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.
I was trying to rivse the post of Hybe Corporation, but even I edited more than 10 times on Wikipedia, this site didn't allow to edit the post which has the semi-protection lock system. Please let me know how to revise and fix the wrong context of 'Hybe Corporation' post.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please let me know how to revise and fix the wrong context of 'Hybe Corporation' post.
Hybe Corporation discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
İsmet İnönü's ethnicity is heavily debated. Per his article, there are debates whether he was ethnically Turkish, Kurdish, etcetera. One aspect which is missing is the debate surrounding whether he had Armenian heritage. I used 2 sources which posit that he may have had/had Armenian heritage. I even included the relevant quote for one of the references, which the content I added was mostly a translation of. Despite this, the edit was reversed.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
A 3rd party neutral contribution to the issue would be helpful as cordial reasoning on the talk page has failed.
Summary of dispute by Beshogur
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
İsmet İnönü discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - Continue discussion at the article talk page. Discussion should continue for between 24 and 48 hours. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2023 (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.
I believe that all parties involved in this dispute are reasonable people who want to work towards a solution, so it's my hope some further external review of the dispute will either provide reassurance to the other user that the inclusion of my contribution is the best path forward, or can inform me of why my contribution and those who have contributed before me and the 3O opinion are all incorrect.
As a newer Wikipedia user, this whole experience has definitely made me reconsider coming here.
Summary of dispute by Bedivere
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have a strong opinion that the event in question is not relevant enough to be included in the article. Previous inclusions read, to me, promotional-like. I am fine with whatever is decided here and applaud the reporter's enthusiasm, even though we do not agree on this one. --Bedivere (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Perpetual Stew discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Every prize will describe themselves as highly prestigious. It's a 4000$ prize for an essay. I've had bigger awards as a high school student. And Hansson didn't even get it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}11:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
"Johan Hansson, a professor at Luleå University of Technology, has recently been awarded the "Honorable Mention Award" by the Gravity Research Foundation, a prestigious foundation aimed at advancing the understanding of gravity in fundamental physics. This recognition places him among a group of previous winners that includes Nobel laureates and world-renowned physicists.
Founded in 1948 in the United States, the Gravity Research Foundation promotes research to enhance the understanding of gravity, one of the least understood forces in fundamental physics. The foundation's work spans decades and has recognized outstanding researchers and their groundbreaking contributions in the field. For Johan Hansson, it is a great honor to become part of this exclusive group of previous winners." Awarded prestigious prize in gravitational research - Luleå University of Technology (ltu.se)ScooterMcGruff (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I could create the Headbomb Award for Awesomity in Science and award it only to Nobel winners. It wouldn't make my prize prestigious because of who won it. Especially for those that didn't even win it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}12:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
"Now in its 70th year, the annual competition recognises papers describing the authors' original research in the fields of general relativity and quantum gravity. Each year, the five best essays are selected as winning works and several outstanding essays are given an Honorable Mention. The awarded essays are published in a special issue of the International Journal of Modern Physics D.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
ScooterMcGruff is an obvious sockpuppet who will probably be blocked as soon as their SPI case is reviewed. I don't think any action is required here. - MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
And I am not being blocked. This sort of blatant attempt at disrupting a mediation through falsehoods should not be tolerated. ScooterMcGruff (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2023 (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.
The previous dispute lasted only few days, cutting off most could participate it.
The previous dispute resolution also stated
The editors are reminded that removal of the table was supported by a rough consensus of the community
But dispute clearly stated that there has been no consensus reached. A groups of users hijacked the page in a collusion, quickly voted and secured their votes as "consensus", cutting off dozens of editors from ability to vote and express.
There are at least 18 editors on the talk page who have expressed their opposition of the removal and want the list tables restored.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Consensus clearly did not take place, so the article should be reverted.
Summary of dispute by 88.230.43.132
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 88.230.44.144
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Akmaie Ajam
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Dare2Leap
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by MrUnoDosTres
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 114.79.55.244
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Edwin Herdman
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by LSeww
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Tugoperdov
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by RM12
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JPxG
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Jack Hogan
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by 71.70.176.98
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Exmor discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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?
Sorry, I was the one who was one of the editors on the talk page 2603:6011:194A:F900:699C:2BCE:CAB4:C8F9 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
So there’s a source with info that is different from what the sources say. It’s even cited in the article. The source is racing’s official database, it shows that the fall and info that’s said clearly is false.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Kent Desormeaux discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
I copyvio'd the article during NPP, nominated it for speedy deletion and it was contested by the main contributor Mgscb23. They informed me they had a WP:COI and would rewrite the article. So I draftify'd it, and then Praxidicae nominated said page for speed deletion due to spam, which was part of what I discussed with Mgscb23 to rewrite. A few reverts later and a brief discussion, we decided to come here.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I think that the page should not be nominated for speedy delete due to spam because Mgscb23 promises to rework the article and submit it via AFC. I think having an experienced editor help decide the best course of action (who is removed from the situation) will aid in resolving the conflict.
Summary of dispute by Praxidicae
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
We did not decide to come here. OP decided to ignore the tags (not telated to copyvio) and bring it here unnecessarily. I really dgaf what happens to it but despite my brief absence, I am still able to spot corpspam.PS: its good form to notify participants, so thanks for not doing that PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Mgscb23
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Draft:NeuralSeek discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Staying as neutral as possible: An on and off again dispute about where content (on British Cold War armoured divisions) should go, which has been going on since 2020. It is currently focused on this page (with both of us edit warring, although just outside the scope of the three revert rule so it has not yet been flagged), but has included 1st (United Kingdom) Division, 2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom), 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) and a host of others that contain links to these various articles. An RFC was previously attempted but did little to stem the disagreement (it created more of a ceasefire). Various reviews of the articles appear to have developed a consensus on where the content should go, based on discussions around lineage.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
This is a discussion that has been going on since 2020 and has recently intensified. We all need to discuss what the sources state and reestablish (as noted, consensus appears to have previously been developed via review discussions on lineage) consensus on the matter.
Summary of dispute by Buckshot06
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Current wording of Avicii's death in the lead of his article reads "committed suicide". Editors have tried to change this (usually to "died by suicide") in the past, but edits have been reverted and edit requests have been denied, usually on the basis of consensus—either that it has already been established (in favor of current wording) or that it needs to be built by the requester in order to enact the change. Over the last year or so, TylerBurden has been the main (though not the only) user maintaining this article, including these reverts/denials. I (Wracking) questioned these reverts/denials because I did not think consensus had actually ever been established in favor of that wording.
Two editors were mainly involved in the discussion, me (Wracking) and TylerBurden. A third editor left a single comment, and for that reason the issue was removed from WP:3O when I requested intervention there.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
TylerBurden and I both have a desire to find consensus on the issue. What (if any) are the appropriate next steps for this discussion/issue?
Summary of dispute by TylerBurden
User:Robert McClenon First of all, thank you for the willingness to help close the dispute. From my perspective, my reasoning for maintaining the phrase ″committed suicide″ as outlined on the article talk page is simply maintaining original form when dealing with subjective matters, as is done with other topics such as WP:ENGVAR or MOS:ERA. I do not personally find the phrase ″committed suicide″ offensive, and it is indeed a common term in normal English, so with the addition of MOS:SUICIDE clarifying it is not banned for use on Wikipedia, I believe either wide consensus or some exceptional reason (for example if Avicii himself had issues with the phrase, or his relatives) is needed for the change. It seems as if a large amount of requests or edits to change it has been interpreted as consensus, which I think is a flawed approach as it discounts the thousands of readers and editors that read it and think nothing of it, of course in this situation it will be the ones who want the change who vocalize it, people aren't exactly going to make threads about how much they think ″committed suicide″ is correct. In addition, a large amount of different IP's and new accounts making almost identical arguments led to the page being protected, and raises suspicion of sock/meatpuppetry.
