initial assessment was that this file would have closed within 1 or 2 weeks; and my responses - which included a mix of arguments, concessions, improvements and quotations from academic references - were oriented towards a quick resolution. (Read "Summary of dispute by Shadowwarrior8"). Hence, I responded at 1 statement/2 days rate. I have a tighter work schedule nowadays in real life, and it is not possible for me to keep up with 1 statement/2 days rate any longer. I propose to conduct the discussion at a 1 statement/2 weeks rate from now on. This can improve the overall quality of the discussion and also increase the decisiveness of each statement. I think such an arrangement may help you as well in analyzing the voluminous discussions in this dispute.

Editors are free to take a break, and I shall comment again here in the next Sunday, if there is a new statement from you. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Robert (doll)
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, Gabriellemcnell, have been attempting to update Robert (doll)'s page with relevant and factual information that is not currently on the page. The information the page is currently missing has to do with Robert's historical origins, cultural context, cultural impact, and exposure in popular culture. The edits I published were backed by independent sources multiple times where necessary. I received permission and primary source documentation on the updated information regarding Robert through the Key West Art and Historical Society, who are the foremost experts and rights holders of Robert himself. Moments after successfully publishing the edits to Robert (doll)'s page, user @LuckyLouie had reverted it and notified me of this through the talk page on my account, @Gabriellemcnell. I reviewed his reasonings for the revert and attempted to reason with him through my talk page. The next edit I published was removing the sources that did not comply with the FRIND guidelines. By removing the fringe sources, which were LuckyLouie's main concern, I thought the page would stay updated as it complies with the necessary citations for the factual information within. User LuckyLouie took down the page again, within 24 hours, and began attacking my editing character on my talk page. I refrained from further edits to stop any edit warring from happening. I continued my attempts at reasoning with LuckyLouie but they were not able to specify what the exact problem with my initial edits were. User DonaldAlbury then joined the conversation on my talk page and attacked my editing character as well. I have tried to reason with DonaldAlbury and request specific problems to no avail. I do not know what else to do as Robert's page is still out of date and inaccurate.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gabriellemcnell

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like to publish the original edits I made to Robert's page that have since been reverted. If I try to publish the page again with these edits, these users will revert it. Robert's page, once updated, needs to be protected or the users involved need to specify what their issue is or the users involved need to be restricted in reverting edits to Robert's page

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

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

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

Undetectable.ai

 * User @Sesame119 appears to be a Single-purpose account.
 * As can be seen here, this user created a talk page post after filing this dispute.
 * One month ago, this user, who has no other edits then this single one he is warring over, Was warned a month ago for edit warring and improper editing.
 * Since this warning, the user hasn't made a single constructive edit outside of the same controversial and unreliably sourced edit they made when they first created their account.[1]
 * While the first few times could be overlooked in good faith, it seems clear to me that this user exists only to add this specific edit to this page, and despite being warned last month NOT to include blacklisted/unreliable sources, they did so again.
 * If an admin comes across this noticeboard, I'm requesting that this user be temporarily blocked for disruptive editing, so that they can take some time to read about WP policy, specifically, Reliable sources, and Verifiability, No original research. Comintell (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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 attempted to add a "controversies" section to this page on several occasions over the last several months. The user "Comintell" has instantly changed my content back multiple times. They seem to have a vested interest in this company not receiving any attention that could be perceived as negative which constitutes a bias not in line with Wikipedia's values. Their claim is that my sources are inadequate despite being from government websites and articles mentioned on other Wikipedia pages respectively. I don't want to engage in an "edit war" with this user and they have failed to respond to any of my communications explaining my reasoning sent in response to their removals of my content. Please let me know if this user could be kept from editing this page further or simply kept from removing my content which is well sourced and legitimate.

Thank you.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sesame119#c-Comintell-20240520235300-May_2024

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ask this user to engage in a dialogue with me since they seem intent on removing certain verifiable information. I would like to understand their genuine reasoning. Or alternatively remove editing power of this user from the Undetectable.ai Wikipedia page.

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

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

Ibn Battuta
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

1.Clarity for Modern Readers: The current description uses “Tangier, Marinid Sultanate” and “Maghrebi traveler.” While this is historically significant, it may not be clear to most modern readers. Using “Tangier, Morocco” and “Moroccan traveler” could provide more immediate understanding. 2.Historical Context: While it’s important to use terms that modern readers will understand, it’s also crucial to provide historical context. We can mention that during Ibn Battuta’s time, Morocco was known as “al-Maghrib al-Aqsa” within the broader Maghreb region. This provides both clarity and historical accuracy. 3.Standard Practices: Wikipedia typically describes the birthplace and death of historical figures in relation to current countries, not the ruling entity of the time. This is especially relevant when the entity, in this case, the “Marinid Sultanate”, no longer exists. While Tangier and Marrakech are well known cities in Morocco. Aligning the article with this practice would maintain consistency across Wikipedia.

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

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

it would be best to involve an administrator to help mediate this dispute and ensure that the most accurate information is presented on the page.

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

Eurovision Song Contest 2024 - Israel
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 heated dispute over the level of detail given in the main article related to the coverage of Israel at this year's contest. There is a lot of want to include a lot of detail about the participation of Israel from including it prominently in the lede, to having multiple detailed sections in the main article. There is a need to ensure that policies on neutrality, balance, recentism, excessive detail, etc. are followed. There is a want to include based on the amount of media coverage and a want to include things unrelated to the contest in and of itself. The article is in danger of becoming not an article on the contest as a whole but an article on Israel's participation with some other things on the side. There is already an article specifically for Israel at the Evisovion Song Contest 2024. There is a need to avoid having a duplicate. There seems to be a push to include a lot more information on Israel than is warranted simply because some media outlets spilt a lot of ink writing about it, some people shouted very loudly through various means, and the Middle East conflict seems to drown out everything else it touches. The article needs to resolve how to include Israel while still maintaining focus on the actual Eurovision Song contest 2024, all the while remembering there is a child article specifically on Israel at this year's contest. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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


 * Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
 * Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
 * Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
 * Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
 * Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
 * Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024
 * Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

There is a need for outside parties who are uninvolved to look at the totality of the discussions taking place related to Israel. There are a lot of Points of view, and a lot of details wanting to be included. There is also a lot of recentism being banded about. This is causing serious bogging down and disputes over what to include and not include. Help is needed sorting this through, with a strong focus on what is an is not encyclopaedic and what is and is not following the Wikipedia pillars. Guidance and reminders of what Wikipedia is not are needed. Help to sort what goes in the main article and what goes in the child article.

