The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Sharyl Attkisson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dreap3421 (talk · contribs)
• Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs)
• Philip Cross (talk · contribs)
• Sphilbrick (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Sharyl Attkisson alleged bias on the part of CBS News favoring the Obama Administration. The president of CBS News at the time of her allegations was David Rhodes, whose brother (Ben Rhodes) was President Obama's deputy NSA. I did not write anything about the allegations being true, I just edited it to include it because it seems relevant that the head of the news bureau she is alleging bias of is related to a major figure in the administration.

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

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

Toa Nidhiki0 deleted the edit, I wrote to someone asking assistance, and an editor (Sphilbrick) said it sounded relevant, and reverted it back. Philip Cross stated it was "synthesis," and removed the edit again. I edited the source (which was one taken from the article), and reposted it. After a bit, of back-and-forth, I stated on the talk page why it is relevant. Toa Nidhiki0 stated something a "conspiracy theory," and that was it.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Revert the edit back. I do not know what "conspiracy theory" it is to state that two people are brothers. If they want to put no evidence of bias, then by all means do so. All users (with the exception of Sphilbrick), to include myself, should be looked at for any biased future edits. Thank you for any assistance.

This is a frivolous request. The Sharyl Attkisson page has been under fairly constant duress from WP:TEND editors, including Mrs. Attkisson herself, for years now. This frequently involves trying to legitimize or downplay her conspiracy theories - including that vaccines cause autism and, in this case, that the Obama administration was spying on her. There is no evidence for this, and mentioning some sort of brother relation as proof of a conspiracy between CBS and the Obama administration is by definition a conspiracy theory. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Britannia (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Tvcameraop (talk · contribs)
• SethRuebens (talk · contribs)
• Schazjmd (talk · contribs)
• PAVA11 (talk · contribs)
• CantBbought (talk · contribs)
• IdreamofJeanie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There are claims by an author named Ben Krushkoff that the work being discussed in the article is an unauthorised adaption of his work. A section about this controversy was added by user SethRuebens in December 2019 and has been removed and re-added repeatedly, and has now been discussed at length on various talk pages. There is little consensus as to whether the sources provided are reliable secondary sources, as various users claim they are and other uses are of the opinion that they are not. There is also a dispute as to whether the article is neutral (as per WP:NPOV) in a state where it does not mention the controversy.

Please note this not quite how I would describe events, which specifically include the above user who is against what I consider totally justifiable edits. I did post the original changes in Dec and then re-added the edit after I had seen Krushkoff had actually published the letters and further written statements of support about his claims, from academics and subject-experts, on his website. The edits were in place for around two months and seen by every editor who visited that page. They were suddenly removed after, I believe, Sky were informed of the Wikipedia article by Krushkoff himself (I have been following the case) by an editor who had produced (almost exclusively, it seemed) articles for Sky on Wikipedia. So they weren't 'repeatedly re-added' for a considerable period of time.

I am also raising the fact that the warning tags on the top of page (put there by a bot and another editor, initially) keep being removed by people in this dispute. I have not reverted my edits, but in no way is there any consensus that they should remain offline until this dispute is properly resolved. The tags should be in place, as per Wiki protocol SethRuebens (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk:Britannia_(TV_series)#Controversy User_talk:SethRuebens#July_2020_2 Wikipedia:Teahouse#Academic_and_expert_reference_being_disputed

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Conclusion as to whether the article is neutral in the current state without mentioning the controversy - if it is not, are the sources provided reliable secondary sources as per WP:RELIABLE?

Some context prior to a list of questions for those who are opposed to my edits, or any one else who cares to step:

I made the original edit two months prior to them being reverted by, I believe, TVCameraop (the person who started this thread - at least they reverted them at some point during the start of this dispute). The edits are about a Sky UK drama that cost multiple-millions of pounds. I later noticed that the majority of articles that TVCameraop had created were about Sky TV and its presenters, pointed this out and then they deleted a reference to them on their talk page (although note I am grateful they have raised this matter for debate/discussion here - I only mentioned this as it seemed relevant to the dispute as a whole!). Furthermore, all of the users - and a ‘senior editor’ - who were against my edits, seemed to discuss a strategy on one of their talk pages (how the other users were drawn to it I have no idea).

I have every right to be suspicious of bias and potential collusion. But let's focus on other facts:

I provided multiple references, from secondary source subject experts and academics (one of whom has written for a number of the UK’s most watched TV shows and co-wrote an academy award nominated film), who agree with the primary source (Ben Krushkoff) that the all-important pilot ep of Britannia was based on unauthorised adaptation of his work.

According to the Wikipedia guidelines the inclusion of these references should be permissible within the body of the article, whether or not you agree they are notable. I am not trying to start an article here. Also note that videos about the controversy have been seen by 45,000+ viewers, a petition supporting Krushkoff’s claim signed by 1,500+ people on Change.Org and a lecture about the disputed origins of this show made at Westminter University’s Law School (which is also referenced on their online newsletter).

So, the questions:

Is it just Krushkoff who is saying his work has been plagiarised (an accusation levelled by one of the editors below)?

Is the case known by a significant number of people (nearly half of Britannia’s viewers from their season 2 opener) and ergo in the public domain?

Is the claim being made reasonably plausible to be true?

Assuming that the claims were indeed true, could this (or something that "this" might plausibly imply) cause the subject (possibly with other plausible information added) to be notable? Or, does it give plausible indications that research might well discover notability?

Can self-published sources (i.e. by the academics mentioned above) be considered reliable (for inclusion in an article in Wiki) when produced by an established subject-matter experts, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications?

How can the article be neutral when it does not include the opinions of those who have publicly supported Kruskoff (the academics) and 1,500 signatories, and those who acknowledge that he is disputing the origins of the show: Westminster University & nearly 50k viewers?

(nb: I had informed users that I was not able to post yesterday due to a pressing private matter; apologies for the delay in the above)

Ben Krushkoff claims Britannia plagiarized his work, Tribus. I have searched and been unable to find any independent sources that have taken any notice of these claims. The sources offered for including his claim in the article are: an announcement that he gave a talk on scriptwriting, Krushkoff's YouTube video, and letters which Krushkoff posted to his own website here, here, and here. I believe Krushkoff's self-published sources are insufficient to support a statement in the article, and without any independent, reliable recognition of those claims, it is undue to mention them. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding a diff to the specific text and refs in dispute. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Please note that page includes a number of secondary sources from both subject-experts and within academia. Please explain below how they are not independent of Krushkoff, as you have claimed (he did not write them himself and was not the person who initially published them)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethRuebens (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

SethRuebens, I listed all of the references cited in the diff that I linked to. Please feel free to point out any reliable sources that were not included in that edit. Schazjmd (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like you to answer my questions, above, directly please. That would really help me change my mind about this, if I am wrong (which I am pretty sure I'm not, having read lots of Wiki guidelines). Thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The onus to provide reliable, independent sources is on you. Krushkoff and his associates are not independent, even if they are reliable (although the nature of the sources you're providing is still in dispute). PAVA11 (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Britannia (TV series) for the multiple times that I explained why I believe these are not independent, reliable sources and that the claim is not WP:DUE. edit to add: The matter being brought here gives uninvolved editors the opportunity to weigh the sources and arguments and help find a resolution; it's not for us to continue debating the same talk page disagreement. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe you answered those questions there. And for the sake of others new to the dispute, please summarise your answers in this dispute page (or copy and paste them). This is exactly why we are here, to present our arguments to the wider Wiki community. It shouldn't take you more than a couple of minutes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethRuebens (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with providing the sources that have been offered and letting uninvolved editors come to their own conclusions. If they come to the conclusion that those are adequate sources to support adding the content to the article, fine. If they don't, fine. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, let's see. But for the record, it's those specific questions which are at the heart of why I think you and a couple of others have been wrong to oppose the edits (I haven't seen them clearly answered). As mentioned, it's not about starting a new article here: if the wider media pick up on the case (tough here in the UK as many are connected to Sky, who were owned in the majority by News Int at the time, then surely it would warrant it's own article under the notability guidelines. Rgds, SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I too have searched extensively for reliable, independent sources addressing the claim and have been unable to find any, thus concluding it is inappropriate for inclusion. Even if a token reference were found, it would likely be undue weight. This has been explained extensively to the user on the talk page by several editors, by several uninvoled editors at TEAHOUSE, and by uninvolved administrators. The only users who want the content added appear to be single purpose accounts coming to Wikipedia solely to push this dubious claim, as indicated by their edit histories and in one case professed on their user page. PAVA11 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

See my first answer, above and kindly explain below how they are not independent of Krushkoff and why they are not reliable. Are you a Doctor of Creative Writing at what was described as 'the leading course of its kind in the country'? Have you written for a number of major TV shows? Who initially published the references? Why are there opinions and of 1,500 people any less important than yours and the small clique of users opposing my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SethRuebens (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