Since the participation in this most recent discussion has been minimal, and the only other editor in it, User:Jtbobwaysf has not only stated similar sentiment on not finding the term offensive, while rather absurdly claiming the existence of policy dictating what wording is used (while also escalating with personal attacks and accusations of bad faith towards me, further complicating this dispute), I do not find them a strong point of consensus at all.
I think the best approach would be a formal RfC for as much participation as possible, a formal RfC with enough participation would establish proper consensus, and then the matter will be settled. Since Jtbobwaysf is now also asking for administrators to look into me, I think it would be good if someone other than me could point out the issues with their comments before this escalates further. Thanks. --TylerBurden (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Jtbobwaysf
I don't have a big position on this issue, and I was asking in my talk page comment why using the word "committed suicide" was not kosher, as it that terminology is common at least in American English. Since the article is not a BLP we dont really need to be concerned about offending anyone. "Died by suicide" is maybe what a coroner would say (i'm guessing) but this is not common english and is more medical jargon.
I apologize I had not read WP:SUICIDE which clearly states we are discouraged from using committed. This article should follow the policy. I dont really agree that "committed" is offensive, but not really interested in arguing policy at this point, let the politically correct police win this point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The Anome (talk· contribs) subsequently responded to my request for an admin and also edited the article to "died by suicide" and explained the logic that it is that we dont consider committing suicide to be committing a crime. I now understand this logic and agree with it, that it is not a crime to kill oneself (although it may have commonly been considered a crime in the past). Thus I do revise my position and stand behind the existing policy in place at WP:SUICIDE. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Avicii discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Avicii)
I am ready to act as the moderator. Please read the usual rules. Please reply by saying that you will comply with the rules.
It appears that the one content issue has to do with the phrasing as to how he died. If there are any other content issues, please state what you want changed in the article, or left the same. Also please state what phrase you want for the statement about his death.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I read Rule A and will comply. I personally prefer "died by suicide" for the reasons stated in MOS:SUICIDE (hence my raising of the issue), but would like to clarify that my issue was primarily on the basis of (lack of) consensus. I did not raise the issue because I was personally offended, but because I didn't believe the reverts/denials were warranted. Thanks. Wrackingtalk!01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Avicii)
First statement by moderator (Avicii)
One editor has not responded. User:TylerBurden – Are you willing to take part in moderated discussion?
It appears that we have a rough consensus to say that he "died by suicide". That sounds like what a medical examiner would say, and that is all right. If there are any objections, please state them. Otherwise, we can close this case as resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2023 (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.
Whether or not Bismarck was scuttled is supported by anecdotal testimony but no empirical evidence. It is indicated that a scuttling order was issued, and an attempt to executte it was made, but no degree of success of the scuttling can be ascertained. The Bismarck was sunk due to incapacitating battle damage and MAYBE hastened by scuttling. It is not empirically proven that Bismarck was scuttled. Parsecboy is engaging in war editing based on admitted personal belief and not the empirical facts. Even when I attempt to phrase the edited article to fully incorporate his views according to empirical and intellectual/scholastic values, he reverts the language to his incorrect phrasing which is not supported even by the sources he cites. I have attempted numerous times to walk him through the logic in detail, and he accuses me of engaging in Word Salad by someone who doesn't understand English.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have engaged in extensive discussion about this on the talk page for months. I have attempted to edit the page to include empirical and intellectual conjecture in a fair and balanced light. All I have gotten are personal insults and undo-ing of all my edits. I have asked for agreement on specific wording and/or language, have asked for suggestions to change the language, all of which ParsecBoy ignores and just war-edits the article.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Retain my most recents edits to the article as made today. Counsel ParsecBoy on the nuances of empirical and scholastic research. Counsel ParsecBoy on refraining from personal insults and aggressive war-editing.
Summary of dispute by Parsecboy
In a nutshell, the question of what sank the German battleship Bismarck has been argued over on the talk page for at least 17 years (at least that's as far back as the talk page archive goes - the article itself existed since 2001, but the talk page of that early version has been lost). Tens of thousands of kb have been spent on the subject over the years, and the article as it currently stands (and has stood for at least a decade) represents the consensus of much discussion. TheRealForrest has not, to my knowledge, read through any of those previous discussions, and they present no new evidence (or anything beyond a single source the article already cites and quotes), but much of their argumentation is based on their own assumptions. Literally every historian and marine archaeologist stipulates to the fact that the Germans scuttled the ship, the primary disagreement relates to whether it had a meaningful impact on when the ship sank. That is all. TheRealForrest's preferred version is a WP:FRINGETHEORY that no reliable source that I have seen supports. What's more, they admit to trying to insert their original research in their post here (i.e., "I have attempted to...include...intellectual conjecture...") - this is of course strictly prohibited. Parsecboy (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
German battleship_Bismarck discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
This issue surrounds the inclusion of a Perpetual Stew Club being mentioned on the Perpetual Stew article. The club and ongoing perpetual stew events has received attention from reputable sources (two Vox Media owned publications) and has been added into the article on several occasions since June 30th.
It was added by a user named Pacamah, and removed by Bedivere. Having not known it was ever previously added, I myself added it, and Bedivere proceeded to remove it again. It was added once more by Chamaemelum, removed, added back by an unregistered user and removed by Bedivere once again.
As Bedivere made clear on my talk page, Bedivere strongly and passionately believes this example is an inappropriate addition to the article, and sees all those who re-add it as "edit-warring".
After writing over 500 words carefully and respectfully attempting to reach a resolution and responding to the short contradictions in the exchange, I added the discourse to the 3O page and sought a third opinion, who stated that "If this club gets coverage in RSes, I wouldn't see the issue including it as an example of a perpetual stew." as the club had gotten coverage, and Bedivere appeared to be the lone dissent to article inclusion, I undid the revert. Bedivere accused me on edit warring and undid my revert, threatened to report me, then posted on my talk page saying I was not constructive.
As the talk page and article has seen additional conversation from new users supporting inclusion of the club / event, and Bedivere continues to be the lone voice of dissent in what many others seem to believe is an appropriate fit to the article, and Bedivere accuses all those who disagree of "edit-warring" and the 3O and ongoing discourse was not sufficient to sway Bedivere's, I'm now taking this route in the hopes that even more eyes and even more voices may cause Bedivere to reconsider their position.
Everyone in this disagreement appears to be well-intentioned, so I am optimistic.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I have tried extensive discussion and reasoning, as well as seeking a third opinion. I previously attempted to post to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard but failed to inform all members present in the original discussion. As there's now been some additional activity in the thread, I'm trying this again.
As Bedivere has stated on my talk page that they "will be fine with whatever consensus is reached" and I personally have lost most of my will to continue to continue to edit Wikipedia, I think a resolution could be brought simply by introducing new voices who can read the exchange and comment. Any further action by me or other previously involved parties is unlikely to be effective.
Summary of dispute by Horizon206
I don't really have that much of a part in this dispute, I simply pointed out in the article's talk page about some inaccuracies regarding things I found written down in the article. I did not edit the article a single time and did not realize that it was part of an edit war.
Summary of dispute by Pacamah
I feel that the content that has been written specifying the parties, as well as the actual stew itself, is suitable for the article. Given the fact that there has been media coverage, as well as it is one of the most notable and popular examples of perpetual stew in a contemporary setting, I don't see how any harm is being done. I find it an interesting and notable example given that it is essentially the documentation of the creation of perpetual stew, and honestly see it as an interesting experiment that has grown out of the existence of the article itself. Any documentation of current events could be construed as advertising to an extent, and I don't see how that applies to the existence of an example of what is the basis of the article. I guess we could add it after the stew is done, but given that the stew itself is perpetual, when would we add it? The same argument of advertising could be made for the three other examples, given that two of the three non-Perpetual Stew Club examples explicitly state the name of the restaurant, location, and age of the stew. However, those stews you would have to explicitly pay for, and to me seem to be better examples of advertising than a pop-up b-y-o-ingredient one pot free pop-up. I believe the content written should stay.