Summary of dispute by The Satanator
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I agree with PicturePerfect666, the article shouldn't be about Israel primarily. The Satanator (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Yoyo360
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

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

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

Summary of dispute by F1xesc
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Jjj1238
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Summary of dispute by Hhl95
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Vkb123
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Edwin of Northumbria
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * COMMENT I generally oppose the creation of another article, and on balance, opinion would seem to be weighted against it. I can see there are persuasive views on both sides, but my own is that the article should pick out the most significant facts, and surely the inclusion of the section in question is far more important than, say, a table relating to the bidding cities. My biggest concern is that in creating a separate article, there is a risk that future readers will disregard it entirely. I've been watching the ESC since 1976, and there have been very few years as controversial or politically charged as this one. I feel the main article should reflect this. (EofN (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC))

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

Summary of dispute by JohnR1Roberts
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

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

Summary of dispute by IJA
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * Comment I'm unsure why I've been included in this so-called dispute. I've not said anything whatsoever in regards to Israel. I simply said that I don't think that there should be a separate article re controversies (for those unfamiliar with the subject, there are controversies that had nothing to do with Israel), as it could lead to POV FORKING, and I stand by that belief. Having revisitedtge talk page, I really don't think there is any dispute to be noted. IJA (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Tonyb1989
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

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

Summary of dispute by Uamaol
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
 * Comment I've been incorrectly added to this like User:IJA. It appears that constituents of discussions of suggested article moves/creations relating to Eurovision 2024 controversies have been thrown into something that has to do with Israel. I am involved in the former but not the latter. My contribution to the article surrounds flags, particularly the banning on non-binary and CoE/EU flags. On the talk page I support the move of the controversy section to a new article. Nothing to do with Israel. UaMaol (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Kapitan110295
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Eurovision Song Contest 2024 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Aidi
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 dispute over whether the origin of the breed of dog (Aidi) should be listed as Morocco or North Africa/Maghreb.

I initially reverted the article due to a slow edit war over this, it was later reverted back. I have tried to discuss it on the talk page and have provided multiple reliable sources that state the origin of the breed in Morocco. The other party to the dispute has been unwilling to help.

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

Talk:Aidi

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help to provide consensus on whether the origin should be listed as Morocco or North Africa/Maghreb.

Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle
M.Bitton changed the origin parameter in the infobox to state 'North Africa' instead of Morocco. This is despite it being listed as originating in Morocco by the FCI and several published sources:

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

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

Aidi 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 on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect:, Traumnovelle (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Gangubai Kathiawadi
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

An account has been repeatedly disrupting constructive edits from users and indulging in edit-war without citing any factual sources on page GangubaiKathiawadi. I have quoted my sources which are considered authentic by Wikipedia but the other user doesn't have any and is contesting purely on basis on personal opinion

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JabSaiyaan, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangubai_Kathiawadi&action=history

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Kindly clarify it to the user & other users that before removing any authentic data from a reliable source as per WP:ICTFSOURCES https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangubai_Kathiawadi&action=history, he/she has to provide sufficient basis to the edits. Editing purely on basis of personal bias is detrimental to the authenticity of information on a global platform like Wikipedia.

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

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

Maratha Confederacy
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

About territorial peak of an empire and what information to be included in the into para(s) of the article and what not to be included.

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

Talk:Maratha_Confederacy Requests_for_page_protection/Increase User_talk:Mohammad_Umar_Ali

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Plz see the WP:RS sources and take decision from a neutral point of view. Any article needs to have information of itself not others here in Maratha Confederacy article Mughals are discussed more in 1st para than the Marathas. Not much have been described about Marathas in intro paras even after so much information exist about them.

Summary of dispute by PadFoot2008
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Rahio1234
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Comment by (uninvolved)
Please see the edit warring noticeboard discussion filed since this discussion was opened here. I make no comment on this, nor on that discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Killing of Laken Riley
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This article is about a homicide that occurred in 2024. The suspect has been arrested and charged with murder, but the case has not gone to trial yet. We are discussing whether or not the body of the page should refer to the crime as a "murder" or not. Naming conventions (violence and deaths) is clear that we should *not* use the word "murder" in the title of the page, because nobody has been *convicted* of murder yet in this case. My view is that because we should not use "murder" in the title, we shouldn't be using it elsewhere on the page either, unless we are talking about the murder charge against the suspect or we are quoting someone. "Murder" is a legal term that is much narrower than "killing" or "homicide", and in my view, I believe the court is the one that gets to make the determination whether or not it's "murder". It's the court's job, not Wikipedians' job. I changed some instances of "murder" in the article to say "killing" or "homicide", but it was reverted by @FMSky. The users who have said they support using the term "murder" are @TanRabbitry and @FMSky. The users who support using other terms (like "killing") are me, @Objective3000, and @Cakelot1.

There has also been discussion about the title of the article on the Talk page, but since Wikipedia policy seems very clear about the title, I am not naming editors who provided their opinions on the title ONLY. I'm only naming editors who provided opinions on the use of "murder" in the rest of the article. I would like resolution regarding the language used in the article as a whole.

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

Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A decision on the language to be used in the body of the article ("murder" vs. "killing"/"homicide"), except for instances where we are describing specific charges filed or quotes from sources.