PAVA11. Please do not keep removing the tags (which I did not put there) on the top of the Britannia page. There are very specific guideliness from Wiki about this (linked to on the tags) which you are not following: 'Is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, only once the maintenance tag is no longer valid, unless it truly did not belong in the first place'. [[Help:Maintenance_template_removal|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal]SethRuebens (talk) 22:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead rewrite tag was not a part of this issue and there were no specific issues with the lead outlined on the talkpage by the user who added it or anyone else. It's consistent with lead standards and several other TV shows I reviewed to make sure. Let's focus on the actual issue instead of making everything a battle. PAVA11 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is! The lead section of the article is being disputed by myself and others and may need a re-write!?! It was added by an 'autobot' not by a physical user (at least that's what it looked like to me). I look forward to your answers to my questions above, as mentioned with an open mind. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead-rewrite template was added by IP 5.173.98.96 on 15 July. (The bot just adds a date to templates when editors fail to do so themselves.) Schazjmd (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, OK. But even still, it wasn't me who put it there, and there is clearly no concensus to have it removed. I'd rather anyone who originally opposed my edits, or new to this case, to the answer the questions I've posted above. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Language like "anyone who opposed me" is part of the problem. Nobody is opposing you, we've merely presented explanations why the content you want to add is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. PAVA11 (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been mindful of my language, and have changed 'opposed me' to 'opposed my edits', if it is upset somehow (note this is a debate not an article page). However, while we're on the subject of semantics, unless you know the other people who are opposed to my edits (which is exactly what this debate is about), kindly do not use the 'we' pronoun: you have no right to talk about how and why other people make their decisions. I note that you have found the time to criticise the wording of a post here, but have still not answered the above questions. Kindly do so, SR SethRuebens (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked a simple question, do any RS back up this claim, none have been provided. It seems to rely wholly and solely on Ben Krushkoff view his work has been plagiarised. There appears to have been no court case, or any reporting of the claim. It fails wp:undue, wp:blp, wp:primary, and maybe wp:not. About the only thing it does not fail is wp:v, we can at least all see he as claimed this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven I have been tied up over the last 36 hours, so apologise for the delay in the response.

The statement that 'It seems to rely wholly and solely on Ben Krushkoff view his work has been plagiarised' is simply not true. He has re-published letters of support from a number of subject experts and academics on his web page (most of which can be found elsewhere on the internet). His opinion is shared by 1,500 signatories, including a number of other academics and professionals (as well members of the public). 45,000+ people know about the controversy via YouTube. The University of Westminster has published a link to his videos and acknowledged his lecture on the dispute, on a newsletter on their website. He has announced, in public, that he has served Sky with an official Cease and Desist Letter that he has published. They have acknowledged this in a letter also published on his website, and analysed in a video which clearly shows they have either lied to him or the general public. To say it is only Ben Krushfoff who is making this claim could not be further from the truth. More people know about it than the entire populations of 25+ countries. The fact that the views of those who support him are not being afforded a single mention on Britannia's page means it is clearly not fairly weighted. (nb I am not starting an article about the controversy, which would require notability, even though I think it's clear that the case has already been noted by many). Thanks for your interest in this page and dispute. Kind Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please link to one of the WP:RSs if they are online? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A collection of these have been re-published by Krushkoff on his webpage: linked to here; the University of Westminster newsletter referencing his talk on the controversy (described as 'very well received' and linking to his 'illuminating' video which clearly accusses the official creators of lying) is linked to here - note in their case I am only saying they have refernced that a dispute exists; the Change Petition signed by 1,500 here can be found by searching 'change org britannia tv series' on google: their views are not represented in the article without my, or other edits, making it clearly unfairly weighted in Sky's favour; the videos detailing the alleged plagiarism, seen by tens of thousands, with almost exclusive positive response are linked to here. I believe the other channel he has made is called Britannia TV News, with videos referencing the controversy also seen 6 or 7 thousand times. Combined, I really can't understand how editors are saying 'it's one persons views'. Oh, and Google 'Biggest Fraud in TV' and see if the top few links are the same as I'm getting! Thanks, SethRuebens (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You say references have been "re-published by Krushkoff"...where were they originally published? You only provide one link not owned by Krushkoff, the newsletter that only says, in its entirety: "Ben Krushkoff gave a very well received talk to our LLB Entertainment Law Students on scriptwriting; Creativity and conflict on 4 December. This illuminating video was used as part of his talk." PAVA11 (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I will address these points later, following the facilitator's response and instructions, below (happy to discuss in private/away from this dispute). I hope you will afford me the same courtesy, by answering the questions I've asked time and again (and posted above). But for now, let's do what we've been asked to do and stop the back and forth. Regards, SR SethRuebens (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I am willing to try to facilitate discussion. First, however, stop the back-and-forth discussion. Read the rules. These rules include that you are not to respond to each other, only to me. Be civil and concise. The above discussions are civil, but are not concise. Comment on content, not contributors.

I have not yet read your statements, because they are long. Each of you: Please state, in one paragraph, what you think the issues are. Then, when we get concise statements of the issues, we can figure out how to resolve the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Please state specifically what you think that the article should say about the claim of plagiarism by Krushkoff. Be concise. Also, if there are any other issues, please state in one sentence what the other issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have just seen this and will add my paragraph early this PM. SR SethRuebens (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Please state specifically what you think that the article should say about the claim of plagiarism by Krushkoff." Based on the sources provided to date, nothing. There are no reliable, independent sources regarding the claim. Inclusion would introduce WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for righting great wrongs. Other issues: a brand new user (demonstrating a significant familiarity with the discussion) account added a POV tag claiming that if the claim is not included the article cannot be neutral. This too is an incorrect assumption, because WP:NPOV concerns reliable, independent sources, of which there are none. PAVA11 (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

We should say exactly what reliable independant sources say: which is nothing at all. (not named above, but i have made a few edits in the dispute) IdreamofJeanie (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Please state ... what you think the issues are": whether the article can be considered neutral without mentioning the controversy - if it cannot be, are the sources provided by SethRuebens reliable secondary sources and hence suitable for inclusion? "Please state specifically what you think that the article should say about the claim of plagiarism by Krushkoff": my opinion is that there should be no mention of the claims at the moment. I have, throughout the process, tried to find appropriate independent and reliable sources but I have not succeeded because as far as I can tell, there aren't any. If independent reliable sources are published, then there is a case for them being included in the article. Tvcameraop (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not think it should say anything about it given its all sourced to a primary source. If one secondary source, I.E. not published by him, (that actually repeats the claim he was plagiarised) is provided I might change that view.Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC).

The issue is whether to include any mention of Ben Krushkoff's accusation of plagiarism. The Lead and POV tags were added to the article because that information is not in the article, so a resolution on the plagiarism question will resolve the tags as well. My view is that the article should not include mention of the plagiarism accusation until a reliable, independent source covers it. All significant coverage of the issue is sourced to Krushkoff's own website and Krushkoff's YouTube channel. No independent sources have even mentioned his accusation against the TV show, not even Wikipedia-unacceptable tabloids, and so inclusion in the article is WP:UNDUE. The neutrality policy states fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources — Krushkoff's viewpoint has not been published by reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact, not opinion, that a former student of Bath Spa University (described as the UK’s ‘flagship writing course’ at the time), Ben Krushkoff, has accused the creators of Britannia of adapting his original, academically submitted work in what is the #1 listed result for the Google search ‘biggest fraud in TV history’. Krushkoff is the primary source. It is also a fact that a number of secondary sources, from subject experts and academics - reliable and independent of Krushkoff - have been re-published by him on his web page in support of his claims. These include: an open letter, originally published by an acclaimed writer (Krushkoff’s former tutor) - someone who co-wrote an Academy Award award nominated film and has written for a number of the UK’s biggest shows (Mukherjee); a social media post made by another former tutor, familiar with Krushkoff’s work, a former stage manager at the Royal Shakespeare company (McGann); alongside other independently published quotes from academics from different institutions. These are all in the public domain. They have used words and phrases like ‘blatant plagiarism’, ‘staggering’ and ‘non-coincidental’. Krushkoff has also referenced the Head of Faculty at Bath Spa, who has spoken in support of his claims, and I have provided a link to the Uni of Westminster’s website, who have published a link to the video/s showcasing the similarities and called his talk on the alleged plagiarism ‘very well received’ and the videos ‘illuminating’. All of these have been written by subject experts, independently of Krushkoff,ergo, according to Wiki guidelines can be considered as worthy of inclusion in an article (which carries a different set of requirements than if I was trying to create a new article on the scandal- ultimately this is one of the main areas of dispute). That 1,500+ people publicly support Krushkoff's claims (via the online petition) and 45,000+ know about the controversy through his videos, means that this controversy is known by a substantial number of people and remains in the public domain. It has received almost exclusive support from those who have responded. I have asked a number of questions (provided above) that have never been addressed by the editors who are opposed to mentioning this controversy in Britannia’s article. These relate to Wiki guidelines. Until they are addressed or Wiki changes its guidelines, this area of the dispute will surely continue. I believe I have the right to question whether a small group of editors are acting as a collective or on behalf of Sky and am genuinely concerned that two corporations (Sky and News Int), and individuals representing other entities in this matter, will want to stop the article fairly representing all views (I can post screenshots if required which have fuelled my concerns). That so many people’s views, including a number of subject experts and academics familiar with Krushkoff's work, are not even mentioned, means that it cannot be considered as neutral, according to Wiki policies. Failure to mention them is not being bold, according to Wiki’s suggestions on how we should edit pages. Ignoring, or obfuscating the questions above will not resolve the matter or the opinion of myself - and the other editors - who do support the inclusion of my edits. Thank you for considering my position. SR SethRuebens (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please note, I have not attempted to make any changes to the body of the article at all today, and have been civil in the talk page (pointing people to this dispute). Yet for some reason, I have banned from making any edits (which I wasn't going to do) by someone who seems totally new to the debate. They have not explained why I have been 'disruptive', as they have accused me of being. I do not believe there is any cause to have taken this action (other than to somehow make it appear to people here that I have been disruptive), and considering it seems that it's only me that's been banned, it reeks of the bias/collective attempt to prevent the article representing the views of those which are different to Sky's. Just wanted to raise it here, as it totally supports what I've said above. SethRuebens (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I said to respond only to the moderator, not to each other. Back-and-forth discussion will be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for missing that and will not repeat the mistake CantBbought (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Three editors have said that no reliable secondary sources have agreed with the claim of plagiarism. This seems to be a rough consensus of the editors participating in this discussion. The question then is whether secondary sources have given enough attention to the claim, and to refuting or dismissing it, that the claim should be mentioned, with some sort of statement that it is not accepted, or something like that. If secondary sources have discussed the claim, then mentioning them is likely the best way to resolve the dispute.