I have no idea how this dispute resolution thing works so if I completely messed up and wrote the wrong thing, sorry :(
Summary of dispute by Bedivere
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I have not been notified of this discussion. I do not have intention to continue discussing this issue and I am fine with whatever comes out of this (if this dispute thread is actually admitted). I have told the reporting user they should take this with a grain of salt, and informed them of appropriate policies. As of now, the event in question would be fine just with a passing mention, if any, as it is in the current version which was not even promoted by me but by another user (which was reverted by an IP and then reverted again by me). I would recommend the reporting user to stay calm and continue editing, as it is obvious (as it is in real life) that not everyone will agree with everything in our opinions and our minds and so on. Discussion and input is crucial and, finally, I don't think this should have escalated to this. I have also removed a warning by the reporting user as I deem it inappropriate since it is them who are starting edit wars in the first place. --Bedivere (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Please be sure to read above: "Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice." You did not comply with that step. I can live with that, but if you want this thread to outlive the previous one, please notify the other users accordingly. Bedivere (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I saw the page from the above post on this page. I edited a compromise. Some editors liked it, others didn't. Some editors attempted to compromise further. Chamaemelum (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by 2600:4041:54BD:E800:38F1:2F1:8B63:FD38
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Perpetual Stew discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Zeroth statement by moderator (Stew)
I will moderate the discussion if there are at least two editors who disagree about what should go in the article. Please read the rules, and reply below whether you agree to comply with the rules and take part in moderated discussion. Please also state concisely what you want to change in the article (or what you want to keep the same that another editor wants changed).
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree to comply with the rules and take part in moderated discussion.
As for what I want to change in the article: I believe the mention of the ongoing perpetual stew club meetings (Which has been reported on by numerous reliable sources and continues to be reported on) is fit for inclusion in the article on Perpetual Stew. Ideally, I think it should be written in a specific and informative manner. Given the event founder has a Wikipedia page, it seems appropriate to me to mention them while mentioning their efforts. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Stew)
First statement by moderator (Stew)
One editor has said that they want to take part in moderated discussion. Moderated discussion is only necessary if there are at least two editors with different ideas about article content. So, again, please state whether you want to take part in moderated discussion, and, if so, what do you want changed in the article. You do not need to make a statement if you do not want to participate in moderated discussion. So state whether you want moderated discussion, and what you want to change.
Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Stew)
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.
I believe the paragraph where the lede concerns itself with the islands' history does not convey a NPOV and also that it could be made to better adhere to the suggestions in MOS:LEADREL. I have revised my proposed version several times in response to multiple editors' comments; the editors don't seem willing to agree to any change and keep coming up with arguments not to modify it. I have addressed these arguments but feel like our discussion hasn't enabled any progress.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Mediators might help enable the article to accept changes that would improve it.
Summary of dispute by Kahastok
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
DRN intervention is unnecessary here. This is not an intractable dispute, this is a case where an editor is going to the boards to try to overturn a consensus against their proposals. Kahastoktalk16:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Wee Curry Monster
This is premature and from experience I doubt dispute resolution is appropriate here. This isn't a content dispute, WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against the OP who has alleged there is a neutrality issue, when none exists, and proposes to fix this by introducing a text that is not neutral. Various editors have explained their concerns and the OP continues to push for a non-neutral text containing the same content rehashed but not addressing those concerns. I suggested to the OP that they take their neutrality concerns to WP:NPOVNB for a 3rd opinion from uninvolved editors, they have declined to do so and instead brought this here. This is chiefly why I don't think dispute resolution is inappropriate, this is a behavioural issue not a content dispute, a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. WCMemail06:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Roger 8 Roger
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Falkland Islands discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy
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.
Slatersteven believed that it against policy to discuss the article scope on the talk page. More detail on request, browser crashing so trying to be brief
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
@ORep sorry, browser crashed three times while typing this; I was trying to be brief before it crashed again. Briefly, Slatersteven appears to believe that it is against policy to discuss an article's scope on the article talk page. I do not, and wish he would stop shutting down discussions since he never contributes anyway to this very contentious article for which it is very difficult to recruit discussion participants in the first place. But that's behavior
What I am asking for here is some help with an apparent failure to communicate, his or mine, that unclear, but since he's gone so far as to threaten me with wikiproceedings I am *done* trying to work around this obstruction.
Since he's now denying that he said what he said, I assume that some diffs would be nice. If you are looking at the section where theis occurred, the initial very long post is a proposal intended for people who are actually working on the article about what the scope should be. This is what he says is against Wikipedia policy. Let me know if there are any questions. I will be getting some diffs. This may take a little while as I am having RL interruptions.Elinruby (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
This is the crux of the issue for me. I keep having this conversation with Slatersteven over and over again.
[8] [9][10][11]
Somebody please explain *article scope* to Slatersteven in a way he will understand because apparently I cannot. I tried again the talk page and so did another editor just now. I am now gone for the night. Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2023 (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.
Two intertwined issues: PLOTCLOP and CITEKILL. The plot section is a WP:PARAPHRASE of the text and there are multiple cites in every sentence, all pointing to the same source. In addition, there are quotes within each cite, which means that you can pretty much read the original text verbatim by looking through the footnotes. A single cite at the end of the plot section w/ no reproduction of original text would be far more encyclopedic and would be supported under WP:REPCITE.
I suggested this on the talk page, citing appropriate policy, whereupon the other editor insisted that this level of citation is necessary to avoid OR from getting into the article and accused me of vandalism before I made a single edit. Their comments suggest WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and I believe DRN is necessary at this point.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Discussion meets the required two posts by two editors.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Please advise whether this level and style of citation, with multiple duplicative cites and extensive quotes from a single source, is correct or whether it violates WP:CITEKILL and should be replaced w/ a single cite at the end. Also, please advise whether plot summary as written constitutes WP:PARAPHRASE and should be shortened/simplified.
Summary of dispute by TriplePowered
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Yesterday, self-proclaimed Wikipedia Deletionist 'Just Another Cringy Username' discovered Acts of Peter after the article was featured on the main page of Wikipedia. The article has passed the good article nomination process (meaning both copyright violation and the references section were graded by the GA reviewer as Pass). Instead of making an actual contribution to the article's content, the user's only interest is mass deleting the inline citations, which would indeed be vandalism. He insists other good and featured articles using the same inline citation style are also wrong. The user seems exceptionally eager to delete this content, which is quite odd, since the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a reliable source of truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TriplePowered (talk • contribs) 22:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Acts of Peter and the Twelve discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note - Please note, Just Another Cringy Username, that WP:CITEKILL is an essay and not a guideline so being "in violation" is not something that can be determined objectively. Two reasonable editors can disagree as to the level of "overkill". TriplePowered, I'm finding it hard to find evidence to support JACU wishes to delete the content. Deleting or combining references is a different thing to deleting the text they support.I'm sure a solution can be found to reduce the number of citations to the same source (for example when verses 10:7-8 and 10:8-11 are cited separately in the same sentence) such that the visual weight of citations is reduced but the current information is preserved. If both parties are willing to go through the process here of determining which such citations would benefit from combining them I'd be glad to moderate such a process. If so, I'll make a moderator statement outlining the format we'll take. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, citations 51 and 52 could be combined. But how many others are there? Usually there is a gap of at least a few lines in the source text between each citation. Usually it's one citation per sentence. When there are two citations for a compound sentence, it's because there's a significant gap between the relevant lines in the source text. TriplePowered (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I would call your attention to WP:CITEDENSE, which states, "Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles." WP:CITEDENSE goes on to recommend that extended material cited from a single source should have one combined citation at the end of the paragraph. Since the entire plot summary comes from the same book, I would think at most one cite at the end of each paragraph should be sufficient. One at the end of the whole section would be best.