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

Here is my view: Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do have to assume innocence until guilt is proved, but we can also use some measure of common sense. Murder is the illegal, unjustifiable killing of another person. I actually don't agree with a previous editor's suggestion that "murder" is synonymous with "killing." Saying "I killed a mosquito," sounds normal. Saying "I murdered a mosquito," will get some strange reactions. Now, the death wasn't a suicide, manslaughter or accident. There is absolutely no hint of justification, such as self-defense. The party who killed her (whether its the suspect or not) committed murder. We don't know if the suspect did it because there's an assumption of innocence until any conviction. So if he's innocent, someone else still murdered her. But even if, for example, he did kill her and argues that he has a legal excuse (such as an insanity defense) the murder still occurred even if that argument is accepted and he isn't personally culpable for the crime. The murder happened regardless of the suspect's involvement or culpability. The death was due to blunt force trauma and asphyxiation, followed by multiple strikes to the head with a rock. There is no reasonable situation that this case could be self-defense. Now a court would at least have to entertain that possibility, but we do not (at least until that is actually claimed by the defense during the trial). Also, while we certainly can't assume that the suspect is guilty, I think we can take the polices' word that he didn't know her to be true (once again until such time as the defense says otherwise) therefore negating a crime of passion. The circumstances of the death also render this idea absurd. I think it is reasonable to assume the murder was a "crime of opportunity" as has been reported (regardless of who committed it), unless this is later contradicted. Unlike other cases mentioned on the "Talk" page, the circumstances and motivation are not controversial, only what the crime signifies and that isn't relevant here. The key point is this: I have wondered under what circumstances the "ignore rules" idea is to be utilized. I think this is one such place. After all, the phrasing suggestions are guidelines, not iron-clad rules. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by Objective3000
We are not judge and jury. There was no witness to the death. The accused is named making this a WP:BLP. We document what has occurred, not the result of a future trial WP:CRYSTAL. Unlike a newspaper, there is WP:NODEADLINE. The word murder should only be included in quotes until we know it is a murder. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * An admin has corrected the text. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The jury determines the particular facts of the case and the guilt of the accused. The death has been ruled a homicide and my point is that there isn't a rational explanation other than murder. That says nothing against the accused's guilt or innocence. Someone is guilty of murder, the only question is who and we won't know that until the trial is complete. We should use reason in certain instances instead of always following a guideline that can't account for every circumstance. I think this is an exception that proves the rule.
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 02:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, not every homicide is a murder. The term homicide is rather technical and unwieldy, and only means "killing of another human being," meaning some second human is responsible. So for title purposes, "killing" is sufficient. If we suspected a bear could have done it, we'd be left with "death." And if you're drawing rational conclusions not based on a legal determination per a reliable source, you've WP:NORed and WP:POVed a "murder." Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Cakelot1
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There's a reason that WP:KILLINGS, which is an explanatory supplement to WP:TITLE, the latter of which is policy, as determined by a RfC archived here. There's also WP:BLPCRIME which exists for this purpose. The idea that we should ignore this guidance because of our WP:COMMONSENSE seems unwise. There have been plenty of other articles which where at "Killing of", until a conviction was rendered, where it seemed equally obvious that it would go one way (I'm thinking of Killing of Brianna Ghey which was when they perpetrators where found guilty; but there's countless other examples of this). I just fail to see why this article is so different from every other article about killings/murders. Cakelot1 ☞&#xFE0F;  talk  11:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Laken Riley discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - The biographies of living persons noticeboard is probably the best forum for this concern. This seems to be a question about the biographies of living persons policy that can be answered by a knowledgeable volunteer.  The suspect is a living person, and Laken Riley is a recently deceased person, and will be viewed as a recently deceased person as long as there are criminal proceedings about her death.  I am not closing this case, but I will close this case if a thread is opened at the BLP noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Another editor changed the language in the article before we have reached a conclusion. I reversed it back. Just thought I should let everyone know. TanRabbitry (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just opened up a thread on the BLP noticeboard with a link to this discussion. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Elissa Slotkin
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Dispute as to the neutrality of characterizing Slotkin's "support of the strike" with a plain statement or quotes from reliable sources. No consensus from RfC leaves status quo in place, but status quo is seen as an inaccurate/slanted characterization by some participants in discussion.

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

Talk:Elissa Slotkin, Talk:Elissa Slotkin

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A decision on whether the reliable sources characterize the quote, how they characterize the quote, and whether part of the quote should be included in the article.

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

Summary of dispute by Drmies
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Oh I'll keep it brief: a few editors have been fighting to keep this trivial NOTNEWS material in here for months. It's a bit of nothing, apparently originally inserted by a sock of User:Thespeedoflightneverchanges. User:andrew.robbins is making this into a--I don't know what, something irritating, and I wonder what wise editors like User:Muboshgu or User:Courcelles think about this. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't have anything to add outside of there is no consensus for anything, at this point I say just leave it out. Not saying this is good reasoning or that I agree that NOTNEWS applies, just that I don't think it is a big enough deal to keep pushing. Maybe have another RFC in a few months/years once more critical perspectives of her tenure and actions towards labor have been done. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Dcpoliticaljunkie
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Important context here is that this article has been the subject of repeated sock and meat puppetry with off-Wiki organizing being publicly admitted to (which resulted in even the talk page being ECP) with reporting that there's a team of editors who "hate Slotkin" attempting to push a POV here. Wrt this specific section of the article: it's been discussed ad nauseam and there's no consensus for the edit being suggested. Not sure how many venues this argument needs to be repeated in. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Zeroth question by volunteer (Elissa Slotkin)
There has already been an RFC, although the RFC was poorly written, and was closed as No Consensus. Before any further dispute resolution action can be taken, either at this noticeboard, or elsewhere, I have a question, which is: What, if anything, do any of the editors who have filed or responded to this request expect to be accomplished at this noticeboard? I am adding the closer, User:Alpha3031, because they noted in closing that a request for assistance could be made here or at another noticeboard. What, if anything, is anyone suggesting or asking to be done at this noticeboard? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

This noticeboard usually facilitates moderated discussion. It isn't obvious to me whether moderated discussion is feasible. If some other service is being requested, it needs to be requested.

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to the statements of other editors. Just answer the question that I have asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statements by editors (Elissa Slotkin)

 * To me, this comes down to acknowledging that leaving the status quo in place is not consistent with no consensus when the disputed text is so matter-of-fact. I'll save the elaboration on the process comments by certain editors above but would simply like to note that the immediate jump to blame on outside actors and implications levied on decisions that were overturned have been centered over the content dispute from the beginning. Obviously, deletion for the sake of NPOV isn't acceptable but for the sake of closure I do feel that there needs to be a content finding made here one way or the other. As to why this noticeboard and not somewhere else, I was simply acting on the suggestion of the closer and would be more than happy to relocate this if need be. andrew.robbins (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Alpha3031 (Elissa Slotkin 0)
Apologies for the delayed response. andrew.robbins, while it's not ubiquitous, omission of some particular material (especially contentious material) due to lack of consensus for inclusion is not unheard of either, and is supported by the Biographies of living persons policy. I believe the RFC in question is sufficiently malformed and underparticipated that it didn't really count for much in the grand scheme of things, but ultimately the participants were not able to come to a consensus for inclusion. If editors wish to continue to pursue inclusion near the end of discussion here, I believe this noticeboard may be of assistance in drafting a more appropriate RFC question, with clear options and a briefer and more neutral opening statement, though I would encourage any looking to do so to try to assess their prospects of success before embarking on such an attempt. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (Elissa Slotkin)
The closer of the previous RFC has suggested that discussion at this noticeboard could formulate a better RFC. Please read DRN Rule E. This article and this discussion involve American politics because they involve an American politician. I have two questions for each editor. First, do you want to take part in discussion for the purpose of formulating a better RFC, and are you willing to follow WP:DRN Rule E? Second, do any of you have a proposal for a better RFC? In later discussion, we may discuss and further improve the RFC, but if someone proposes an obviously good wording, I may start the RFC and close the discussion. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not reply to the posts of other editors at this time; just reply to the request for a better RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement 1.1 by moderator (Elissa Slotkin)
Do either the original poster or any of the other editors here want to take part in discussion for the purpose of formulating a better RFC? If so, the discussion will be in accordance with DRN Rule E. If so, you may propose a wording for a better RFC. If there are no answers, I will conclude that the original poster was wasting the time of the other editors. That isn't a reason to close this discussion, but lack of input is a reason to close a discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Primerica
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 debate as to whether Primerica should primarily be defined as a multi-level marketing company. (“Primerica is a multi-level marketing company”). This is a relatively recent change. Prior to this edit, the lead sentence described Primerica as a financial services company and second sentence, deleted by Greyfell on February 23, 2024 stated that a 2010 Business Insider article described the company as a multi-level marketer. User:Greyfell said the sentence was a “weasel”. He merged the claim into the first sentence. I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Primerica. I started a discussion on Talk stating that under WP:UNDUE and WP: LEAD the definition of the company in the first sentence of the lead should reflect the majority of the reliable sources (e.g Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Fox Business, Fortune, Yahoo Finance) and, the body of the article, which has only a short mention of multi-level marketing. I started a Talk page discussion about whether the current or previous version of the lead was better and I asked other editors to weigh in. Before a discussion could take place, User:Chrisahn added a flag saying a “request edit” had been declined and that the discussion was now closed. No other editors were given a chance to participate. Chrisahn closed the discussion while severely attacking the company’s business practices:  “There are many reliable sources explaining how Primerica's MLM scheme works, and warning people of Primerica,” and “Unless you're one of the higher-ups and have no conscience…” that I should not participate in the discussion.