By the way, the article will not be tagged when this dispute is resolved. Tagging the article is not a satisfactory compromise. The purpose of this discussion is, among other things, to resolve any tagging issues. (It will be tagged if discussion fails, but we don't want discussion to fail, do we?) Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

In response to the moderator: that three editors have said no reliable secondary sources have agreed with the claim of plagiarism does not mean that they're right. I would therefore like them (and, with respect you) to see my second statement below, which specifically addresses this point. If three people said that grass was purple would it automatically be true? Thanks, SethRuebens (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Color inside the lines. Respond to the moderator in the section for statements by the editors (and it appears that you did, at length.)

• (maybe bullets will help keep statements separated) Actually, it's five editors that recommended no inclusion due to the lack of secondary, reliable sources: me, PAVA11, IdreamofJeanie, Tvcameraop, and Slatersteven. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• Please note that the questions in my opening statement have either been ignored, obfuscated or not sufficiently answered by any of the users I am debating with (both on the original talk page or in this dispute section). With respect, none of them (to my knowledge), are experts in the field with an authoritative understanding of creating a television show, when compared to the subject experts and academic sources that they claim are neither reliable or independent or worthy of inclusion in the article. Wikipedia's page on reliable sources WP:RS specifically states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Mukherjee's letter was self-published by himself - Krushkoff did not write it (at least, I don't think anybody has accused him of doing so); he is an established expert on the subject matter in the sense that he has written a number of TV shows and was Krushkoff's lecturer (so was familiar with his script) and would have surely analysed Britannia's first episode and the body of work in question, before writing that the 'staggering' similarities between the two shows were 'non-coincidental', in his opinion; his work in the relevant field (writing scripts) has been published by numerous, reliable and independent publications (Google him). Therefore his letter, alone, could be described as reliable (forget all the other references at this stage). Wiki repeat these guidelines on WP:SPS. Furthermore, the letter is a secondary source: he has clearly peer-reviewed Krushkoff's academically submitted work, see WP:USEPRIMARY; and can be considered independent as he has no vested 'financial or legal relationship to the topic'. Can any of the five editors explain how I'm wrong here or would they care to edit the guidelines provided by Wikipedia which I have quoted (after they have addressed my original questions). It's all very well saying the sources I've quoted aren't reliable, secondary or independent, but I believe I have proved that this letter (alone) meets Wiki's requirements in each of these areas and have yet to hear a valid counter-argument from anybody, that would dissuade me. Thanks, SR SethRuebens (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what we're supposed to respond to now, but I think it's clear the burden of providing reliable secondary sources has not be met, no matter how many circular questions are supposedly unanswered (they aren't). PAVA11 (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As I see it, the only source for the claims there are sources is the subjects own blog, and nothing else. He can claim what he likes (and so can I), that does not make it true. Now does it mean we should include it, what would is other people giving a damn about it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Please identify any reliable secondary sources that have either concurred with Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism or reported on Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

User:SethRuebens - This is a content forum. We are here to discuss article content. We are not here to discuss your indefinite partial block from the article, and the rules say not to edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress; however, cooperating in this content discussion is probably the best way to persuade an administrator to lift the partial block. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Do not ask questions of the other editors. This is moderated discussion. That means that the moderator is in charge for now. I get to ask the questions. If any of you want to ask me any questions or to propose that I ask any questions, you may include them in your statement below, but be concise, and I will decide whether I will ask or answer them. Any overly long statements from this point on will be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

See the reliable source policy and the policy on primary, secondary, and tertiary sources for an introduction to what are reliable secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Can you clarify for everyone what is and is not considered a reliable secondary source? Can an individual associated with Krushkoff be considered secondary? Can an individual commenting in their own capacity on the matter be considered secondary (as compared to in a greater published work)? PAVA11 (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Krushkoff is the primary source. The academic and experts are secondary. They are reliable and independent. Nobody has provided a clear justification as why they are not, they've just said they aren't. Any suggesting that the sources I've referenced are biased towards Krushkoff is akin to questioning their academic and professional credibility, and would be slanderous. Even still, the links posted by the moderator in their third statement, above, specifically state that 'secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources' WP:SECONDARY; 'Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources' WP:SECONDARY; and that 'self-published expert sources may be considered reliable' WP:RSSELF. If the decision here is to just ignore the guidelines, then the guidelines should be changed. SethRuebens (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
• Slanderous is an interesting choice of words by both editors in favor of the content, yet they don't seem to hold the same concern with regards to WP:BLP of accusing others of fraud. How can sources which Krushkoff describes as his tutors be considered neutral? Of course they are inclined to take his side. But also look at the nature of these "sources" - a screenshot of Facebook comment and a screenshot of a letter seemingly published nowhere other than Krushkoff's website. Those are neither reliable nor secondary. If either had, for example, done an interview about the issue that was reported in media sources this discussion would be entirely different. But even still, we've glossed over BLP issues. Even if the sources provided were acceptable in general, they aren't acceptable for BLP and they would be WP:UNDUE. PAVA11 (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I have not accused anybody of fraud in my edits to the article, which is not a BLP. I wrote that the origins of the show are disputed by another screenwriter, a fact that's known by many, many people and a claim that is supported by experts, academics and 1,500+ people POV. SR SethRuebens (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• Tens of thousands know about this: it's not a controversy that will just disappear. But little point in expecting a balanced and fair moderation process if the moderator (and other editors) won't address or answer one side's valid questions CantBbought (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that according to WP:FIXBIAS the encyclopedic neutrality that Wikipedia strives for means 'the consensus of experts in a subject will be treated as a fact (e.g the two university faculties I have referenced, inc. a truly respected screenwriter, who have acknowledged the controversy exists and/or support Kruskoff's claims), whereas theories with much less acceptance among experts, or with acceptance only among non-experts (e.g. as far as I know, the small clique of editors who are again the edits, I'm not being disrespectful but none have presented themselves as subject experts) will be presented as inaccurate and untrue. And thanks. SR SethRuebens (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• There are no reliable sources independent of Krushkoff that even mention this accusation. On Krushkoff's website, he posts a scan of a letter from his main tutor (not independent); he "quotes" a statement supposedly made in a meeting (not verifiable); he screen-caps several tweets from unverified Twitter accounts (Twitter is only permitted as a source for WP:ABOUTSELF); and he screen-caps his own change.org petition and YouTube channel views. None of these are independent sources. If any reliable, independent sources take notice of his campaign, it should be mentioned in the Britannia (TV series) article, but until then, Wikipedia is not a channel to be used to further a cause (for which Krushkoff recently started a gofundme page; can't link due to blacklist) that has had no recognition by independent sources. edit to add: IdreamofJeanie has an important point below that I had not been considering properly, and that's the BLP aspect. WP:BLP is about adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, not just to biography articles, and WP:BLP requires high-quality sources, not a personal website. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

'A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them' WP:SECONDARY. A university tutor must surely be deemed independent of the students under his/her tutelage, anyway, otherwise there'd be an academic conflict of interest and wouldn't be allowed to teach them? Primary = Krushkoff; Secondary = Mukherjee and others. 'If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article WP:NOTE (not trying to start a separate article); they 'do not limit the content of an article' WP:NOTE. 'Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published' (does not include the word independent) WP:DUE. If Wikipedia guidelines are changed, then the word 'independent' becomes important. Until then, it does not apply to the inclusion of my original edits which were about content and not article creation. SR SethRuebens (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• WP:BLP leaves no room for doubt:contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. calling the writers and producers of a major TV series plagiartists and thieves is contentious, and this material is pooorly sourced (to the man maiking the alegation)IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

This dispute is not about a biography of a living person article, though, it is about a TV programme and the section concerning its origins. Neither the dispute overview, nor the first statements of those involved, make any mention about a biography of a living person. The reference isn't unsourced (clearly) and according to Wiki guidelines, as I've clearly demonstrated above, can not be described as poorly sourced, as it's been written by a verified expert in the field, whose work on screenwriting and creating scripts has been published elsewhere. Without referencing the dispute and the substantial number of people who support it , it clearly does not take a neutral POV. Thanks, SR. SethRuebens (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

• As IdreamofJeanie points out, claiming that Krushkoff actually created the show is tantamount to saying the creditors (as cited in actual reliable secondary sources) did not. Such a claim requires proper, indisputable sources or it should be removed, no discussion required. Unless such sources can be provided, there is nowhere else for this discussion to go. PAVA11 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to doubt that a signed letter, from a subject expert, isn't authentic. Ergo it is a reliable secondary source, and acceptable according to the very specific Wikipedia guidelines as given above. Also, it's not like I'm trying to use Wikipedia to promote a controversy that isn't already 'out there' in the public domain - as has been established, Krushkoff's claims are already known by tens of thousands of people (probably more) and supported by many. I've not even said that the Butterworths didn't write the show. I'm just pointing out a well-known fact, that a former university student has accused the creators of Britannia of an unauthorised adaptation of his academically submitted work, and that this is supported by his former tutors, subject-experts, the head of faculty (at the UK's flagship writing course) and a number of other academics and writers (as well as the general public). All of these facts can't be denied. The controversy has been noted by a second university faculty, who are experts in entertainment law, and comes up as the number one search result for 'biggest fraud in TV history'. Wikipedia isn't being used to promote the claims, rather it's being encyclopedic by referencing them. SethRuebens (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As I see it an individual associated with Krushkoff cannot be considered secondary (its a clear COI)?