Volunteer Note - This is User:Ixtal's case to mediate, but I will restate one rule that always applies at DRN, which is: "Comment on content, not contributors." If I were mediating this dispute, I would have collapsed some of the introductory statements as out of scope. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to improve the editors or complain about the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I, too, talked with TriplePowered on a different talk page (Talk:Testimony of Truth), and despite phrasing my suggestion fairly humbly, got a fairly aggressive response back. So I don't really agree with Robert McClenon here - user conduct is an issue here, too, and talking about expectations for talk page communication is absolutely reasonable. TriplePowered could have politely said "no thanks" to my suggestion. He also seems to have interpreted Jenhawk passing one article for GA as a license that this style is the normal and accepted one. That said, despite this, I sincerely hope TriplePowered continues contributing - he's definitely improved these articles overall, and I absolutely am not trying to "scare him off." You're doing good work, please continue! This overall improvement doesn't mean that said changes are perfect, though, and it shouldn't be a problem to politely suggest this heavily WP:PRIMARY style of doing a summary of contents isn't the standard and expected reference style, though.
Anyway, going back to content, my suggestion is neither the current "exclusively sourced to the primary source" (as TriplePowered has it) nor "a single reference at the end" (as JACU suggests). The generally accepted style with old religious texts is to use WP:SECONDARY sources from scholars, even for a plot summary. There's a reason for this: interpreting these old documents is not trivial, and it's very easy to accidentally stray into WP:OR when using direct citations of the text. This is doubly true if a work has any "coded" elements where XYZ really stands for ABC and so on, which is not uncommon in Gnostic literature. And it's also possible that scholars consider certain lines unimportant filler, while a primary-source quoting analysis can unduly raise their prominence. To be clear, let me stress again that having some primary source quotations is fine, but ideally everything should also be sourced to a scholarly analysis, not just the primary source. Even in the plot section, not just a scholarly analysis section. SnowFire (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello SnowFire I was referenced above, so I am offering some explanation and defense of TriplePowered 's method of citation. I probably did encourage him to cite everything. I do it too. When I first arrived here 6 years ago, I had a very unpleasant experience of receiving harassment and personal attacks from someone now banned from WP. I had to defend every sentence, every source and every author, on everything I wrote as he followed me from article to article. Eventually, I got in the habit of never writing a sentence without being able to prove it came from a quality source. So, I no doubt made sure every sentence in 'Peter and the Twelve' that I passed for GA was likewise cited.
I also like quotes and use them a lot for clarity. There's no arguing over if what was said means what you think if you just quote it. Writing in a highly controversial area seems to require that on occasion. As long as there is no WP prohibition against it, I don't think he's in the wrong. He did what I asked, and what I myself do, to ensure the accuracy and dependable scholarship of WP. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: Sorry, wasn't trying to subtweet you here or anything, but also wasn't sure how DRN felt about explicitly pinging / inviting other users in. To be clear, a style that heavily cites every sentence with multiple references is fine. (And I had a negative experience with some questionable editors early in my WP career too, amusingly enough.) My stance is that for old religious texts, said references should ideally be to scholarly summaries of the work, not quotes of a translation of the work, per WP:PRIMARY and to avoid WP:OR. The translation itself ideally only needs to be referenced for direct quotes. It's not a big problem for B-level article, but I'm skeptical at the GA/A/FA level unless there was truly no other option. (And TriplePowered's confidence that primary cites avoid interpretation is quite misplaced - there are a lot of ways to translate Coptic to Greek to English, especially in manuscripts that are damaged.) SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
SnowFire I agree with all of this, but now I am no longer sure I understand what this disagreement is actually about - too many citations or not enough? It would help me if you could clarify exactly what it is you think is wrong with this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
As the one whose proposed edit started the whole thing, let me clarify. It's two intertwined issues: PLOTCLOP and CITEKILL. Presently, the plot section contains multiple cites in every sentence, all pointing to the same primary source and all containing direct quotes from said source. In addition, the plot as written is such a close paraphrase that, given the quotes within each cite, you can pretty much read the original text verbatim by looking through the footnotes.
To sum it up, the original text which is the subject of the article is reproduced in nearly its entirety in the footnotes and also retold as a close paraphrase in the Plot section. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: My concern is that all of these citations are to excerpts of the translation of the text itself rather than a scholarly summary. See my remarks at Talk:Testimony of Truth. It's maybe easier to imagine the issue on better covered topics - imagine if Epistle_of_Barnabas#Contents was just cited to a translation of Barnabas itself rather than what scholars take from it. For works that have any sort of allegorical content or rely on references to events of the era that might not be obvious to a modern reader, it's potentially problematic. I could be convinced otherwise on a case-by-case basis, but TriplePowered didn't really seem to agree with the principle that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary ones. SnowFire (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
SnowFire Thank you so much for taking the time to explain. I went back to check the article, and I see what you are saying. I think your criticism is fair and accurate. Fixing the excessive citing is not even a big ask. I don't know why they don't just cooperate. In the GA review, I told them Just for future reference, unless something is controversial, which imo this article is not, each sentence only needs one citation. I should have persisted but instead let it go.
The other problem is also my bad. I should have caught that the references in the Summary section are to a primary source, which is not wrong in itself but absolutely needs secondary source support. I did say "I am just wondering if there might be any significant differences in any other translations", but I didn't follow up on that either, and that's on me.
So, it's looking like my willingness to overlook imperfections means I did a crap job of reviewing. Even so, this really is a good article and if the things that should have been fixed during the review get fixed now it should retain its GA tag.
Thank you SnowFire, for catching these problems, and for persevering through to get these changes made. You have made the encyclopedia better - and this will help me be a better reviewer - maybe not a nicer one but a better one at any rate.
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I don't know whether User:Ixtal will be acting as the moderator, but there are a few preliminary matters that I can clear up. First, please read the usual rules, and state that you agree to follow them. Comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise.
Second, in response to User:SnowFire, who says that user conduct is an issue also, and that talking about expectations for talk page communication should be in order, I will explain why and how DRN is a forum for discussing article content only. The purpose of editing Wikipedia is to improve the encyclopedia. DRN is a noticeboard for article content disputes, in which the objective of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So we don't talk about user conduct, not because it isn't a problem, but because the reason for a neutral moderator is to avoid any conduct issues and improve the article anyway. Conduct issues are a problem when they interfere with collaborative editing to improve the encyclopedia and its articles, so focusing on the articles is the way of mitigating the effect of conduct issues. The moderator will say to be civil and concise, and only the moderator will mention conduct, and only so that the focus is on the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
In the English Wikipedia, there are content forums and conduct forums, and they are separate noticeboards. If you want to discuss user conduct, you may go to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but the objective of editing is to improve the encyclopedia.
Third, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article (or what they want left the same that another editor wants changed)?
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I do not want to change the article. I want to prevent the other user from
vandalizing this article and likely others in the future by
mass deleting citations. The only relevant questions are: (1) Are the inline citations violating Wikipedia policy? (No) and (2) Would deleting the inline citations make Wikipedia better? (No). I want the moderator to make it clear to the other user that these (and similar) citations should not be deleted. TriplePowered (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I want to streamline and simplify the citations in this article. The present summary section has a cite every three to five words, all pointing to the same source. This is unnecessarily duplicative.
I'm also worried that the plot summary is more of a straight retelling or close paraphrase than a summary. This problem intertwines with the cite issue as each cite contains a corresponding direct quote from the original text, which means that you can pretty much read the original story verbatim by looking through the footnotes. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
First statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I will act as the moderator. User:SnowFire. User:Jenhawk777 – Do you want to be added to the list of participants in this discussion? Will all participants please read the rules again? Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. I have provided a space for back-and-forth discussion. That is the only place for back-and-forth discussion. Do not reply to each other's statement in the space for statements. Make your statements to the community and the moderator, who represents the community. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Do not discuss this article at any other noticeboards. (You have the right to discuss this article at other noticeboards, but if so, you will be discussing the article there, and not here.)
It is clear that there are content issues and conduct issues. We will only discuss content issues, because the objective of this discussion is to improve the article.