The self-evident, highly biased attack of the company has made a Talk page discussion literally impossible

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

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am hoping editors here can facilitate a good faith discussion on the merits, which does not get shut down prematurely again or mired in attacks by people who dislike the company. It also seems likely that the Talk page has caught the attention of undisclosed conflict of interest editors who have posted Request Edits to remove any reference to multi-level-marketing on the page, without providing reliable sources. I hope the discussion can be monitored.

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

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

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

Macarons
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 think the source Larousse gastronomy should be cited as it was previously and citing Italy in the infobox. The changes are a bit biased and not justified in my opinion

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macaron&action=edit&section=21

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Seek which version is better based on sources available

Summary of dispute by user 77.205.18.165
He thinks his change are good but they aren't as he keeps ignoring the content of the source. He kept revertimg editing to the version he liked and not what might have been the best one

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

Naseem Hamed
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 impasse on how to describe, in the lead section, this boxer who was born in the UK, has only ever resided in the UK, and has only competed under a British boxing licence. He has Yemeni parents, which may qualify him for citizenship by descent. Various MOS have been invoked: MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT.

In the boxing world and Western mainstream media, he is primarily notable as a British boxer; in the Arab world, his Yemeni heritage is heavily emphasised. There are numerous reliable Western sources which describe him as solely British, and some Arab sources (of varying reliability) which describe him as Yemeni. Hamed self-describes as "British-Yemeni" or "Yemeni" on social media, and did so during his career by means of Yemeni flags and other symbology.

Extensive discussion at the talk page has resulted in a three vs three dispute on how to word the lead section: "British professional boxer", "British-Yemeni professional boxer", or "British professional boxer of Yemeni descent".

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

Talk:Naseem Hamed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Assist us in deciding how to describe Hamed in the opening sentence of the lead section, and whether it needs to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis or per the abovementioned MOS'es.

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

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

Summary of dispute by JFHJr
Greetings. I am a WP:BLPN volunteer and have participated in talkpage discussion but never edited this article. Because the subject identifies as Yemeni as supported by at least one reliable reference, I'm comfortable with that self-identification appearing anywhere in the article. I'm also of the position that WP:BLP and related either outweigh WP:MOS concerns or present a defensible position to WP:IAR. I do believe an identity datum as basic as this merits reasonable WP:WEIGHT. I do not agree with disputing its presence in the lede, even if it's worth exactly one mention in the body. Otherwise, I'd comment of the overall dispute that concerns stated and implied on the talkpage regarding chauvinism (countries claiming a champion) are themselves inherently chauvinistic. I'm not from either one. I have no committed preference for how this is resolved other than finding a resolution. Ta. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * PS. If it aids resolution in this matter, I'm willing to walk-back my concerns (see talkpage) about Variety, iff the only thing used is identity/ethnicity. First, see WP:RSNP for the safety indicator. Second, this is tantamount to a safe WP:BLPSPS for the sole purpose used. This is actually an innocuous matter, despite the back and forth. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Summary of dispute by The_MK
First of all, contrary to the dispute overview, it was mentioned that only some (which are Arab) sources mentioned “Yemeni” or “British-Yemeni”, this is false, 3 sources (which are, , ) inserted in the discussion has stated “British-Yemeni” or has mentioned him being of Yemeni heritage and are not Arab sources at all, and are in-fact mostly western, with only two sources provided being Arab. For the summary of dispute, I’ve inserted several sources that prove the notability of Naseem’s Yemeni heritage, with him identifying as a Yemeni, and raising the Yemeni flag in a lot of his fights, and other acts of emphasis and symbology of him being Yemeni. All of this makes him being Yemeni/of Yemeni origins notable to his identity, and hence as per WP:ETHNICITY we would have to mention both British and Yemeni, because if not, that would be a violation of WP:NPOV as we are only taking into consideration him being British only, even if being Yemeni is as or more notable to his identity. At first I supported “British-Yemeni” in the lede but for more clarity, we should say “British professional boxer of Yemeni heritage” as we can’t confirm him having only one citizenship as per Yemeni naturalization law, he was always qualified for citizenship by descent (as both his parents are Yemeni), also using “British professional boxer of Yemeni heritage” allows us to include sources for both “British” and “Yemeni”. &#124;MK&#124; 📝

