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.

Location of dispute

• Tuner (radio) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Andrevan (talk · contribs)
• Kvng (talk · contribs)
• Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Are WP:GALLERY and other images appropriate to illustrate the progress and development of tuners over time and their varying design considerations?

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

Talk:Tuner_(radio)#Image_gallery

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Users are arguing policy that doesn't exist or doesn't apply. I am trying to improve the article and these editors are throwing weight around without a sane rational basis to remove good faith improvements.

WP:GALLERY is clear that these are generally undesirable. Andrevan claims that the gallery documents the development of tuners but I don't immediately get that from the pictures or captions. If we're going to try to tell that story, we need improvements but I'm not convinced telling this story is important and may introduce an WP:UNDUE issue. There is already a Commons link where these images can be perused by readers. ~Kvng (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Andrevan seems to be unaware of consensus guidelines on image use in articles,in this case adding 10 redundant[1] images of radio tuner face-plates, some scattered across unrelated sections. Trying to explan that Wikipedia is not a repository of images and that they should have MOS:PERTINENCE, be placed in context and against descriptive text, and be readable at thumbnail resulted in WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the part of Andrevan [2] [3] and reverts of any attempted improvement [4]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to try to act as the moderator for discussion of this content dispute. Please read DRN Rule A. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion, as of any dispute resolution procedure, is to improve the article (not to address the conduct of the editors). Please state that you agree to follow the rules for the discussion. It appears that the main issue, or maybe the only issue, has to do with images. It seems that one editor wants to include a large number of images in the article, and two other editors disagree with the inclusion of the images. The editors have already referred to the image use policy and in particular the policy on image galleries, but please read it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

My first question is: Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?

My second question is: Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?

My third and fourth questions are about the images. Third, are all of the images in Commons? If not, what is their copyright and fair use status? Fourth, will each editor please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images? Address all of your answers to the moderator (me) and the community. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

1. The dispute is about the number of images and their MOS:PERTINENCE to the content.
2. I'm not aware of any other content dispute.
3. All images are in Commons and I don't know of any fair use issues.

~Kvng (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there an issue about the inclusion of certain images in the article?

Yes, Images unreadable at thumb MOS:IMAGEQUALITY --:> showing the subject too small... so Yamaha T-420, Onkyo T-4000 are too small - unreadable at thumb.

Are there any other article content issues other than an image dispute? If so, what is the other issue?

No

Are all of the images in Commons?

Yes

Please state concisely why they think that the the image use policy supports their view about images?

WP:IMAGEPOL - WP:IG is pretty clear:

• A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article - This is a shoehorn per adding editors own statement.

• a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. This is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject, no way to discern one from the other or why they are there, and no way to improve the images - they are generally unreadable.other than looking like a tuner (and some of them don't even look like a tuner). And they are already in the Wikimedia Commons.

• cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images Text already describes the evolution of Tuners and, per the current text, two images are all you need: an image of tuner vacuum tubes, an image of tuner transistors.

• Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made These images do not collectively add to the reader's understanding because they are barely readable and repetitive so no contrast or comparison can be made.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, the issue is about the images. 2. No, there is no other dispute other than the value of the images and image gallery and whether it is telling a useful story or illustrating something useful. 3. All images are on Commons and there are no issues with copyright. 4. Basically my argument hinges on such text in WP:GALLERY as A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images...Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made....Images should be captioned to explain their relevance to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery...Some subjects easily lend themselves to image-heavy articles for which image galleries are suitable, such as plants (e.g., Lily), fashion (e.g., Wedding dress), and the visual arts (e.g., Oil painting). Others do not My argument is that these images are not, as has been claimed, blurry, dark, unreadable, low quality, or redundant. They are clear illustrations of what a Tuner is and what a Tuner has looked like. They are selected to show a good cross-section of different images - front and back, inside and outside, Japanese, German, American, analog, digital, wood, metal, plastic, tube, solid state, etc. It is not necessary to be able to read the writing or the numbers, as those do not contribute to anything useful that isn't explained in the article itself. The point of the images is to illustrate consumer electronics and digital products industrial design. The arguments made don't hold up to scrutiny regarding the images or the policy or the consensus. Originally, I had placed the images all as thumbnails alongside the text, but I changed it to a gallery as many other articles do. There is no blanket consensus not to place these useful images, as has been claimed. If a specific image is perceived to be problematic, we could find a replacement or remove that one, but I do not see that overall, the criticisms that have been rendered on the images are policy-based or justifiable. Andre🚐 02:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The galleries in the examples given in green text contribute to the article in specific ways. In Tuner (radio), the gallery is just dropped at the end of an already overloaded section. It may turn out that a gallery is a good thing to have in an improved version of the article. Per WP:DEMOLISH I'm not actually opposed to retaining it if that's where we're heading (I do, however, have some skepticism about how well that will work out) but I don't yet see the beginnings of any of that in the text. The only hints that this may be coming are talk page statements from Andrevan and inclusion of dates and countries in the gallery captions. If Andrevan can show us a source or two we can use to back the story of tuner development, that would help convince me that this direction has some promise. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears that one editor wants to include a gallery of images of radio tuners, and two other editors disagree. I am asking each editor to provide a revised statement of why they think that the image gallery either is consistent with the policy on images or is not consistent with it. If there is no agreement, we will develop a Request for Comments on the yes-no question of whether to include the gallery in the article. So, in preparing your statement, develop a statement that will be included in the RFC for the attention of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there any other content issues?

The image gallery is consistent with both the image use policy as well as the examples of many other articles which have detailed image galleries, much larger and taking up more space and more redundant than the modest image gallery on Tuner (radio). I originally created this article back in 2004 and it was in a very poor state until I started working on it again recently. I already have a detailed narrative in the works in the article with references, and a big part of that has to do with the early growth of the FM radio and TV and American consumer electronics industry after World War II, followed by the growth of electronics development and production primarily in Japan and the production of cheap, miniaturized transistors and the growth of digital electronics. That is illustrated by the photos which show the evolution of the tuner from the days of the vacuum tube to solid state circuit boards. You do not need to be an expert to understand what a tube is and what a board is and see the little capacitors and filters and stuff and then see how the analog knobs give way to digital, tape deck looking, black, plastic hi-fi. If the specific images look a bit bad to someone, I am open to swapping out the images for better-looking images, but there's absolutely no policy basis that categorically rules out having image galleries. I do not at all see how it is a constructive or consensus building activity to just come along and remove image galleries when many many other pages have them. The images I have selected for the page are a small sampling of the many images on Commons for this topic, the ones that have decent lighting and a well-framed subject that clearly shows what it is without bad framing, reflections or weird shadows or darkness. I've chosen a chronology from 1960 to 1990, and several American units, a German unit, and a Japanese unit, one of each showing the guts, ie tube, board, or another kind of board. In some cases it's the front and back of the same thing to show a different angle and give a better idea of what you're looking at. All of this to me is reasonable to try to show what a tuner is, which shows you something you don't get from the text. You wouldn't know that a vacuum tube is a weird round thingy like a tin can or that a ceramic filter is a tiny diode that solders onto a small lead, but you do actually kind of get that from the images. You wouldn't necessarily understand the idea of turning a dial to manipulate a radio if you never saw one in real life. There are kids on this website who were born in 2005 let's say, who have never seen one of these. I think they improve the article and improve Wikipedia. Andre🚐 08:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:IG Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery of images must explain (something). Images should not be redundant such as a 1960 dial with knobs, a 1977 dial with knobs and a 1978 dial with knobs. Parts on a circuit board are by their very nature hidden in clutter, ambiguous, and the subject is too small to be read at thumb. WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments are not a good reason to keep something. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am on vacation this week and won't participate again until next week. Hopefully you can keep this moving based on what I've already said. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I have created a draft RFC at Talk:Tuner (radio)/Gallery RFC. I am asking the proponent of including the image gallery to put the proposed image gallery in the draft RFC. It will go live after we review and discuss it. Do the editors want to include statements for and against the inclusion of the image gallery in the RFC, or are they satisfied to make their cases in the Discussion section when the RFC is live?