Can an individual commenting in their own capacity on the matter be considered secondary, that depends on where they say it as (say) if its a blog by Krushkoff its not really independent. At its heart to be third party it has to have no association with Krushkoff when it is published. At its heart undue comes into it. If Krushkoff is the only person who cares why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Again. Please identify any reliable secondary sources that have agreed with Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism. Please also identify any reliable secondary sources that have reported on Krushkoff's claim of plagiarism. Do not argue about or comment on identified sources. We can do that later, if this discussion gets back on track. Do not give arguments about sourcing policy, at this time. Just identify any sources.

Do not quote or expound on the biographies of living persons policy. This is not primarily a BLP dispute. The BLP policy merely makes it more important to follow the basic policy of verifiability.

Do not reply to other editors. I will give you a chance to reply later, if this discussion gets back on track.

If you do not want to identify any sources, you may make a one-paragraph reply to anything that was said above. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

User:SethRuebens, User:CantBbought - You have both already been partially blocked. Complying with my instructions is the best way to get your block reconsidered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks to CantBbought below, who has added another subject-expert, reliable and independent reference about the controversy, alongside listing the others I've already mentioned (in their statement below). I will therefore add a paragraph as the moderator has allowed. We now know that: Industrial Scripts referenced secondary source (Mukherjee et al's) quotes, about the primary source (Krushkoff's work and allegations), to their 53,000 subscribers; Krushkoff's videos have been watched around 45,000 times; 1,500+ people have signed the petition in support of the claims; hundreds of people have written messages in outrage (proper research will show you this); and websites/videos detailing the alleged plagiarism are ranked number 1,2,3,4 & 5 out of a search string with 39,500,000 results ('biggest fraud in TV history'). That a small amount of editors (above and below) can't find reliable references to this controversy, or have said it's just one person's views, should tell any neutral reading this enough. SethRuebens (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Despite searching, I have been unable to find any RS. PAVA11 (talk) 01:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

ETA: To be clear, I'm not claiming that the sources presented to date don't exist, just that they aren't sufficient in accordance with Wikipedia policies (since the question asked for reliable sources). PAVA11 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that have either agreed with or reported on Krushkoff's claims. Tvcameraop (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable secondary sources in agreement with Krushkoff’s claim of plagiarism:

(Mukherjee, 2019), (McGann, 2020), (Meyer, 2019), (De Volder, 2020) - all of these have been cited by SethReubens, I think.

• Reliable secondary sources that have reported on Krushkoff’s claim of plagiarism:

(University of Westminster, Centre for Law, Society and Popular Culture, 2019)^[1].

(Industrial Scripts*, 2020) ^[2]. Here’s a screenshot of the post they published, in case it mysteriously disappears!

(*The world’s leading script development company for writers & filmmakers published a post about the controversy to their 53,000 followers).

• Also note that Google give pages about the controversy 1st-5th place (at least in my geographical location) for ‘biggest fraud in TV history’, which is pretty relevant to this debate. Here’s another screenshot that evidences the fact. . CantBbought (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to add at the moment, thanks IdreamofJeanie (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no reliable sources to offer. edit to add I notice that the new source mentioned (Industrial Scripts) is a Facebook post, which is only acceptable as a WP:RS when it's the official page of a subject being used as a self-published primary source and per WP:SPS, Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Schazjmd (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Kamala Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jab73 (talk · contribs)
• Calton (talk · contribs)
• Rklahn (talk · contribs)
• Manicjedi (talk · contribs)
• ValarianB (talk · contribs)
• Nbauman (talk · contribs)
• jpgordon (talk · contribs)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)
• PrimaPrime (talk · contribs)
• Neutrality (talk · contribs)
• Gandydancer (talk · contribs)
• Sphilbrick (talk · contribs)
• HollerithPunchCard (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Kamala Harris is a United States senator. There is a "2019" subsection to her Wikipedia article. I added the following text on 05:21, 22 July 2020: "In 2019, Harris missed 61.9 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis. Harris's missed votes included an April 1st vote on H.R. 268, a disaster aid package to help California rebuild after wildfires." I supported these contentions with reliable sources, including GovTrack.us, Politico, and a Stanford University publication. "Missed votes"/"voting participation" is a standard metric of performance of members of Congress -- how many votes are missed in a particular year. "Congressional Quarterly," for example, has calculated this metric for all members of Congress since the 1940s. However, other Wikipedia editors will not permit me to post any of this. User Calton, for example, removed my entire post just 20 minutes later (05:41, 22 July 2020‎) with an edit note: "Not this garbage again. How many times do you have to be told: YOU DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS". User Calton and others on the Talk page make no effort to reach consensus, but rather threaten me: e.g., from Calton: "At this point, it's becoming pure disruption, and a topic ban/page block for you is perfectly justified." I have been studying Congress intensively for more than 25 years. Congressional scholars would almost uniformly agree that "Missed Votes"/"Voting Participation" is an objective benchmark. I believe that it's highly salient that Senator Harris missed 62% of all Senate votes in 2019, regardless of the reason. But to "scrub" this highly relevant, objective benchmark (commented upon by numerous reliable sources) from a Wikipedia article, just because other editors do not want readers to see it, is outrageous. There are other issues that concern me about the Kamala Harris Wikipedia page, but I will proceed with dispute resolution about those separately.

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

[[1]] See "Attendance" section of Kamala Harris Talk page

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would like to see a Wikipedia consensus that objective benchmarks of performance of members of Congress (e.g., "Missed Votes" by GovTrack.us and "Voting Participation" by Congressional Quarterly) be permitted in articles about members of Congress. When a U.S. senator has a Wikipedia article that discusses that senator's activities, year by year, it's highly relevant to state that GovTrack.us found that senator missed 62% of votes that year.

I believe mention of this without additional context is prejudicial. Parliamentary rules in both houses of Congress tilt to permit absenteeism to run for higher office. The vast majority of votes in the Senate are procedural, mainly cloture votes. I also think that without context, it looks like results would have changed with the presence of Sen. Harris, that does not appear to be the case. Rklahn (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The "Missed Votes" benchmark by GovTrack.us (just like "Congressional Quarterly"'s "Voting Participation" benchmark) is what it is -- an objective metric applied to all members of Congress. It is highly relevant that Senator Harris missed 62% of all Senate votes in 2019 -- she was present and voting for just 38% of votes in 2019 -- any explanation is secondary. (1) Please cite the precise "Parliamentary rules in both houses of Congress" that "permit absenteeism to run for higher office." I believe that such a "Parliamentary rule" does not exist in the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senate Rule VI.2 states, "No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave." That is the default rule. It is not a Wikipedia editor's duty to confirm that Senator Harris had "leave" when she missed 62% of all votes in 2019. (2) Please justify your contention that "[t]he vast majority of votes in the Senate are procedural" and I cannot cite the GovTrack.us "Missed Votes" or CQ "Voting Participation" metrics just because they include "procedural" votes. (3) Please explain why a Wikipedia editor is permitted to cite the GovTrack.us "Missed Votes" and CQ "Voting Participation" metrics only if that editor researches hundreds of votes and further explains that on specific votes "results would have changed with the presence of Sen. XXX." Jab73 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a microcosm of what is going on with the Talk page section. There has been a proposed edit. Several editors, including myself, have raised objections. We are asked to produce lengthy citations and analysis of our objections, and make citations in opposition. Thats basically asking us to prove why the original edit should not be there with the presumption that it should. IMHO, a complete reversal of the way it should work. At this point, absent dispute resolution, the onus is on the original editor to propose an edit that incorporates some of the objections, and seek consensus on that. Instead, the editor makes the same edit, someone does an undo, and we go for another round, which gets us nowhere. Im not going to go down the road of answering these questions. I tried that before to achieve some consensus, it failed, Im not going to try again. I think we have two ways forward. Continue to try and work it out on the talk page, or wait for dispute resolution to work its way out. I really have no opinion on which would be best. Rklahn (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I have stated my specific objections many times, and will not repeat. This is nowhere close to a compromise. It's a thinly disguised rehash of your original edit, and gets us nowhere. If you want to propose a serious compromise, Im all ears. Im not a horribly experienced editor here, but I think some intervention is called for. I am, however, happy that you finally engaged in this process, which Ill remind you, you started. Rklahn (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Ive read the Dispute Summaries with interest, including my own. I think it boils down to this. Yes, there is a dispute. Yes, there is an impasse. But I think it's of the Filer's own making. The Filer wants to make an edit. Several editors, including myself, have reasonable objections. The Filer is unfazed. They want their edit. All of the objections are similar, or at least there is a pattern. It should be somewhat trivial to come up with an edit in compromise. The compromise is, to date, unseen. Im not sure how to get that compromise produced. Should it be Jab73 or a volunteer who produces it? Rklahn (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Filer has made time demands of others in this dispute in the past. The Filer has been online, even made edits to the subject page after the Volunteer's question was posed. How long must we wait for a response to a reasonable Volunteer question, so that this can move forward, and we can get beyond it? Rklahn (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a Request for Comment would have been a better choice. ValarianB (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I said in my edit, above, that I had no opinion about how this should go forward. Having read this, I now have an opinion. ValarianB is right. A Request for Comment would have been better. Rklahn (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not a "solution", that is simply your initial demand, to which I have already raised an objection to on the Harris talk page. Thus far, you have introduced no new info and have offered no compelling reason to change my mind. ValarianB (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• A message to someone authoritative : What exactly are we supposed to be doing here? I'm not sure I really like this discussion format or perhaps everyone's just doing it wrong, are we supposed to maintain threaded discussions in each other's sections? Stay in our lane and interact with the volunteer morderator's questions? All that is transpiring at the moment is the repeating of the OP's lengthy arguments. ValarianB (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Y Strongly agree. Im personally not at all clear what the rules are here. Do we need to solicit a volunteer? This is a little meta, but I think I might be out of my lane on this very comment. All that has seem to have happened is that some of the discussion has moved from the Talk page to here. I dont think thats either the goal, or getting us anywhere. Rklahn (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Without context, it's just a deliberately prejudicial piece of information. I say "deliberately prejudicial" because of the repeated insistence on "Harris's missed votes included an April 1st vote on H.R. 268, a disaster aid package to help California rebuild after wildfires"; I don't imagine the editor is unaware that the April 1 votes were cloture motions that didn't come anywhere the 60 votes required to pass. (One failed 48-44, the other 46-48.) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Also: this is entirely the wrong place for this: I would like to see a Wikipedia consensus that objective benchmarks of performance of members of Congress (e.g., "Missed Votes" by GovTrack.us and "Voting Participation" by Congressional Quarterly) be permitted in articles about members of Congress. That's not an issue for this forum, and it's not even the point. Of course such information is _permitted_ in the article; nobody has suggested that it is somehow against any rules. The user has failed to gain consensus for their edits; that's the sole content of this dispute. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