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

First statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)
I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute. It appears that there is a dispute over what to say the subject's nationality is. Are there any other content issues? Please read DRN Rule A, and indicate whether you are willing to take part in moderated discussion in accordance with the rules. Please state, in one paragraph, what you think should be listed as the subject's nationality, and why that should be listed as his nationality. It appears that we may have to use an RFC. If anyone has any suggestions for compromise in place of an RFC, please provide the suggestion now. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Naseem Hamed)
Are there any other content issues? Nationality yes. Things like the adjective and the flag might (probably) point equally to ethnicity and heritage. This wider scope captures more of the nuance per talkpage discussions and proposed citations. I don't think this has rabbit-holed too far into nationality in the legal sense, nor citizenship. It's akin to asking how "Italian-American" an athlete would be, first generation (and flying the Italian flag, and who has self-described as Italian in a non-self-serving claim). Thank you Robert McClenon! JFHJr (㊟) 05:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My main argument was the notability of his Yemeni heritage, which I believe has been proven, and hence we have to say “British professional boxer of Yemeni heritage” so that it can conform to WP:ETHNICITY, and if we just say “British” in the lede that would be a violation of that policy. About self description, first of all all that was provided was not a self-published source, but a source that shared what he said, second of all, there are multiple sources (in my dispute summary, that were in the talk page of Naseem’s article) inserted that mention his Yemeni heritage, hence we would be able to cite both “British” and “Yemeni heritage”. &#124;MK&#124;  📝 21:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Having given it some thought, I'm willing to compromise solely in favour of "British professional boxer of Yemeni descent" if an equal ratio of Western and Arab-centric sources are presented at the end of that sentence. I remain opposed to "British-Yemeni", as it breaks too far with WP's own MOSes and implies in WP's voice that he is a dual Yemeni resident, when he certainly is not. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you get specifically to residency from the adjective? Nobody is talking about where he lives. JFHJr (㊟) 15:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's just how I would interpret WP's voice as a reader. That he must've be a citizen and thereby a resident at some point. By keeping them at separate ends of the lead, it states that as of right now he's a British subject first and foremost, which is how the boxing world knows him. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s the thing, he always had the option to gain a Yemeni citizenship, however we can’t confirm weather he has it or not, hence “British professional boxer of Yemeni descent” is a suitable option. I also have no problems with “British-Yemeni”. As I said, we would be able to cite both “British” and “of Yemeni descent” separately. It also complies with WP’s policies more than just “British” as stated above, we would also be able to do the same with “British-Yemeni”. &#124;MK&#124;  📝 18:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also fine with the periphrastic wording. Let's resolve this! JFHJr (㊟) 18:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought this was settled. He's British. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)
Is the question only about what to say in the lede sentence? Is there also a question about the body of the article? I am also asking each editor, again, what do you want listed in the lede sentence as his nationality and ethnicity, and why that is how it should be listed. If you have already answered this question, please answer it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Second statements by editors (Naseem Hamed)
I am willing to take part in the discussion following DRN Rule A.
 * I think it's already described and reffed sufficiently in the body. I think "British-Yemeni" is just fine for the lede based on the body (reffed) and the subject's own identity. The Variety ref that I previously opposed and now feel ok about might help. JFHJr (㊟) 05:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * No problems with that. &#124;MK&#124;  📝 18:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I think his nationality should be described as British. MOS:ETHNICITY explains that when "the person is notable mainly for past events" as Mr. Hamed is, the country "where the person was ... when they became notable" should be in the opening paragraph. He lived, trained and competed mostly in the UK. He has not lived, trained or competed in Yemin. The same section of the MOS also says "Ethnicity, ... should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." His ethnicity is not relevant to his notability.

I don't think there is any dispute about the body of the article.--Jahalive (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * First of all it’s spelled "Yemen", second of all, we’ve already proved the notability of him being Yemeni, the main discussion is weather we say “British professional boxer of Yemeni descent” or “British-Yemeni”. &#124;MK&#124;  📝 07:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you didn’t catch up on the discussion, please do. &#124;MK&#124;  📝 07:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)
Did you read DRN Rule A in detail? Rule A.9 says: Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. Maybe I should move it closer to the top.

I have prepared a draft RFC in Talk:Naseem Hamed/RFC on Ethnicity. Please review it and comment on it. Do not vote on it yet, because it isn't active. After we agree on it, I will move it to the talk page and activate it by pulling out the deactivating things.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This RFC has been posted to the two RFC categories. Did you intend for this to happen yet?- Jahalive (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Third statements by editors (Naseem Hamed)
It looks good. I think those are the three options that have been disputed.--Jahalive (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Fourth statement by volunteer (Naseem Hamed)
After some complication, the RFC is now running. If there are no further questions, I will close this thread.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

White Zimbabweans
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

This concerns the population estimates in the infobox of White Zimbabweans, which have been continually updated with figures that are either unsourced or attributed to a series of phone and door-to-door interviews conducted by another contributor as part of an unpublished research project. Specifically the addition of a population estimate of 55,000 white people resident in Zimbabwe.

This has been going on since late March, and I have continually disputed these additions for insufficient source information or original research. The subject has been broached on the article talk page as well as on the user talk page of the sole named contributor responsible (the rest are IP edits which have been pretty consistently reverted). This individual states he is a credentialed expert on the subject matter and qualified to speak with authority on the current population figures. He also agreed that he is willing to participate in a mediated dispute resolution process.

I understand that extensive discussion is usually required on the talk page of the article, but I have received no response to my concerns as expressed there. There is an topic on the talk page for this issue which was started on May 3, and it has received only two comments - one by myself and another by an unregistered IP. None of the other contributors involved, either those adding the new unsourced figures or those reverting it, have participated in the discussion there. To get the attention of the other contributor, I have had to contact them directly on their personal user talk.

Since the other contributor seems happy to participate in the mediation process, and nobody else has engaged with the discussion started on the article talk page, I would like to request that an exception be made to the general rule that "extensive" discussion needs to have taken place on the article talk page first. We have tried that; the talk page discussion has been ignored for over a month while the additions continue.

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


 * Talk:Zimbabwe (discussion topic opened May 3, only two comments due to lack of engagement)
 * User talk:Jamessumnergoodwin (as a last resort, discussion carried directly to user talk on May 12)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarify whether the added information in question is original research, and appropriate to remain on the article or not. Perhaps clarify the policy on reliable sources vis-a-vis experts with credentials on the subject matter as well.

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

First statement by moderator (White Zimbabweans)
This has been a waste of time. I was asked to open a case for moderated discussion without the usual prior discussion, and was unsure about how to respond, but then opened a thread for possible discussion. There have been no comments in three days. The editors should resume or begin discussion on the article talk page. Edits to the article should be based only on reliable sources. If one of the editors is asking for an exception to the policy on reliable sources, perhaps because this is the people's encyclopedia, there will be no exceptions, because the policy of verifiability is non- negotiable. I will be closing this thread unless there are any late comments or questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

White Zimbabweans discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Volunteer Note - One of the reasons why thee should be discussion at the article talk page is to see whether third party editors comment. I have copied your discussion from the user talk page to the article talk page.  Please continue discussion at the article talk page long enough to see whether any other registered editors comment.  I will expect each of you to state concisely, so as to jump-start any moderated discussion, exactly what you want to change in the article (and where in the article), or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.  Please continue discussion on the article talk page.  I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by moderator (White Zimbabweans)
I don't know whether I will be opening this case for moderated discussion, because it appears that one of the editors is not making use of the article talk page. However, I am asking for preliminary statements. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to follow these rules. The purpose of moderated discussion, like the purpose of other editing activities, is to improve the encyclopedia, so I will ask each editor what they want to change in the article, or what they want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will ask the reliable source noticeboard for guidance.