I don't usually tell the participants to assume good faith, because it usually isn't necessary. It is necessary here. Do not make statements that imply bad faith. Do not insult other editors. Vandalism has a well-defined and limited meaning in Wikipedia. It is editing that is intended to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. It does not merely mean editing that you dislike. Do not refer to edits as vandalism unless you are prepared to report them to the vandalism noticeboard. Remember that the allegation of vandalism is a personal attack.
It is clear that one of the issues is that the article currently has 81 citations, many of which are duplicative references to a translation of the original, and that one editor wishes to reduce the number of citations by consolidating them. Are there any other issues also? If so, please state concisely what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Robert McClenon Is it okay to respond here? I think things are getting lost by being spread around. Sorry if this is the wrong place. There are two problems if I understand correctly: 1) too many citations, breaking up sentences, and repeating themselves; and 2) the Summary section, no secondary source, too close a paraphrase.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
The other user's claim of a citation "every three to five words" is obviously false. But the only concern is whether the citations are helpful. These citations have demonstrably improved the quality of the encyclopedia, because they helped correct minor errors in the summary. For example, the summary originally incorrectly said Lithargoel held a book rather than a book cover. It also incorrectly stated that Lithargoel believes in Jesus instead of the Father who sent Jesus. Citing each sentence in those cases drew attention to the mismatch between the summary and the actual text, allowing the mistakes to be fixed. 500 words is a perfectly reasonable summary length, and the encyclopedia does not benefit from making it any shorter. Scholars' theories about the text belong in the separate Analysis section. So again, I do not want to change the article.
Statement by JACU:
I assume the above unsigned statement comes from TriplePowered. I don't have much to add at this point, other than to make it clear that my objections pertain to only the Summary section. Most of my work on WP is taken up w/ editing Plot sections, particularly cutting down overlong summaries. I have no opinions re the remainder of the article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Second statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
Sorry if the above doesn't meet DRN standards, but per WP:NOTBURO, it's really not a big deal. … I think discussing the matter normally first is helpful before resorting to formal statements.
Either I don't understand, or you have missed the point. DRN follows a formal process because editors come to DRN after regular discussion has already been lengthy and inconclusive. You may choose to participate, or not to participate. Do you want to participate?
Will each editor please state concisely whether there are any changes to the article that they want to make, other than the number of footnotes? Will each editor also please state concisely whether they have an issue with the footnotes, and what it is? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I want to streamline and simplify the plot summary section of this article and its corresponding citations. The present summary has a cite every three to five words, all pointing to the same primary source. This is unnecessarily duplicative.
I'm also worried that the plot summary is more of a straight retelling or close paraphrase than a summary. This problem intertwines with the cite issue as each cite contains a corresponding direct quote from the original text, which means that you can pretty much read the original story verbatim by looking through the footnotes.
I wrote the summary. It is appropriate length, accurate, and coherent. It should not be changed. I wrote the citations. There is nothing wrong with them. They should not be changed. None of the proposed deletions make Wikipedia better, they simply delete useful information. TriplePowered (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Third statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
It appears that there are two content issues. The first seems to be that there are too many duplicative footnotes. The second is that there have been complaints about the Summary section. On the first issue, each editor is asked to make a concise statement saying what they think should be done about the footnotes, and why. On the second issue, each editor who wants anything changed in the Summary section is asked to make a concise statement saying what they want changed in the Summary.
Third statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I would like to streamline and simplify the footnotes and cites in the summary section. Since the whole section is sourced from the same work, a single cite at the end of the summary will be sufficient.
I would also like to trim the plot summary as it is presently a close paraphrase of the original and too detailed for a summary. The a plot summary for a novel is 400-700 words. This text being shorter than a novel, I believe 100-200 words would suffice. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statement by volunteer (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
I see that there was a Good Article Review only two months ago, and that something very close to the current version of the article was approved, and that User:Jenhawk777 was the reviewer. That would appear to establish a rough consensus that the article doesn't need improvements. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Robert McClenon I don't have a simple answer to this. First, I don't agree that a GA means an article doesn't need improvement. A GA article can still be improved, or there would be no such thing as FA.
Second, as I stated above, In the GA review, I told them, "Just for future reference, unless something is controversial, which imo this article is not, each sentence only needs one citation". I should have persisted but instead let it go. Me letting it go merely indicates that, at that time, I did not think excessive citation qualified as an egregious enough offense on any of the five criteria to prevent the article from getting its GA status. There is no limitation on number of citations in the GA requirements as long as the refs are quality and accurate. However, I think now that I did fail to see the things the other editors here saw and persisted in pursuing. I think they are right for doing so, now, at this time. Compliance would improve an already good article.
I also wrote above that The other problem is also my bad. I should have caught that the references in the Summary section are to a primary source, which is not wrong in itself but absolutely needs secondary source support. I did say to them, "I am just wondering if there might be any significant differences in any other translations", but I didn't follow up on that either, and that's on me. Again, there is not a policy against using a primary source in any of the GA requirements, so it's not "wrong" as it stands, but a secondary source - and some editing down of the section - would improve the article. No doubt.
Even with its flaws, this really is a good article and, yes, I still think it deserves its rating based on my understanding of the 5 criteria - which may be inadequate! That doesn't mean it's perfect in every way. It would not pass FA for example. The changes discussed here might fix that. I don't know what that means to you in this context, but that's the best response I can give. Thank you for doing this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
Fifth statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
It now appears that there are two editors who want to change the article, and one editor who wants to leave the article as it is. In particular, it appears that two editors think that the number of footnotes should be decreased because they are duplicative, and that the summary should be revised. The next step is for the editors who think that the summary should be revised to develop a draft revised summary. I have created a draft of the summary section, which is a copy of the existing summary section. It is Draft:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/Summary. Work on it, and then we can compare the existing summary section with the revised summary section. (This does not mean that the revised draft will replace the current summary. It means that it will be compared against the current summary.) Are there any other issues about the article? Are my instructions about the revised draft clear? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Awful and incoherent. The Pearl allegory is essential. The journey to Nine Gates, also essential, is stripped out and confuses the reader into thinking Nine Gates is Habitation. This is just removing information for no good reason and making the text harder to understand. The Analysis is also harder to understand without understanding the original text.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why would someone like me continue creating Wikipedia content when a random person can come along and delete it despite being essential to knowledge of the topic and well-cited, just because the person likes deleting parts of Wikipedia?
Sixth statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
At this point I would normally fail this moderation, but I will continue it so that I can ask the community to choose between the two versions of the Summary section with a Request for Comments. I will restate that no editor, even one who has brought an article to Good Article status, has ownership. I will repeat from the rules: When I said: "Comment on content, not contributors", I meant "Comment on content, not contributors," If the two editors who wanted to shorten the Summary are finished with their work, I will prepare the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
No content has been removed. The community is deciding whether to remove content in accordance with due weight, which is not malicious, and is intended to decide which of two versions improves the quality of the encyclopedia. If you want to object to the RFC, you may do that at WP:ANI, but would be well advised to read the boomerang essay first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." This is simply a direct quote of the policy outlined on WP:VANDAL. TriplePowered (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
The RFC has been started. It will run for 30 days. If there are any other issues that the editors want to address while waiting for the RFC, please identify them. Otherwise I will close the DRN to leave the content issue (which version of the Summary) to be resolved by the RFC.
Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
At this point the RfC community seems to be advocating for something "in between" versions A and B. If it goes that way, who will be responsible for creating the new summary? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
User:Just Another Cringy Username asks who will be responsible for creating the "in between" version. The answer would be "anyone". They had also asked whether they could edit the revised summary to address user comments, and I said not to do that, because it would cause confusion. But now I have created another draft page for further work on the summary, which is called Draft:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/Third Summary. (The first one is in the article. The second one is being reviewed in the RFC.) So you edit it. It is a copy of the original version, so that you don't have to restore anything, but can trim it somewhat less. If it becomes ready for review within a few days or so, we can mention it also in the existing RFC, but we need to keep the two versions as is in the RFC to avoid confusion. I hope that this is clear. If not, I will try to answer questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
Back-and-forth discussion (Acts of Peter and the Twelve)
@Robert McClenon: Sorry if the above doesn't meet DRN standards, but per WP:NOTBURO, it's really not a big deal. Unfortunately it seemed that this was the place the discussion started
hence continuing the discussion here, so you can presume that the above was really more of a WikiProject discussion at WT:RELIGION or the like. I think discussing the matter normally first is helpful before resorting to formal statements. SnowFire (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I apologize to Robert McClenon for being inactive the past few days such that he's had to step in to moderate it while I was away. SnowFire, a section shouldn't be used for a purpose it is not meant to be used for (e.g. addressing the dispute in a section meant to discuss the mediation process). The formal nature of DRN statements and sections is a useful and necessary part of the DRN procedure. It helps prevent the possibly contentious, nuanced discussions from becoming the same circlejerk that made editors feel DRN was needed. If editors do not want formal mediation, they should not seek a DRN process.On a second note, WikiProjects do not own pages under their purview. Treating the discussion above or any discussion at WT:RELIGION as binding on religion articles is against the wider community consensus on wikiproject discussions. Therefore, any discussion or consensus in WT:RELIGION or WT:CHRISTIANITY would hold less weight in a discussion compared to establish practice in the topic area (i.e. consensus through editing) or discussion in the article's talk page. Similarly, saying that the discussion above should be assumed to have happened at another noticeboard defeats the point of using this noticeboard in the first place and could be disruptive to the consensus-building exercise that is DRN (see WP:FORUMSHOP for explanation on why). — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 15:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I also apologize to Robert McClenonSnowFireIxtal and the rest of the community for jumping in like this, but I felt like I had contributed to the problems in this article and that needed acknowledging. So, yes, add me in here. There are two problems if I understand correctly: 1) too many citations, breaking up sentences, and repeating themselves; and 2) the Summary section, no secondary source, too close a paraphrase. I think both are valid criticisms that need fixing. Thank you and again, I apologize. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Just Another Cringy Username - Do not edit the draft summary while the RFC is in progress. Editing it at this point would make the remarks inconsistent. You may if you wish create a second draft that is distinct from the current draft. Leave the current summary draft alone so as not to confuse people. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
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.
The article is about a battle that happened in Kosovo in 1389 between a Serbian army and Ottoman army. I was studying some sources and noticed that content was added with citations that didn't really support the content. This being the fact that Albanian medieval houses fighting in this battle in the Serbian army didn't actually seem to have that much support among the sources listed.
After arguing a while, the user seemed to have agreed on that matter. The user then disagreed on the Albanian houses representation on the article's lead. Only 1 Albanian person (Muzaka) is confirmed to have been participating in this battle, yet the user wanted higher representation.
My argument in the TP being "The lead already contains a presentation of the Albanians who participated (hence the wording "such as"), in which Muzaka is highlighted for the intro because he's the only confirmed one".
His being: "I propose we add the B note in the lead in regards to Albanians participating in the battle"
My answer to that being (TP): "Adding a note on the lead that's already added multiple times in the side bar, and in which it contain information that's already explained in the article's body, does violate NPOV. While the information might be significant to you and your personal interests, it does provide undue attention on a very insignificant part of the article, overall."
After this, the user reverted not only the part we were arguing about in terms of how Albanian houses should be explained in the lead, but also others not relevant parts from the lead and the edits done on the sources (which we did stop arguing about) - which all had a very neutral stance. Completely deleting huge work done.
I called him out and he still did not fix it. Please help us find a solution, this edit warring disturbs the article a lot.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Kosovo
Note: I have added darken "title" under a main title in which the relevant discussion for this report begin - called "New discussion about Albanians in this battle.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
State your opinion and revert his last edit (if you think it should be done).
I also do think his edit warring went way over the line with the last revert, so I think giving him a warning or a heads up could hinder future disputes.
Summary of dispute by Durraz0
User:Azorzal wants to remove content that is cited by WP:RS because they does not agree with it. On the talk page he claimed he removed the sources that do not mention Jonima or Gropa. however the sentence which they removed it from is not just about jonima or gropa, its also about other albanian aristocrats. [12] they then wanted to remove content supported by WP:RS from the lead. [13] therefor I reverted him. I had proposed to add a note to the lead about the other Albanian aristocrats as a WP:COMPROMISE, however they did not want to so I readded the sourced content that they had removed. Durraz0 (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Battle of_Kosovo discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Comment The dispute seems to be centered on a note which appears several times in the infobox and once in the body in non-format note: "Dhimitër Jonima, Teodor II Muzaka, Andrea Gropa and other Albanian aristocrats have been suggested as participants in the battle.[25][26][46][47][48][49]" AzorzaI is correct in that there's a verifiability problem and with how the citations are used.
Citation 25 is Serge Métais, Histoire des Albanais. There's no page number or quote, which makes it impossible to verify what the author is saying.
Citation 26 is a Bulgarian-language book, Bulgarian military history in the Middle Ages by D. Angelov & B. Cholpanov. Since the book is not available on open access and there's no quote, we can't verify what the authors are saying.
Citation 46 is a New York Times excerpt of Miranda Vickers' Between Serb and Albanian: A History of Kosovo. Vickers mentions Albanian nobles participating in the Battle of Kosovo, but does not mention Dhimitër Jonima, Teodor II Muzaka or Andrea Gropa.
Citation 47 is a memoir written by nobleman Gjon Muzaka in 1515. Besides falling under WP:PRIMARY and WP:AGEMATTERS, it mentions only Theodor Muzaka and "other lords of Albania".
Citation 48 is The Battle of Kosovo 1389 and the Albanians by Bedri Muhadri. It verifies the corresponding text, though I don't know the source's reliability.
Citation 49 is Historical Dictionary of Kosovo by Robert Elsie. Page 95 is accessible. Elsie mentions a coalition of "Serbian, Bulgarian and Albanian vassals". No mention of Dhimitër Jonima, Teodor II Muzaka, Andrea Gropa or Albanian aristocrats.
In short, only citation 48 completely verifies the corresponding text. No other source here mentions Jonima or Gropa as far as I can see, and the remaining viewable ones mention Albanians without naming specific individuals. So I don't see this note as useful, given the way it's cluttered with poor citations. I propose that verifiable information be cited directly with reliable sources and for the infobox and lead to reflect that. --Griboski (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The sources are not just for Jonima and gropa, they are for the "others" as well. furthermore Elsie does mention Jonima. I propose we do not remove content which is sourced from WP:RS. Durraz0 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Please state concisely what you want changed in the article, or what you want left the same that another editor wants changed. Address your answers to the moderator (me) and the community, not to each other.
After you have made your opening statement, you may engage in back-and-forth discussion only in the section provided for that purpose.
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Kosovo)
First statement by moderator (Kosovo)
Do you want to engage in moderated discussion? I asked three days ago for all of the editors to read the rules and agree to the rules, and make a brief statement about what you see as the article content issue. So, again, please make a brief statement as to whether you want to engage in moderated discussion, and as to what you want to change in the article (or leave the same if another editor wants to change it). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
First statements by editors (Kosovo)
Back-and-forth discussion (Kosovo)
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.
This issue surrounds the way our article on The Exodus presents the minority view that regards the Biblical account as representing a historical event (at least in its most essential elements). In its current version, the article claims that this position is completey marginal and limited only to fundamentalist circles, but I have disputed the factuality of this claim and argue that there are in fact some WP:RS which indicate that there exists some mainstream scholars (even if only a minority) who argue that the Exodus account is generally historical. I have thus argued that their opinion should also be included among the range of mainstream scholarly opinions on the historicity of the Exodus account, even if I acknowledge that it should be presented with due weight in respect to other, more majority positions within scholarship.