User jpgordon is placing unreasonable demands on other editors. The undisputed fact is that Senator Harris missed 62 percent of votes in 2019. This fact alone is worthy of inclusion in the article. (Only two senators missed more votes in 2019. That's important context, but not essential.) It's User jpgordon's personal judgment that this is "deliberately prejudicial." Most objective readers who learned that an elected official was absent without leave three-fifths of the time would find that an important fact to know. The reader might have more questions and might want a short explanation why the elected official is unavailable to fulfill official duties, but that's no excuse for deliberately withholding important, accurate information from the reader. Jab73 (talk) 10:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to raise objections to keep anything out; you need to gain consensus for your desired inclusions, and you have failed to do so. The WP:ONUS is on you to do so. I'm not placing any demands on other editors besides "gain consensus". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The consensus at talk so far is that since missed votes are rarely consequential and Harris is far from unique in this regard, it's not inherently notable, even if it can be verified by primary sources. And the proposed wording around the vote on wildfires is certainly misleading without further context.

The fact that consensus has not yet changed does not mean nobody has made an effort; during the discussion, I suggested that Jab73 consult secondary sources that could better ascertain notability, nor have I personally reverted any of their edits. Nevertheless, they have repeatedly added disputed content to the article against consensus, even though the WP:ONUS to seek it out remains on them.

This de facto edit warring is not productive, and suggests to me an unfortunate desire to add "unflattering" trivia to the article. PrimaPrime (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Senate Rule VI.2 states, "No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave." There is no evidence that Senator Harris had "leave" when she missed 62 percent of votes in 2019. "Voting Participation" (Congressional Quarterly) or "Missed Votes" (GovTrack.us) is an objective performance metric that is calculated for all members of Congress. In the case of Senator Harris, her "Missed Votes" in 2019 was 62 percent -- she has absent from her fundamental duty as a U.S. senator more than three-fifths of the time. This benchmark is not "trivia." It might be trivia to note that a senator had a "Voting Participation" score of 95 percent (missed just 5 percent of votes) or a "Missed Votes" score of 3 percent (voted 97 percent of the time), but when a senator is an "outlier," that merits disclosure in a Wikipedia article. In 2019, just two senators had higher "Missed Votes" scores. That places Senator Harris in the top three percent of senators for "Missed Votes." The Kamala Harris article, as currently written, gives undue weight (WP:RSUW) to minor aspects of her career as California Attorney General. Wikipedia editors may have their own viewpoint on an article subject matter, but they are supposed to write article text with a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). User "PrimaPrime" is making great presumptions in asserting "since missed votes are rarely consequential." How is that relevant? Why should other editors be able to "veto" all discussion about a controversy merely because they believe that another editor has a duty to sift through hundreds of votes and identify that a particular senator's vote allegedly would have been outcome-determinative at least once? Also, absence from voting strongly suggests that a senator was absent from debate. Who is to say that other senators wouldn't have changed their votes (esp. on the California wildfire/disaster aid vote that she missed) if Senator Harris had been present, looked at other senators in their eyes and said, "The people of California need this to pass"? As for the trite reference to WP:ONUS, other editors are using that as an excuse to create one unreasonable hurdle after another for other editors to add content to articles. A good example is this controversy about the "Missed Votes" benchmark. Some editors claim that disclosure of just the benchmark (62% missed votes) is "prejudicial" on its own; when I tried to accommodate them, the next objection was "other senators have higher scores" and "everyone knows that when senators run for president, they miss a lot of votes." Others objected that I hadn't found a sufficient number of Reliable Sources commenting on Harris's high "Missed Votes." When I tried to accommodate that objection, the next hurdle was an accusation that my sources were biased. Wikipedia editors should be permitted to simply state benchmark facts. Let others provide justification, explanation, excuses, etc. My observation so far is that many editors of the Kamala Harris article are using WP:ONUS and WP:CON to deliberately suppress and exclude what they deem "unflattering" material concerning the subject. Jab73 (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The solution is quite simple. I propose this text: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." What are your specific objections? Jab73 (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Your idea that any and all facts must be "disclosed" in a WP:BLP is sorely mistaken. Nor does anyone have veto power to "suppress" information; rather, you don't have consensus yet. It's a team effort——consensus can change if you meet others in the middle, instead of edit-warring and making demands of them, such as to repeatedly restate their arguments. PrimaPrime (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Question - The filing editor writes: 'I would like to see a Wikipedia consensus that objective benchmarks of performance of members of Congress (e.g., "Missed Votes" by GovTrack.us and "Voting Participation" by Congressional Quarterly) be permitted in articles about members of Congress. When a U.S. senator has a Wikipedia article that discusses that senator's activities, year by year, it's highly relevant to state that GovTrack.us found that senator missed 62% of votes that year.' Do they want a consensus about articles on politicians (which could go in the MOS or a statement by a WikiProject), or a consensus about the article on Kamala Harris? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how Wikipedia develops policies on a systemic level. I don't think this rises to a MOS issue, but if there are standards for articles about United States members of Congress and a community of Wikipedia editors that oversees such standards, then this dispute should be brought to their attention. I find it ridiculous that other editors can deliberately block from an article about a member of Congress a statement of relevant, undisputed fact, such as "Senator YYY missed 62 percent of votes in 2019, according to a GovTrack.us analysis." Objections to disclosure of this objective benchmark that I've received are that it's "deliberately prejudicial," "unflattering," and "trivia." I assume, for example, that Wikipedia generally permits editors to disclose population statistics (from the U.S. Census of Population) in article about U.S. cities. What if a handful of editors of the Detroit, Michigan article did not permit other editors to discuss Detroit's major population decline since 1950 (from 1.9 million in 1950 to 700,000 today) on the pretext that disclosure of such undisputed facts was "trivia," "deliberately prejudicial," and "unflattering"? The same could be said for a Wikipedia article about a U.S. county that is an international COVID-19 "hot spot;" Johns Hopkins University data and numerous news articles could be written about that county's COVID-19 "hot spot" status, but a couple of Wikipedia editors would have "veto power" over including such data in an article about that county because it's "trivia," "deliberately prejudicial," and "unflattering." Jab73 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the contention that the other editors are "deliberately block[ing]" or exerting "veto power" is false. Im not speaking for others, but as one of those editors, it's simply not true. We are engaged in editing in good faith. My objection revolves around this: presenting this statistic without context is prejudicial. I don't think "deliberately prejudicial." I don't know what is in Jab73's heart, I will not pretend to. I don't think anyone has said this. Saying that a cities population is X is saying nothing else about it. Saying that their COVID-19 rate is Y also says nothing else about it. (In this case, I think a little context would be useful as well. Its not commonly known what a good or bad COVID-19 rate is). Saying Sen. Harris' attendance record is the 3rd worst, or using some reasonably perceived low number, is saying Sen. Harris should not be a Senator, Vice President, or President. It implies that the Senator's effectiveness is poor, where it may or may not be. It's common for Senators to miss votes while campaigning, and in the particular case of Sen. Harris, changed nothing encyclopedic. Rklahn (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

My proposed compromise edit is to add to the Kamala Harris article this sentence in the "2019" section: "In 2019, Harris missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." This sentence would cite to: " "Sen. Kamala Harris’s 2019 Report Card," GovTrack.us" with a link to https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678/report-card/2019 Note well that the proposed edit does not assert that "Sen. Harris' attendance record is the 3rd worst." It is a direct quote from GovTrack.us that Harris was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators." I agree with User Rklahn that "a little context would be useful," but it's not my responsibility to propose it. The fact is what it is -- an objective benchmark or metric calculated for all members of Congress. It's the responsibility of other editors to provide "context." If I must include "context," I would propose this sentence: "In 2019, the year when Harris ran for president, she missed 62 percent of Senate votes (265 of 428 votes) and was "3rd most absent in votes compared to All Senators," according to a GovTrack.us analysis." Jab73 (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, it is your responsibility to propose a consensus. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I find your attempt does not address the concerns of any of the other editors, including myself, and is simply a rehash of your original edit. I think you might be confusing "compromise" and "consensus." Rklahn (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that voting participation is an important aspect of a parliamentarian's performance, that deserves mention in his/her article. However, the significance of that data should also be explained. The data that she is the third most absent senator, considered in isolation, suggests that she is negligent in carrying her duty to vote. However, I explored the govtrack.us website at ^[3] and the source explained that "We don’t track why legislators miss votes, but it’s often due to medical absenses and major life events. Legislators running for president or vice president typically miss votes while on the campaign trail — that’s normal."