If there are questions about policies, including about the reliable source policy, please ask them here.

Article talk pages exist for discussion of how to improve the article. I am asking each editor why they think that this dispute should be resolved at DRN rather than on the article talk page. If you have not used the article talk page, please explain why you have not used the article talk page.

I will open this dispute for moderated discussion if I think that this dispute will benefit from moderated discussion, after trying to understand why there has not been discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

First statement by moderator (White Zimbabweans)
This has been a waste of time. I was asked to open a case for moderated discussion without the usual prior discussion, and was unsure about how to respond, but then opened a thread for possible discussion. There have been no comments in three days. The editors should resume or begin discussion on the article talk page. Edits to the article should be based only on reliable sources. If one of the editors is asking for an exception to the policy on reliable sources, perhaps because this is the people's encyclopedia, there will be no exceptions, because the policy of verifiability is non- negotiable. I will be closing this thread unless there are any late comments or questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Bernese Mountain Dog
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview
 * User:7&6=thirteen
 * User:7&6=thirteen

The dispute is over this diff, whether sources meet WP:V, and considering NPOV/DUE how many sources should be listed for life expectancy claims.

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

Talk:Bernese_Mountain_Dog, as well as in other talk page discussions.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide consensus on the changes, choose a version to work off, and decide what sources are suitable for inclusion as currently it is one editor against another (third opinion declined this).

Summary of dispute by 7&6=thirteen
The issue is in the LONGEVITY LIFE EXPECTANCY section, not the HEALTH section. The real dispute is about how long Bernese Mountain Dogs live. The sources are independent and reliable. He keeps cutting text and references. User:Traumnovelle doesn't like the results. The disputed sources are corroborative of the professional studies. He has been WP:Edit warring over it. There is a continuing and ongoing discussion at the article talk page. I am awaiting a consensus there. I will not address the needless personal attack other than to cite WP:Civil and WP:SAUCE. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Traumnovelle
Due to multiple issues with 7&6=thirteen's edits such as using self-published sources, synthesis, etc. I decided that when I had the time I would sit down, review every health claim in the article, see if the source was reliable for the claim, and if not look for alternate sources. I spent an hour or two doing this. Even ignoring the issues with synthesis and verifiability and focusing on the sources that are RS, they undue: the studies I removed were two decade outdated kennel club surveys with noticeably smaller sample sizes, it is undue to give them the same weight as more modern studies with better sampling methods and larger sample sizes. Things change and studies do become out-dated and irrelevant.

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

First statement by volunteer moderator (Bernese mountain dog)
I am willing to act as the moderator for moderated discussion about this dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Be civil and concise. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Do each of you agree to follow DRN Rule A?

The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the encyclopedia. The first question is that each editor should say exactly what section of the article they want to change, or what section of the article they want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. If there are multiple sections whose content is disputed, please list all of them separately. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a question about the reliability of sources? If there is a question about the reliability of sources, we will ask for advice from the reliable source noticeboard, and either discuss other issues while waiting for a reply, or put this dispute on hold while waiting for a reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

First statements by editors (Bernese mountain dog)
I agree to follow rule A. I believe the health section should be changed to what I have in my sandbox. Reliability of sources is one issue but other issues include undue weight to studies that are obsolete due to being older and having smaller sample sizes than more recent ones. Apologies if this isn't concise enough but I do feel I need to specify which sources relate to which problem.

Unreliable: Bernese Mountain Dog Club of America, "Individual Breed Results for Purebred Dog Health Survey" (Also OR), 2Puppies, Pullman.com, a-z=animals.com, Canine Weekly, American Kennel Club

Undue: The Bernese Mountain Dog Today (1998), Dog cancer: Dog owner's mission seeks to find help for pet and human cancer victims", "Virginia-Maryland Veterinary College launches oncology program for pets", "Mortality of purebred and mixed-breed dogs in Denmark", The Complete Guide to Bernese Mountain Dogs, Bernese Mountain Dog: An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet, WebMD

Impossible to verify due to being dead: "All-breed eye clinic for dogs to be held at 4H Center in Bridgewater" (unlikely to mention breed based on:, "Life in dog years: A look at the longest-lived and shortest-lived breeds",

Synthesis/OR: "Genomic Diversity and Runs of Homozygosity in Bernese Mountain Dogs" (Note: WP:MDPI) "Epidemiology, Pathology, and Genetics of Histiocytic Sarcoma in the Bernese Mountain Dog Breed" (Note: Study fails to reach conclusion on heritability and cause of HS) "Statistical analysis regarding the effects of height and weight on life span of the domestic dog" "Lifespan of companion dogs seen in three independent primary care veterinary clinics in the United States" (Unfortunately it does not specify the breed in question so applying it to a specific breed requires original research). Traumnovelle (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer moderator (Bernese mountain dog)
One editor has made a statement. The other editor has not made a statement in response to my request for statements, but did provide an opening summary, which includes:   I am neutral, and I disagree with the statement that there is an ongoing discussion at the article talk page, and with any idea that it will result in consensus. There have only been two editors involved in the discussion, the two who are parties to this case. I infer that the editor who is waiting for consensus is declining to take part in moderated discussion, and moderated discussion is voluntary. I can see three possible steps that might lead to consensus. I recommend that they be done in this order, although the order is not critical:
 * 1. Post one or more requests at the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the sources listed above.  Any information that is attributed only to unreliable sources should be deleted.
 * 2. Request other editors from WikiProject Dogs to take part in the discussion at the article talk page.
 * 3. Publish a Request for Comments.  This may establish binding consensus, and should be preceded by inquiries about source reliability, and should be advertised neutrally at WikiProject Dogs.

Those should be the next steps. I am leaving this case open for any late statements or questions, but will close it soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested_Lead_Edit_v4
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

I am trying to update Robert (doll)'s page as the current page is not complete, leaving out crucial information regarding Robert. Users @Donald_Albury, @LuckyLouie, @AndyTheGrump, and @NJZombie are preventing any collaboration from taking place to update Robert's page. I have taken to the articles talk page, after attempting to publish changes, to suggest my edits and get constructive feedback from other editors. There are a handful of editors that have taken my changes, and suggested changes, very personal and have blocked me from updating the article in any capacity. Rather than working with me to update the lead (and the rest of the article), these users continue to bring up arbitrary points skirting around the main issue in my suggested improvements.