My proposal has been rejected by other editors on the grounds that they consider this 'Biblical maximalist' position to fall under WP:FRINGE, and so they don't think that it belongs to the range of mainstream scholarly views on the subject. We have been debating this issue for five days in the Talk page, but no agreement has been reached on whether this 'Biblical maximalist' view should be regarded as a fringe view or whether it should be regarded as another mainstream scholarly view (even if a minority one), and as to how it should be described and presented in the WP article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
There has been an extensive discussion involving multiple editors.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I am open to find consensus on how to best describe and represent the minority view that regards the Exodus as a historical event in the article, and other editors appear to be open to this possibility as well. I think a resolution could be brought simply by introducing new voices who can read the exchange and comment.
Summary of dispute by Ermenrich
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I believe the summaries by Iskandar and A. Parrot of the central issue already summarize it fairly well. However, we currently have a source that satisfies WP:RS/AC that is quoted in the article that says:
Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. "The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes."
While a bit more discussion of such scholars (namely Hoffmeier) may be in order, I believe the OP is confusing support for some sort of historical core of the story with support for its general historicity.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ixtal:, I do believe that the section accurately reflects scholarly consensus. The only thing that might be changed is the inclusion of a sentence or two on what the extreme minority who argue that the Exodus happened more or less as in the Bible (so-called "maximalists") have to say. I am not convinced that this is necessary due to WP:DUE and WP:FALSE BALANCE, but I might be persuaded.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon:, I believe that you are correct on your first two points. There are no other content disputes that anyone has brought up and the issue is whether to further describe scholars belonging to the "maximalist" camp and/or whether to keep the content sourced to the source I've quoted above about they're being "few, if any" mainstream scholars of this opinion, "mostly on the fundamentalist fringe". As I have no desire to change anything about the current wording, I have nothing to add for your third point.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I also disagree with the new proposed wording by Potatin - he has essentially just removed the statements of fringe and fundamentalist (as well as "few, if any mainstream scholars") from the current wording of the article. I do not believe that is acceptable.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by tgeorgescu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I don't have input right now, but I would like to recommend three sources:
Greenberg, Moshe; Sperling, S. David (2007). "Exodus, Book of.". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 6 (2nd ed.). pp. 612–623. ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4. OCLC123527471. Retrieved 29 November 2019. Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Many scholars believe there may have been a very slight historical basis for the Exodus, meaning some small group of Semitic-speaking people migrated from the Nile Delta into Canaan and joined the "mixed multitude" of peoples that later formed the Israelite ethnic group, and that the dim folk memory of this event gave rise to the Exodus legend centuries later. But my impression of the scholarly field is that that position is distinct from a much more minority position (exemplified by James K. Hoffmeier, but with a few other scholars who seem like they may support it) that a substantial proportion of the events described in the biblical Exodus story is historical.
Unfortunately, although some sources state which views are more widely held in the scholarly field, they don't clearly distinguish between the two positions I just described. That ambiguity in the sources is at the root of this dispute, and I don't know how to handle it. A. Parrot (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Ixtal: I believe the section largely reflects the scholarly consensus. Ideally, I would like there to be a sentence that clarifies the distinction between the two positions I described (the latter of the two being the "extreme minority" position that Ermenrich mentions), precisely to prevent people from conflating the two, as I think Potatín5 is doing. But in the absence of sources that serve that purpose, the section can stand more or less as it is. A. Parrot (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Iskandar323
There is an ongoing discussion over how the different scholarly perspectives might best be presented, however, there is no real outstanding dispute over whether exodus is "generally historical". That is already obviously not the case and the motion to include that within the bracket of mainstream scholarship has had a clear consensus form against it. If the aim of this dispute resolution case is to push that particular language then it is just an attempt to bypass the local consensus that has already formed. If it is simply to discuss wording more generally then that could be done here, but it could just have been done on the main talk page under a new thread. While one change was attempted on the page mid-discussion, no actual proposed rewording has been proposed to date on talk; instead the discussion has got bogged down in and somewhat hamstrung by the lack of acceptance by the OP here that scholars acknowledging a historical core/nucleus or elements of a story does not equal it being 'generally historical', which is a leap that keeps being made despite no other editors agreeing with it. Discussion can only thrive if editors are not glued to their positions, and are open to absorbing input from others. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Wdford
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Mainstream scholarship holds that the Biblical exodus is a myth, because there is zero evidence for such a major and miraculous event. No archaeological traces of people in the desert, no records of plagues and parting of seas and mass migrations of freed slaves etc. This editor clings to the cherry-picking of fringe suggestions to keep his/her POV alive, together with mush from YouTube videos and PBS blogs. It is hardly a debate, more of a straw-clutching hobby. Wdford (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Nishidani
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
The Exodus discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer note I'll be glad to moderate this discussion and am waiting for responses by Wdford and Nishidani on the dispute. If they do not provide such a statement above within 48h I will proceed nonetheless. I remind editors that offline or paywalled sources are welcome and useful in such disputes but encourage them to use online or otherwise easily accessible sources when possible. Otherwise, please provide quotations of the cited sources where relevant using {{hidden archive top}} to collapse the quotations.From my understanding of Biblical/Abrahamic scholarship minority views can be nuanced and so believe there is benefit to be gained from looking at the RS in this forum to improve the wording with which we cover them. I will make a further comment soon on what format the discussion will use as I want to prevent the many sources from becoming unwieldy. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by volunteer (Exodus)
I'll clear a few preliminary matters first. Most importantly, read the rules we will be operating under during this discussion. Also, remember to comment on content and not conduct. We're here to improve the article and not to deal with conduct issues. Finally, please be civil and concise as much as possible. The clearer and more straight-forward you are the better the discussion will be.
Now, on to the dispute. I'm not sure how much discussion can or will be had on this matter, so I would appreciate if involved editors could state if they believe A) if the Origins and historicity section of the article accurately reflects academic consensus B) if not, which subsections do not do so and to which degree. I am not asking for editors to provide sources or names as of yet as I'm just trying to gauge how much potential for a compromise updated wording there is.— Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 19:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors (Exodus)
Please add your response in a section titled "Zeroth statement by YOUR USERNAME" in a level 4 heading
@Ixtal: I think that the section reflects much of the current scholarly consensus, but not entirely. My issue is that the section only discusses two positions, which are those who view the Exodus as having a small kernel of truth and those who view it as entirely mythical. I have previously provided sources (Na'aman, Faust) indicating that there also exists a third position within mainstream scholarship which argues for more substantial historicity of the Biblical account. Although I know that this is a more minority position, it still remains part of the range of scholarly opinions on the subject. In that sense, I tend to agree with Ermenrich's initial suggestion that we could add a sentence or two discussing this minority position in the section.--Potatín5 (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by Wdford (Exodus)
@Ixtal: This is NOT "a third position within mainstream scholarship". This is a fringe position outside of mainstream scholarship, which is supported by a handful of scholars based on very tenuous grounds which do not include actual evidence. We can include a sentence mentioning the existence of these views provided it incorporates the word "fringe". Wdford (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
First Statement by Acting Moderator (Exodus)
My first question is whether there are any content issues about the article other than the views of mainstream scholars about the historicity of the Book of Exodus account. It appears that the only disputes are what the article should say about the views of mainstream scholars on the historicity of the biblical account. I would like to be sure that that is the scope of this content dispute.
Second, the article describes two mainstream viewpoints, and a biblical maximalist viewpoint that the account is largely true. Is the disagreement about how we should characterize the maximalist viewpoint, whether we should characterize it as a minority viewpoint or as a fringe viewpoint?
Only one editor has replied to my questions. Do the editors want moderated discussion? It appears that the issue is what the article should say is the view of mainstream scholars about the biblical maximalist viewpoint that the account is largely true. What do you think that the article should say?