I then looked at the pattern of Kamala's missed vote across the months on the website, and it shows that the vast majority of those missed votes happened between Jan-Dec 2019 ^[4]. That period coincidences with Kamala's campaign to be elected president. I think this information is important to know. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@HollerithPunchCard: Im unclear on your role here. Are you responding as an editor, or as a volunteer? My response will vary based on the answer. Rklahn (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rklahn Responding as an editor (not sure if that matters). HollerithPunchCard (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Bob Crane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk · contribs)
• David notMD (talk · contribs)
• FlightTime (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I researched and documented how Bob Crane became the biggest DJ in LA, prior to "Hogan's Heroes". This shows how he became "notable". Two users claim this is trivia, and repeatedly delete my researched improvements, while failing to discuss the details of my many additions. I wish to restore my improvements, and dissuade two users from block deletes.

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

A recent extensive discussion is not possible because David notMD and FlightTime refuse to participate. See Talk:Bob Crane and User talk:0mtwb9gd5wx

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Encourage David notMD and FlightTime to discuss my improvements or insist they desist from block deletions on Bob Crane.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Elon Musk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• QRep2020 (talk · contribs)
• David_Tornheim (talk · contribs)
• Andyjsmith (talk · contribs)
• Lklundin (talk · contribs)
• Isaidnoway (talk · contribs)
• Andrew_Davidson (talk · contribs)
• BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs)
• Rosbif73 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Currently in the lede of the article in question, Elon Musk is described as an engineer. There have been numerous Rfc's and related discussions on the article's Talk page regarding this attribution being bald and foremost (his status as an entrepeneur, etc. are listed afterwards) and there was an especially heated one very recently. I myself raised the latest Rfc and recommended that some sort of qualification be introduced to distinguish Musk's status as different from the likes of Steve Wozniak, who has a degree in engineering from completing a higher education program, and also others who hold licenses in engineering. Unlike them, Musk does not have any traditionally earned credentials besides honorary ones and readers might want to be aware of such distinctions. Furthermore, since this description is not a viewpoint represented anywhere in the body of the article and several editors across many discussions have voiced strong objections to describing Musk as an engineer first and foremost, one would think some modification would be in order. That said, some convincing and complex arguments have been presented as to why the description is legitimate as is based on third-party sources plainly stating Musk as such as well as references to diverse customs and mores highlighting how the title of engineer is not something that signifies the same thing to everyone. Needless to say, the end result of these previous exercises is nothing resembling a consensus.

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

[[2]] [[3]] (thanks to David_Tornheim for tracking down all of the previous Rfc's listed in the linked section)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Please help us determine if adding some qualification to the engineer description in the lede is warranted or not by perhaps uncovering some precedent to how Wikipedia has in the past dealt with similar disputes.

• Volunteer Comment - First, there are eleven editors listed. That is more than is usually feasible for moderated discussion, which is intended to result in compromise. With this many editors, a Request for Comments is usually a better approach. Second, the editors have not been notified of this filing. That is only a problem if a volunteer wants to try to facilitate moderated discussion. I don't intend to try to moderate a discussion with eleven editors. Third, there has been a Request for Comments. It has run for 30 days, and is ready for formal closure, and has not been formally closed. I am willing to close it for you. However, it is correct that the result of the RFC will be No Consensus. I am willing to provide a formal closure saying that there is No Consensus. The next step will be either discussion on the talk page, or another RFC. So: Do you want me to close the RFC as No Consensus? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know I had to list everyone who commented in the Rfc as the instructions don't specify as such. Also, I see that the Periodic Table Dispute below has 10 participants so I am not sure why 11 is too much then.

Oh, the form doesn't automatically notify them? That's odd for a system that appears so sophisticated otherwise. My apologies.

I'm happy to do another Rfc and would appreciate the closure gesture, but this discussion has happened time and time again on the Elon Musk Talk page. How many Rfc's resulting in No Consensus are warranted before a Dispute resolution? QRep2020 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Reply - First, how do you think that moderated Dispute Resolution would resolve a dispute that cannot be resolved by RFC? Maybe there is an idea that Dispute Resolution will adjudicate the question by acting as a referee or an editorial board. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you actually expect a moderator to help arrive at a compromise, you are welcome to ask for a volunteer who will lead discussion to try to arrive at a conclusion. Second, did you notice that I also said that the Periodic Table discussion has too many editors? Third, if you want me to ask for a volunteer to mediate, we can ask for a volunteer to mediate, but it is likely that we won't get a volunteer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I was referring to an old version of this page that I had open in another tab and did not see your comment on the Periodic Table dispute.

Is requesting a moderator to volunteer part of a Rfc or a different process?

What makes you skeptical that a moderator will want to join the fray? (Kidding about that last one.) QRep2020 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - I've closed the RFC as No Consensus. I will not moderate a discussion, and probably would now be considered involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

As a parting note, I will likely initiate a new Rfc at some point after a cool-down period and may ask for help with requesting a volunteer moderator. Thank you for your guidance and participation, Robert McClenon. 21:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• TheEpicGhosty (talk · contribs)
• HelpHelper (talk · contribs)
• Aroma Stylish (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I made the following edit to the lede of the article page for Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&oldid=971386148

"The state has attracted criticism for a variety of reasons including: its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal, Israeli civilian settlements built on lands occupied by Israel, the Judaization of Jerusalem as observed by the United Nations under Israeli sovereignty of the city, its targeted killings program, widespread racism despite broad anti-discrimination laws within the country, observed human rights abuses and violations, and an alleged manifestation of an apartheid regime."

It lasted for just over two hours, before getting reverted due to apparent POV violations. I merely included information already present on Wikipedia within the main article further down and on other associated Wikipedia pages. In response, I was harassed and threatened by another user named HelpHelper (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Edit_war_attempts_being_made_by_Anti-Semetic_Websites_like_4chan). The harassment and threats are seen in the ibb screenshots that I included in the talk page (https://ibb.co/RDnmVD9, https://ibb.co/gFzBKyC, https://ibb.co/zRHPPd8, https://ibb.co/g90Rgm1, https://ibb.co/F7b7grw, https://ibb.co/rwvJf2d, https://ibb.co/M67Lpmr, https://ibb.co/N7twLNs). The last link shows proof that these posts came from HelpHelper.

In addition, my mention of criticisms of Saudi Arabia in the lede for that article also got reverted, after about a year of standing, with no doubt dozens of reviews within that timespan: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabia&oldid=970828191

I would like to challenge both of these reverts. In particular, the revert of my paragraph on Israel's lede came right after a vicious stream of virulent harassment and hatred directed towards me, particularly because I am Muslim. Please review these incidents thoroughly. I will be happy to provide any additional info.

Thank you,

TheEpicGhosty

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Edit_war_attempts_being_made_by_Anti-Semetic_Websites_like_4chan

I attempted to reason with HelpHelper on 4chan, to no avail, and I was greeted with hateful comments and downright lies about my character and beliefs.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I would much appreciate if my reverts were to be re-instated, or if at least a ruling was issued that would allow me to undo said reverts. I know this is nor the purview of this Noticeboard, but if HelpHelper could be referred to an administrator or moderator from this channel, I would be very grateful.

Here is EpicGhostly's thread on 4chan that he is using to raid Wikipedia. You can see his true motives and calls for further vandalism https://boards.*chan.org/pol/thread/271298412 (replace * with 4) Wordbearer88 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I never called for vandalism in any capacity. You cannot attribute the actions of other people to me. This was never a raid. Any objective observer would determine that. I merely told them that I had made such an edit. Actually, I had made the post in RESPONSE to people talking about Wikipedia being biased. I hoped that if they saw that my post stayed up, they would at least reserve such judgement. Alas, it has been taken down.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

note from moderator

dont accuse other editors of making posts on other sites. that isnt our area. also i will volunteer to take this case. do you have any objections? PS have the other editors been notified on their talk pages? Clone commando sev (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I missed the template regarding informing them that this is here. I apologize for that. Where could I find it? And regarding your policy on posts on other sites- I understand, and I would assume it also applies to their accusations of a "raid", correct? Also, I have no objection to you taking the case.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

One last quick note: HelpHelper accused me of being an anti-semite ON Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel#Edit_war_attempts_being_made_by_Anti-Semetic_Websites_like_4chan "The fact that you've admitted to engaging in this war is very concerning. This seems like a deliberate attempt to spread your anti Semetic ideology."TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe that it's really unnecessary for me to be involved in this. However, if my input is necessary I do not think this is a good faith edit. It suffers from severe one-sidededness. HelpHelper (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

And your remark about me having an anti-semitic ideology was unnecessary. Alas, you can believe all you want about my intentions. But I made a similar edit to Saudi Arabia's lede, and was getting around to making one for Iran's lede.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

the template is at the top of the page. it is in the text box. just copy and paste that onto their talk page. as for the policy on raid accusations, yes. those are not good and are very serious. don't throw them around. and as for the anti semite accusation, this effectively becomes a conduct dispute of the accusers part if those are continued or any other insult is added. lets keep this strictly about the edit, @HelpHelper, do you have a reason for the revert other than "it is anti semetic"?. PS dont forget to indent your messages with : . Clone commando sev (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC) oh and here are the rules. note this is an essay so not all moderators will follow this. i personally do mostly so i should probably put this here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DRNA&redirect=no Clone commando sev (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Clone commando sev for your input. I shall wait for either party to post here- I have notified both via their talk pages, and they should be aware from the discussion on Israel's Talk Page.TheEpicGhosty (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative to edit the original lede edit's text for the Israel page. Here is my revised idea:

"The state has attracted criticism for its policy regarding territories occupied by it^[5], its apparent nuclear weapons arsenal^[6], and its targeted killings program^[7] among other reasons."