The article remains incomplete and I have hit a standstill at working with the other editors. They are keen to stop any action from me pertaining to Robert, going so far as to report me as a SockPuppet (unsuccessfully), blocking me for edit warring (though I do not think I was taking part in warring as my edits did not exceed 3 published changes within 24 hours), and attacking my character.

I've continued my efforts to collaborate with these editors, taking their suggestions and putting them up for review but am continuously met with animosity and hard no's to any of my proposed edits - without helpful suggestions on improving my proposed changes. My most current efforts are focusing solely on the lead as it is extremely bare and does not come close to covering the scope of what Robert is.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_(doll)#Suggested_Lead_Edit_v4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gabriellemcnell

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Can you help me understand the exact problem with my latest change proposal? Can you suggest a lead that includes the information I'm concerned about leaving out in a way that appeases these other editors?

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

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

Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Not much of a dispute really. Gabriellemcnell wants to add text to the lede. Nobody else agrees. I don't, since I see the proposed addition as repetitive ('hauntings' after the lede already stated that the doll was 'allegedly haunted') and promotional ('Robert has daily visitors, thousands of which have written letters addressed directly to him'). To which I'd add badly sourced too, having checked the source cited, which is an interview of someone promoting their books on 'hauntings'. As for comments on behaviour, they don't belong here. If Gabriellemcnell wants to bring them up somewhere more appropriate (e.g. WP:ANI, I'd recommend reading WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Robert (doll)#Suggested_Lead_Edit_v4 discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Australia-China relations
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

@49.190.36.173 has been encouraged to add material that is supported by reliable sources. However, on four occasions is adding unsupported material and is unresponsive to calls to resolve the matter on the talk page.

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

[]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A directive from an admin would help, I believe.

Summary of dispute by 49.190.36.173
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Australia-China relations discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Tulsa
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. I published vector maps of cities created by me personally, the user SounderBruce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SounderBruce deleted them under a fictitious pretext. He wrote me a notice (copy at the end)

He didn’t like my nickname. Reason for removal - "Maps added by self-promotional account" However: My username VECTORMAPPER does not represent any brand, company or public organization. Also, this name does not represent any service, product, website, etc. This is my VERY old nickname, due to the fact that I have been working in the field of vector cartography for a very long time (more than 25 years). And of course, many people in many countries know me by this nickname - it simply reflects my profession.

I am providing the Wikipedia community with free access to some of my vector maps without any restrictions on use.

I really hope that my work on the Wiki will be useful to many people.

Also. My vector files provide the ability to edit, embed in any designs of any scale, in any projects that involve subsequent printing, use in media, and others. Maps, which are usually presented in info box on the Wiki Pages, may be visually informative at the “just look” level - but they are completely impossible to use in any way. The city maps that I published provide users with the ability to easily edit maps in any vector editor and use maps in any media and printing projects, including cinema, television, interactive maps for Internet projects, and games. All maps I publish are fully CC-0 licensed and therefore can be used in any way. I am confident that the city maps I provide are necessary and useful to users.

Message from SounderBruce:<br? Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Vectormapper", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, service, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUS

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

[]  

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am sure that deleting my materials (city maps) for far-fetched reasons such as “bad username” and “self-promotion” is a type of vandalism. I ask you to take some measures so that I can continue to normally contribute to the development of Wikipedia.

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

Killing of Laken Riley
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 Laken Riley Killing is a politicized, sensationalized murder that's notable because it's being used as propaganda fodder by immigration activists and a former US president. It's one of a set of several sensationalized US murders in which 1. the suspect was an illegal immigrant; 2. activists latched themselves onto it to make broad, disputed claims about illegal immigrants and criminality; and 3. it got sucked into the middle of a political debate about immigration.

When Reliable Sources cover these murders, they address how these crimes have been politicized, and they also cite research disputing the propaganda claims. The editor TanRabbitry, who's involved in the Laken Riley article, wants the article to say that the murder occurred during a "historic surge in border crossings," that the murder was "extensively referenced by proponents of stricter border security," who claimed that the murder and "similar violent crimes occurred due to the Biden administration's border policy." He's been highly resistant to including any statement about the fact that academic studies show no positive link between illegal immigration and violent crime (not even a single sentence will he agree to), despite the fact that I produced a dozen+ sources, and to say nothing of the fact that the sources they're currently using in the article also mention this. This issue has been talked out extensively on an NPOV noticeboard (linked in my report) and the article talk, but it's going in circles and getting nowhere. I would also add that the rationale for non-inclusion often involved erroneous interpretations of Wiki rules like "coatrack" (this isn't a tangent - the relevance is established in reliable sources) and "Right Great Wrongs" (again, irrelevant -this is verifiable information in RSes).

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Laken_Riley_Murder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Killing_of_Laken_Riley#NPOV

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I'd like to come to an agreement that the relevance of the disputed information is, in fact, established in reliable sources, and that a sentence or two addressing this aspect is due for inclusion.

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

Summary of dispute by Masem
As the NPOV discussion is not closed, this seems awfully premature and unnecessary. M asem (t) 23:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Killing of Laken Riley discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * -- you didn't specify which editor you're referring to with the edits above. Would save external observers a lot of time and confusion hunting for that info if you included it. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * TanRabbitry is involved in the Laken Riley article and is the main editor involved in this dispute with me. Masem was involved in the NPOV noticeboard discussion, which has been going on for days and is currently at an impasse. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Arecibo message
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 have been repeated requests from multiple users requesting the removal of a claim in the subtitle of the "crop circle" message. The referenced sources do not support the "hoax" claim sufficiently for it to be present in the subtitle of the section. A minority of editors are reverting any removal of the claim then using the removals as proof to have the article locked. They mock or ignore any users that try to have a discussion, and hide behind "consensus" to wait out anyone that's trying to improve the article.

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

Talk:Arecibo_message

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

As it says at the top of the edit page: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources." I think the dispute would be resolved with a change to the subtitle or if better sources are added that support the current subtitle.

Summary of dispute by Ïvana
Multiple IPs does not necessarily means "multiple users". Not sure why only two editors are being singled out when, like VQuakr mentioned, more are involved and we all agree the current version of the page is the one that should be kept. We are not a "minority of editors", this has been consistently enforced judging by the article's history. Consensus is clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ïvana (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by VQuakr
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Multiple editors other than the two listed are involved in this dispute. Talk page consensus appears clear to me, but if the mediator here decides to clean up this case with all participants added and accept it I am willing to participate. VQuakr (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)
After looking into this case, I am willing to moderate this dispute. I have included 4 other editors who have participated on the talk page but were not listed by the filing editor.