Robert McClenon (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
First statements by Editors (Exodus)
@Robert McClenon:I think that the article should state that there are some mainstream biblical scholars, even if only a minority, who hold to a somewhat more maximalist viewpoint on the historicity of the Exodus than the two positions that the WP article currently describes.--Potatín5 (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Wdford: I previously proposed the wording "A minority of scholars considers that the biblical core of the Exodus narrative is basically reliable and reflects an important event in the early history of Israel". Potatín5 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Two editors have made statements about what the article should say about the biblical maximalist position. The two concepts are not that far apart, so I will ask the two editors to work with each other for a few days, in the space for Discussion, to see if they can work out a statement that they can agree on about the small minority of mainstream scholars. (Yes, this means that you may and should go back-and-forth. Sometimes we will try back-and-forth discussion, including now.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I think there is now a blindingly clear consensus here, that the reliable sources are unambiguous on this matter. This editor is pushing his/her POV upstream, and there is actually very little to discuss. If this editor presents a proposed sentence for inclusion in the article, then we can fix that sentence and agree upon the wording. Beyond that, we can close this "discussion" anytime - it is going nowhere. Wdford (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
We need to distinguish between a "mainstream author who holds a fringe position on this aspect" versus "an author who holds a mainstream position on this aspect". We should not use loose wording which inadvertently creates the impression that the position of the Exodus being historical fact is in any way a mainstream position - it is totally fringe, and should be reflected as such. Sometimes historians who are normally considered to be mainstream, also hold personal opinions which are totally fringe - especially where religion is concerned. This editor needs to propose specific wording to be included, which can then be debated and corrected. Wdford (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This proposed wording from Potatin5 is much too fringe. I propose instead, the following sentence: "In addition, there are also a very few scholars who acknowledge "that there is presently no known direct evidence for Israel's presence in the Nile Delta during the second millennium", but who nonetheless believe that "one can make a case for the plausibility of the biblical reports based on the supporting evidence". [1]Wdford (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
^ISRAEL IN EGYPT The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition, by JAMES K. HOFFMEIER, Preface page x
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.
An editor, Pathawi is repeatedly removing sourced content believing that others should, "chime in" but only one other editor, Iskandar323 responded with a suggestion which I incorporated but it is still being removed by Pathawi.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Consider the opinion of all involved editors, reword the sentences as per suggestions and add the sentences back.
Summary of dispute by Pathawi
I first objected on 17 July. These objections have remained unaddressed, despite restatement: 1) The source explicitly deals with a specific historical period, & the citation should reflect that. 2) The source does not make a categorical statement about "Islamic law" on the consent of enslaved women, but rather says that jurists from the era did not address consent as 'a key "moral-legal concern"'. 1Firang (talk· contribs) has reintroduced the content multiple times, but never addressed either issue. I have a newer concern: 1Firang subsequently added the same sentence (or a version with one clause removed) to other pages, including on 26 July to History of slavery in the Muslim world. I removed the edit, and directed other editors to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Rape in Islamic law in the edit summary. Following a short debate, I again mentioned to editors following Talk:History of slavery in the Muslim world the original location. I think it's reasonable to wait a few days to allow others to weigh in.
I have further concerns, & wonder if this process is the right one: 1Firang has a history of tendentious editing. This has led to a topic ban on issues concerning India and Pakistan broadly, in part due to promotion of Islamophic conspiracy theories. Prior edits introduce "sourced material" about Islam in which the source does not sustain the text introduced. An admin has given 1Firang a "last warning" for tendentious editing at Rape in Islamic law. 1Firang has responded to criticisms of the accuracy of citations by complaining that other editors will not allow content critical of Islam—not the subject of the sources. This makes me think that we're dealing with Righting Great Wrongs. Since their last warning, 1Firang has sought advice at the Teahouse and the Village pump. At both locations, multiple other editors have suggested that they are in violation of the topic ban or its spirit, & have urged 1Firang to find other areas for editing.
Summary of dispute by Iskandar323
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Rape in Islamic law discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
This is the sourced content being removed by Pathawi repeatedly. I have paraphrased the sentences but they do say what the cited sources say.
First Statements by Editors (Rape in Islamic law)
The sentence I used did say, "historically". To clarify, this is what is being removed repeatedly: At the time when slavery was legal, historically, the consent of a slave for azl (coitus interruptus) or to marry her off to someone else, was not considered necessary.[1] Female captives or slaves did not have the right to deny sexual access to their owners.[2]
I think it probably makes sense for this dispute to be closed. The filer has been indefinitely banned, which means that there is no longer any representation here from that side of the dispute. Pathawi (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
(I'll add that while the cause of the ban is relevant to this dispute, the ban did not come about thru this dispute, nor thru participants other than the filer.) Pathawi (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2023 (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.
I would like to add evidence supporting an electromagnetic basis for electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
I have tried to make the point that the evidence is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines.
Other editors dismiss this.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by DFlhb
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Electronic hypersensitivity discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
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.
This article is the subject of a war, in which I have been involved but do not want to continue.
WikiTree is a genealogy site, but their Wikipedia article is short of acceptable third-party assessments and is patrolled by employees or supporters of the site who remove text they consider to be criticism. In other words, it is self-referential and not encyclopedic.
Critics of WikiTree base their contributions on personal experience and opinion, sometimes in intemperate language, which is equally self-referential and not encyclopedic. On the Sitejabber review site [3], three obvious puffs by employees or supporters of WikiTree are outnumbered by twelve disappointed reviewers.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Where do we go from here? All I can suggest is that until employees or supporters of WikiTree can produce a balanced and referenced article, that cites reputable sources and notes criticisms, it should be cut down to a stub.
Summary of dispute by Deathmolor
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
WikiTree discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Something very strange is going on here. At first I didn't see any dispute at all. I saw 4 editors basically agreeing they don't like WikiTree. Deathmolor did some major WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP violations and is a good candidate to be checked out for WP:NOTHERE. Anyway, I don't see the dispute that is being brought here or what the goals are. All the editors seem to more or less be in agreement, aside from Deathmolor arguing with scarecrows about racism (?). If someone wants to propose it for deletion go for it. I see that the "dispute" which has not been articulated here may be with Turninghearts who is not listed for some reason, and possibly Orlady, but Deathmolor, Belle Fast, MundoMango (who was strangely attacked by Deathmolor?), and Gerdolfo seem to be united as critics. Be aware that should anyone prove to be a WP:NOTHEREWP:SPA account or WP:MEATPUPPET this will most likely end up at WP:ANI (I say this before looking into the individuals in question). —DIYeditor (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2023 (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.
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
For the 100th time, and 100th dispute resolution, few peolpe are trying to put Rimac on the list, first with Concept One, which took 10 years to be proved it was a lie (if you didn't read annual financial report, if you did, then you would immediately see it was lie about 88 sold road legal homologated cars) then Concept Two, later renamed to Nevera, that it was a lie when they claimed they sold 150 examples and it was a lie when (in that time) they claimed it was homologated. Now they are trying with a new lie, and a new claim about 50 sold cars. Meanwhile same editors are deleting cars with similar claims like Aspark Owl.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Don't allow lies to become the truth. Or you can follow Goebbels - "If you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Summary of dispute by Stepho-wrs
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
Is it permissible to use the terms 'Native', 'Native American' and 'indigenous' to refer to American Indians in articles about colonial New England. I've started a discussion at Talk:New England Colonies#'Native Americans' vs 'Indians' and Talk:Roger Williams#"Native American" vs "Indian", etc., but this also affects other articles in the topic space. Over the past few months, Dilidor has edited articles about colonial New England to remove the words 'Native', 'Native American' and 'indigenous' and replace them with 'Indian' in all cases. Dilidor has argued that 'it is best to use contemporaneous language and terminology in historical articles' and that 'the phrase "Native American" simply means "a person who was born in America"'. I don't have an issue with the word 'Indian', but I also don't think all synonyms should be erased based on Dilator's rationale, particularly because the contemporary academic literature I've reviewed tends to use a mix of all four terms.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I hope that input from uninvolved users can help lead to a discussion and consensus on these articles around best practices for referring to American Indians/Native Americans.
Summary of dispute by Dilidor
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Roger Williams discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
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.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– Discussion in progress.