I hope this will be sufficient to quash the question of this particular edit. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Arameans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• MixedButHumann (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Arameans are a still existing nation from the Middle East. There is an ongoing edit war with User:Mugsalot who rejects every single neutral academic source and rejects the Arameans to include information about their nowadays existence. On the discussion page, the user rejects to hold a further discussion and also rejects to reply to all the sources that are given.

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

I added a Wikipedia admin to the discussion page who unfortunetaly didn’t had a specific opinion on the issues.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By allowing the page about Arameans to also include information about their modern identity.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• TheDonald.win (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Adil3214 (talk · contribs)
• Domeditrix (talk · contribs)
• LeftScript (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is an ongoing debate on the talk page over whether or not the website should be listed as "far-right."

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

[4]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you guys can help by simply deciding whether or not the article should be labeled as "far-right." The source Domeditrix used to justify the "far-right" label is paywalled, so I am unable to debate her properly. Also, she has not answered my request for a quote from the article to prove her point, which is odd, considering she typically replies very quickly.

Not sure why I've been 'summoned' here, honestly, but I'll enter in good faith despite the fact that this user has not commented even once on my talk page (I have not been notified of this dispute resolution request), nor I on theirs. Laughably, I have been notified through a ping on a third party's talk page of this discussion 1.5 hours after I posted here. This 'dispute' has also been ongoing for less than 24 hours. So regardless of the substance, I think it extremely premature for this to end up here. Anyway, I gave a direct quote from the article in question on the talk page here (diff1). As we all know, a source being paywalled isn't enough to disqualify it – indeed, this is one of only two reliable sources talking about the subject in any detail, which has led to the article being nominated for deletion. Furthermore, I have already explained (albeit to a different user) on the same talk page that I am unable to assist editors in bypassing paywalls that websites have put up (diff2). There is clearly value in giving other users more than 24 hours to chime in, instead of rushing an administrator outside editor into making a conclusion. Domeditrix (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Edited Domeditrix (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Nick Berg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Grufo (talk · contribs)
• Vice regent (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User Vice regent has removed twice a direct quotation from the article, the first time using a misleading edit summary (“added The Guardian”), the second time, after my disagreement, stating that “it is not clear what the quotation adds that the paraphrase doesn't already include”.

Before their intervention (edit summary: “added The Guardian”) the paragraph looked like this:

During the video, the man reading the statement threatens further deaths: "We tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way." The video further threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Currently it looks like this:

During the video, the man reading the statement said the killing was in revenge for the abuse at Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and threatens further deaths. The video also threatens U.S. President George W. Bush and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

I believe that the removal of the sentence has the effect of impoverishing Wikipedia's accurate report of information. And, by reducing the space given to the “further threats”, has the apologetic effect of unbalancing the quotation towards America's Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, although the latter have no actual part in the death of Nick Berg.

Despite my concerns, user Vice regent has only presented as argument that he does not see what an original quotation would add to the page.

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

Talk:Nick Berg#Removal_of_direct_quotation

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think you guys can help taking a balanced decision and participate in the discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• National Rally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Helper201 (talk · contribs)
• Bacondrum (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Whether to completely remove the cited political position of right-wing from the infobox or not.

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

Talk:National Rally#Right_wing_populist.

Attempted compromise by removing the label of right-wing populist from the opening line.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help provide clarification on whether or not there is justification for removal of the cited content the editor has been removing.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Eugene Scalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Evrik (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I removed content the violated Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and dispute the content's value under the Verefiability policy. I provided a lengthy explanation on the Talk page. The other editor added the content back without explanation multiple times, despite my request for further explanation.

Although Wikipedia's 'Neutral Point of View' policy generally allows for biased sources for content,"[t]his does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." According to Wikipedia's 'Verifiability Policy',

   "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

   I hereby dispute the content. This places the burden to include the disputed content on those who wish to include the sentence. I am disputing the value of the sentence even with a further clarity and edits.  The content should be left out until consensus has been achieved, if others wish to include the content.  The content should be left out while anyone RFCs, if they choose to do so.

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

I tried to discuss in the 'Talk'. Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eugene_Scalia .

Please see Wikipedia Policy Reference: (Neutral Point of View) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, (Venerability) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Simply follow Wikipedia policy. Remove the disputed sentence until consensus is achieved. The policy states the burden lies with the person who wishes to include the content.

If my interpretation of Wikipedia Policy is wrong, please provide a citation in the Talk page.

• It looks like User:68.231.135.128 hasn't formally notified User:Evrik of this discussion. Deb (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Fogoros09 (talk · contribs)
• Jacona (talk · contribs)
• Billhpike (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, the page is currently stating as fact what were mere accusations regarding the school, that is that it was founded as a segregation academy. I believe these accusations should be listed in their proper context, under the heading of "Controversy", and not as fact and the defining factor of the school (in the intro). Another user disagrees, and our discussions on the talk page have come to an impasse. Dispute resolution is requested.

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

[5]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Allow for the issue at hand to be addressed on the page, but in appropriate context. Prevent user Jacona from trying to push an agenda/vendetta against the school. It is clear there is a group of editors frequenting the pages of southeastern private schools trying to frame all as "segregation academies". Many certainly were, but just because this is the case for most does not mean it can be assumed as fact for all.

• Admin note I have partial blocked Fogoros09 from the article in question in response to an ANEW report. The user may still participate here and at the article's talk page. Side note, I believe this request to be premature, as the editor has not really given the discussion on the talk page any time to reach a consensus (or lack thereof). -- ferret (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• China–United States trade war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Thucydides411 (talk · contribs)
• Mx. Granger (talk · contribs)
• Flaughtin (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The dispute concerns an impasse in the resolution of competing versions of a section in the above article (originally entitled Conflicts after China joins the WTO, now entitled Effects of China's WTO Accession) between myself and Thucydides411 (This is my version of the material while this is the opposing editor's version. Prior attempts to get the opposing user to respond to my extensive point-by-point objections ([6], [7] and [8]) was met with either a non-response which consisted of "i am not going to read it" and vote stacking or a game the system response in which my objections are addressed only after changes were made to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. Contributors should also note that the user has on other occasions been unilaterally reinstating his/her version of the material without gaining prior consensus on the talk page. ([9] and [10]). Flaughtin (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 2#Rework of the "Conflicts after China joins the WTO" section

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Reset the section of the article in question to the original state ([11]) until the outstanding issues as explicated on the talk page can be resolved first.

I have three concerns with the article, as it is presently written:

1. It is poorly structured. It goes straight from "Background" to "Chronology" (a list of bullet points). Shouldn't there be a prose section that explains the trade war?
2. A lot of the article looks like it was written with an aim to justifying Trump's actions. It comes across as very POV.
3. The article is written almost exclusively from an American POV. There's very little explanation of Chinese views of the US-China trade relationship or the trade war.

The dispute that initiated this DRN concerns one subsection of the "Background" section. I rewrote this subsection in order to give a more neutral, general overview of the effects of China's WTO accession. Before I rewrote the subsection, it suffered from unencyclopedic, POV statements such as the following:

China did cut tariffs after it joined the WTO, but it nonetheless continued to steal U.S. intellectual property (IP) and forced American companies to transfer technology to access the Chinese market, which were violations of WTO rules.

I'm open to working collaboratively to improve this subsection (and the article more generally), and I've already incorporated some of the elements that Flaughtin demanded be incorporated (absolute figures on the US-China trade deficit, and better sourcing for various statements). -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

For context, this arose amid a larger dispute regarding other parts of the article (see ANI discussion).

There are roughly three competing versions of the section:

1. The prior version
2. Version by Flaughtin
3. Version by Thucydides411

None of these versions is perfect, and I think the main disagreement here is which of the three versions to use as the basis for further improvement. The prior version is quite bad—a mess of POV-pushing and undue weight, which includes material that misrepresents at least one of the main sources. (It seems no one noticed these problems until a few days ago.)

My view is that the version by Thucydides411 is the clearest and best organized, so it is the best basis for making further changes. But either editor's version would be better than the prior version. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Good day, my name is Nightenbelle and I'm willing to moderate this discussion. I've just finished reading the ENTIRE talk page on this dispute and I'm going to start by staying this- I need all involved to follow directions and be concise. We do not make decisions here- we moderate disputes. I see several issues with the way this discussion has been held thus far- and I want to attempt to avoid those going forward. The biggest issues are WP:AGF, being kind to each other, being concise, and WP:OWNERSHIP. So... please read all moderator instructions carefully, respond to me only- not to each other, and assume your fellow editors are after the same goal you are- to make this article the best it can be.