Consensus appears to be that reliable sources state that the circles being made by aliens is a hoax. So I'm asking the filing editor: can you provide reliable sources that state that (1) the circles were made by aliens, or (2) that there is reasonable doubt to believe that the circles were created by humans? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have contributed on several occasions to this page. My experience is whilst resident at the SETI Institute as a Charter Asociate. All my views on this "hoax" are on the article Talk page. Thanks & regards, David J Johnson (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) is not my burden to prove, it's the burden of those that want to have "hoax" in the subtitle. The sources in the article do not sufficiently support having it. Two of them are news articles with no basis for the claim other than the third source, a statement from SETI saying that it is only "highly improbable" the source is anything other than human (2). We should be asking the editors that want to leave it it, can they provide reliable sources that prove the claim it's a hoax? By all means call it "most likely" a hoax in the article, but the sources aren't sufficient to have "hoax" in the subtitle.
 * @David J Johnson You like to mention you're a "Charter Associate" at SETI. There's no such thing. I put that phrase into Google and the only result is a wikipedia talk page you were mentioned in. Even if you did work at SETI, that doesn't give you any authority over the article. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC
 * Well, I'm sorry you could not get confirmation. I have many items of confirmation from the Institute. I have not stated I have any "authority" over the article, only my experience in being very close to the subject at the time. This is not the place to discuss anyway. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When considering what counts as a reliable source it should be noted that - "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed." The standard of sources (and in my opinion evidence) is much lower here than usual, due to the fringe nature of crop circles and their general unreliability. Proving or disproving the reliability if the SETI seems like the best way to resolve this. Clubspike2 (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal"
 * Tell me, how is the referenced source The Independents that states nothing other than "It was of course a hoax" verifiable? The second source Universe Today misquotes and references the third source, a statement by SETI that only claims it is highly improbable that the source of the circle was anything other than humans. Calling it a hoax in the subtitle is way too strong a message for the given sources. Asking for the text of the page to reflect the sources shouldn't be controversial, but here we are.
 * Addition: In the talk page, I believe user Ïvana proposed changing the subtitle from "Arecibo Answer crop circle hoax" to "Chilbolton crop circle". I would support that change as well, it removes the unwarranted "hoax" and I think "Arecibo Answer crop circle" is a bit clunky of phasing anyways. The rest of the section sufficiently describes the facts and SETI's position. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 12:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the usage of hoax, since I believe the sources support it. I proposed another name just so deter people from edit warring. But again, consensus is clear, so my first option is to keep using hoax. If for some reason the section title is deemed unfit then we can go through alternate titles, but that doesn't seem to be the case. - Ïvana (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You cannot claim consensus is clear if you have a repeated debate about the inclusion of "hoax" in the subtitle. That is the opposite of consensus. Getting N+1 users to counter any number of individuals in a discussion thread is not consensus. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Consensus is neither a vote nor a requirement for unanimity. The number of editors making an argument isn't directly relevant. There is consensus because inclusion of the descriptor is consistent with the relevant policies and guidelines. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

First statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)
SETI stated that it is "highly improbable" and listed many arguments. The other sources have made the logical conclusion that this must be a hoax. So – considering Wikipedia's verifiabiltiy policy – can the filing editor provide a source that states that aliens created these circles or there is reasonable doubt to believe that humans created them? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * An academic source would be better than a newspaper, of course:
 * The findings reported here lend further support to a decade of research which suggests that over 95% of worldwide crop formations involve organized ion plasma vortices that deliver lower atmosphere energy components of sufficient magnitude to produce significant bending, expansion and the formation of unique expulsion cavities in plant stem pulvini, as well as significant changes in seedling development. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Excuse the intrusion, but even if, arguendo, we were to accept this paper at face value and agree that ion vortices are responsible for some or all crop circles, that in no way explains a coherent design like the so-called "Arecibo reply." The question here is not about crop circles broadly, but about this one specifically.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And so the goalposts move a foot further away 67.149.172.22 (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more apt to say you were aiming at the wrong target. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

First statement by editors (Arecibo message)
The Independent is a generally reliable source. We don't need them to discuss in detail the methodology they used to arrive at the conclusion that a specific crop circle was a hoax, in order to use the information in the source. As an encyclopedia we do not perform original analysis in-house, but we are allowed to rely on the published analysis and critical thinking of others. VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)
On the talk page multiple editors suggested the alternative "Chilbolton crop circle". Does anyone have any objections to that? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see comment below and on article Talk page. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Second statement by editors (Arecibo message)
"Hoax" remains the preferred option by long-term editors, in spite of attempted hijacking by WP:SPA's. This is a duplicate of my comment on the article Talk page. David J Johnson (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I mildly object to the alternative section header phrasing of "Chilbolton crop circle". I would take no issue with "Chilbolton crop circle hoax". The guideline section WP:ONEWAY reminds us to treat fringe theories in context, which in this case means making clear that the mainstream viewpoint is that this crop circle, like all crop circles, was created by humans. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Third statement by volunteer (Arecibo message)
Editors have stated that they prefer the original text (Arecibo Answer crop circle hoax). So considering that the IP hasn't made a great argument against it and guidelines also recommend it, I think we have consensus to keep the original text. If there are no objections against it within 24 hours, I will close this dispute. Thank you for your participation. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Feel free to close it, there's no counterargument to "I'm right, you're wrong". Despite the comments by [User:David J Johnson], this was no "hijacking". Multiple new users independently read the article, realize that "Hoax" in the title is improper, and try to change it. That should be a sign that it needs to be changed, not cause for celebration at bravely defending your precious article. 67.149.172.22 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

shakshuka
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 think the article needs a full rewrite, since I would like to make it a GA. M.Bitton consistently reverts changes to the article.

I attempted a range of improvements on April 18, April 19, May 12, May 21, June 14, and June 25. As you can see, I have tried different approaches each time, but continue to be reverted. This diff shows how little has changed.

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


 * Talk:Shakshouka
 * Talk:Shakshouka
 * Talk:Shakshouka
 * Talk:Shakshouka

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At the very least, maybe we could agree on a to-do list of the article's current problems. A more narrow ambition, perhaps we could resolve the article's coverage of etymology. Pipe dream, a better assessment of how to handle the dish's origin?

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

shakshuka discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
 * Note - The filing party has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oops! My apologies, somehow I thought the wizard would do that. Notifying now. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)