The first thing I would like to ask is that each editor state that they are willing to participate in the DRN process and give me a 200 word or less summary of the CURRENT concerns you have with the article. No comments on the other editor's behaviors or previous actions please- just what you currently think is wrong with the article. Please refrain from back and forth arguing and remember to keep your responses under 200 words. If you can't describe all the issues with the article in 200 words or less- then choose the most important issues and we will start with those- but keep it under 200 words. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to participate in this process. I think the current version of the article is basically acceptable (though there's certainly room for improvement). —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I am also willing to participate in the process. The current version of the article is absolutely unacceptable as there are issues with NPOV, DUE, V and MOS violations. Much of the issues revolve around the above section mentioned in the dispute overview, but they can be found elsewhere in the article as well. Flaughtin (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm also willing to participate in this process. I've outlined my views on the article in my summary of the dispute above. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Ooookay.... That was definitely concise. A little too concise. But its a good start!!

Flaughtin Could you please list the top five specific issues in the article you would like to see fixed now? (so the place in the article that is NPOV, DUE, etc.... not just the general issue)

Thucydides411 would you please do the same please? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

1) The entire section mentioned in the dispute overview above. The fullest articulation of my objections can be found here, but to summarize:

1a) The first two paragraphs violates NPOV, OR, DUE and MOS. By way of example (because I want to keep the list concise): the first sentence in the current version of the article violates NPOV because it leaves out opposing material which index the significant minority focus of the NYT article on US and European concerns about trade imbalances brought about by the PRC's ascension into the WTO.

1b) The third paragraph has OR and MOS violations, and purges relevant and well-sourced information contained in paragraph 2 in of my proposed version of the article

1c) The fourth paragraph has MOS violations and contains irrelevant information

1d) It purges paragraphs 3 and 5 in my proposed version of the article.

2) The undue weight of having the Financial Times material in the lede. As I had previously explained that material can go into other sections of the article (chronology, effects, manufacturing) but not the lead section.

I understand that conduct issues aren't supposed to be raised here and I won't be doing this again, but in this case I think the problematic conduct of the opposing editor needs to be emphasized once again given how central that was to the dispute in the first place. As I said to him/her, the DRN could have been avoided if the other editor didn't do this game-the-system response where my objections are addressed only after the opposing user has rammed through his/her preferred changes to the main article but without my prior evaluation of the response. But he/she didn't, so that is why we are here. Flaughtin (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, Since you brought it up- I'm going to say this and hope it is the only time I have to. Please review WP:BeBold and WP:Own. It is not your article- you don't have to approve all changes before they are made. IF you disagree with them- you discuss it in the talk page, you do not get defensive and engage in edit wars. While yes- the other editor should have waited longer for consensus before making changes, WP:AGF would lead you to believe they truly thought they had answered your concerns and your response should have been to let them know why you still thought their changes were inadequate- not get defensive and try to force your stance through either. Both editors here have engaged in article ownership and rude behavior. Both of you need to step back and discuss this calmly instead of fighting over every detail. And just because someone doesn't agree or see things the way you do- it does not mean they failed to read what you wrote. Nor is it mature to withold explanations of your actions until you get satisfactory answers to your own questions (This is to both of you)

If you want this DRN to have a chance of success- both of you need to let go of the emotions and ownership feelings and start fresh. Nightenbelle (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well this is what I have been trying to do all along you see. It's just that that becomes next-to-impossible when the opposing editor keeps doing these unilateral reverts. Doesn't mean I won't keep trying to AGF, refrain from displaying battleground conduct of course, it's just that I think all the previous conduct failures on my part can be forgiven or at the very least understood based on the circumstances. I do want to focus on the content disputes given the confidence I have in my arguments (that's why I brought the dispute here to the DRN), but based on the opposing editor's previous responses, my main concern is that he/sje will just refuse to (further) participate in the debate here as a way to impose his/her version of the material by fiat - at the end of the day DRN participation is voluntary. Flaughtin (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

See- you are still not owning your part in this. Both sides have been aggressive. You will have better luck by owning and apologizing instead of making more excuses. Your response is not their fault. You decide your own actions. You can't control them- you can only control yourself. And if they do refuse to participate- then you will have to pursue other means of continuing. There is also WP:RFC or WP:3O. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Nightenbelle "you are still not owning your part in this." Well no but I have. Where have I not owned my part? I have already told you that I will keep trying to AGF. I have already told you I want to make this discussion about content, not conduct. If it helps, you can read the concurrent discussion on the ANI noticeboard regarding my conduct on the talk page where I've made further explanations and apologies. I understand that according to the rules you are not allowed to participate in the debates, but I still find that dificult to believe given that you've (made the effort to) read the entire dispute already. Is there any workaround/exception that could be granted on the DRN for this? Flaughtin (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying your behavior should be excused is what I mean by not owning your behavior. What do you mean by a workaround? Yes, I read every word of the talk page discussion. I did not see that there was an open case on the ANI. As I see- you now have a partial block on the page, but the ANI has yet to be closed. AS such- this DRN will now be closed since you are not allowed to have a case open here while a case is open on any other page regarding the dispute.Nightenbelle (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Richard Stallman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Daveout (talk · contribs)
• Lazer-kitty (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is a minor dispute so I'll go straight to the point. It has to do with the section covering last year's Stallman-Minsky controversy, which is present in Stallman's article. A discussion was started at NPOV\N almost two weeks ago but obtained little interest and is currently stalled (and that seems unlikely to change). I must add that both versions have undergone major changes and the dispute is now less about bias, and more about tenuous wording preferences. (Therefore, analysing previous discussions won't be very useful to solve this case, since the revisions that are now being disputed are very different from the ones that were being disputed back then. Many problems were pointed out and corrected in both versions.)

So basically, I want to point out 2 main disagreements for consideration:

1) Which version is better suited, overall, to be included in the article and serve as a starting point for further development?; 2) Does any of the revisions below violate #NPOV ? (by "taking sides", for example) ...And if so, where exactly?;

Let's call them Version A and Version B. Version A can be found HERE. Version B can be found HERE. To make things easier, I'll put both of them side-by-side in my Sandbox.

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

here here Two uninvolved editors defined version A as being "carefully written" and "better readable and comprehensible"; Lazer-kitty claims that version A has "noticeable NPOV issues" but refuses to provide proof, when I asked them to explain those NPOV issues, they replied: "I actually do not respond well to people making demands of me"

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

This may sound silly but I think that what we need most right now is more opinions on which version is better suited (that is, which is more "encyclopedic" or "neutral" or "comprehensive", etc) to serve as a starting point (just a starting point!) for future improvements an discussions. (I’m in no way suggesting that this should be some sort of static poll, but we need to somehow define a starting point, I’m open to discuss it and make concessions.)

I wouldn't call this a minor dispute. This is the version of the article/section in question that I encountered a couple weeks ago. It is, without exaggeration, the worst thing I have ever seen on this website. It actively adopts the stance of the subject of the article and argues on his behalf, and does so while using GitHub blogs and random YouTubers as primary sources. There is even a thankfully-hidden comment alleging that it was all a conspiracy coordinated by Bill Gates. When I tried to revert the page to a more sane version Daveout repeatedly reverted me, and now that he is blocked from doing so, has turned to harassing me on the talk page and insisting I revert to a version he has written, all the while refusing to participate in any productive discussion. Frankly I don't think he has any business being involved in editing pages on this topic. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

To explain my last point above - here is one of Daveout's comments from the NPOV discussion alleging that Stallman was a victim of so-called cancel culture and that the sources quoted in the referenced version of the page were simply "cancellers" trying to make Stallman look like "Satan." Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

≈=== Richard Stallman discussion ===

The revision that Lazer-kitty linked above wasn’t written by me and isn’t the object of this discussion. But since you like to re-drag unrelated past events, why don’t you explain to us how you had your sock-puppet banned a few months ago while trying to evade being block, and used it to viciously attack a diligent administrator who was only trying to do their job?. -- Daveout ^(talk) 20:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This response is extremely out of line. I am referring to a previous version of the page that you reverted repeatedly reverted to. It is absolutely relevant to this discussion, unlike your comment above. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

hello, i am willing to volunteer to moderate this dispute. oh and Daveout cut out the unrelated conduct accusation. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, can you give us your first impressions? -- Daveout ^(talk) 03:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

sure. my first impressions are that there is an argument about the style, wording, and structure of the article. but since the article is about a sensitive topic (pedophilia) it has escalated into needing a DRN. please correct me if i am wrong. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That's basically it, but this dispute is also about Neutrality, Due Weight, Accuracy and deals with other sensitive matters, such as sexual assault and potential defamation. -- Daveout ^(talk) 03:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

got it. alright so first we should begin discussion. i will moderate. Clone commando sev (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Things that I don't like about version B: 1) Its style; 2) Its selection and presentation of quotations; 3) It says that Stallman defended Minsky, in wiki-voice, but that sounds like an interpretation of Stallman's intentions and should be attributed. Those are minor issues to me. Version B is neutral in my opinion. Now, could Lazer-kitty explain why they object version A and what are its NPOV issues? -- Daveout ^(talk) 03:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Clone commando sev: Thank you for offering your time but I have since opened an ANI regarding Daveout's conduct in this matter and I would rather let that run its course than participate in this discussion. Lazer-kitty (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

oh, got it. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.