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I added the gallery to it and I'm fine with the discussion having the statemens after live if everyone else is. Andre🚐 18:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm back. My primary objection is that the gallery doesn't tell the story it is purported to tell. Deletion is not the only option. Improving the gallery may address my objection. I'm willing to help make improvements to see where that goes. In the spirit of WP:ATD I think we should give due consideration to non-deletion alternatives. ~Kvng (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to include two concise statements, one in support of an image gallery, and one opposed to an image gallery for this article. Since one of the editors who opposes the image gallery is on break, probably the other one can compose the statement. After that is done, the RFC can be activated. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to activate the RFC if there is still an impasse. However, one of the editors who had previously disagreed with the addition of the image gallery says that they are willing to discuss changes to the image gallery or compromise. So I will ask each of the editors who has disagreed with the image gallery what changes, if any, they think should be made. I will also ask the editor who has proposed the image gallery whether they have any ideas for changes to the gallery. We will keep the RFC in draft to activate if it becomes necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to compromise by advancing more constructive changes to the image gallery such as swapping out individual images if some are less liked for whatever reason, reducing the number or otherwise making adjustments. I'm also still working on, though I haven't been in the last few days, expanding the article narrative to explain more of the detail around the history of consumer electronics and stereo equipment with an eye to radio tuners specifically and the evolution of vintage hi-fi vis globalization, miniaturization, and the evolution of user interfaces, or collaborate on how we might do that. Andre🚐 04:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, my main concern is that the story of tuner evolution be more clearly told in the gallery. We can talk about how to do that but if we are doing this as original research it's not going to fly. Do we have some reliable sources to base this story on? ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not original research. Everything in the article is well-referenced and I'm making sure it's all grounded in reliable sources. Andre🚐 17:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My thought was to create a separate section for the gallery and add an introduction based on what you've said here and at Talk:Tuner (radio). If I created such an introduction, would you be able to source it? ~Kvng (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I'm open to that. Andre🚐 17:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm also interested to know whether Fountains of Bryn Mawr thinks this approach has promise, because as you've pointed out, even if this works for the both of us, 2 vs 1 is not a consensus. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:V -->All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. WP:IG --> Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text. We are not reinventing the wheel here, policy and consensus guidelines already cover this. It looks to me that there is not much more to "history of tuners" that can't be told in 3 or 4 images. The gallery as it stands now has no context and is primary sourced. There would have to be secondary sources backing up an intro and making these comparisons, in photographs you can read. None of that exists now. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY says primary sources can be used with care for simple facts. The primary sources are simply used for the names and release information for the tuners. I am not using primary sources for interpretation. Andre🚐 18:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You are putting them in sequence as specific steps in development, that is interpretation. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really, the sequence is based on the years.... are you saying knowing that 1990 is later than 1960 is OR? Andre🚐 01:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a convincing no to my question to Fountains of Bryn Mawr. I think we should proceed with the RFC. We still need text for Talk:Tuner_(radio)/Gallery_RFC#Reason_against_Image_Gallery. I can work on that but it will take a day or two to get to. ~Kvng (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have added the statement. Please review and improve if necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I guess I don't really think "An effort to improve the gallery to address this ran up against concerns" is accurate, as all editors did was try to remove the gallery. Andre🚐 06:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The effort I'm referring to the discussion in this section. I've edited the statement to clarify. ~Kvng (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Do we have continued disagreement about whether to include the image gallery? Please take another look at the RFC, because if we still have disagreement, I will activate the RFC and close this discussion.

Are there any other content issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the RFC is ready to go. Andre🚐 06:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've made one requested adjustment to the RFC. I think it is ready to go. ~Kvng (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have activated the RFC, which will run for thirty days. If there are no other issues, I will close this thread as being resolved by the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for facilitating. Andre🚐 02:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• OmoIyaLeke (talk · contribs)
• TochukwuEzi (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The page has been vandalized by: TochukwuEzi. The user provides no evidence for their edits, while editing the references of other editors. I decided not to restore the page to avoid edit warring.

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

[5]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The page be temporarily locked from vandalism.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Khwarazmian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs)
• Remsense (talk · contribs)
• HistoryofIran (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

narrated already-cited author's article in an WP:RSOPINION format. 3 others are sabotaging my edit even as far as accusing me of deliberately misunderstanding WP:RSP+"not reliable for author's opinion

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

Talk:Khwarazmian Empire#On_the_reliability_of_Bunyadov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khwarazmian_Empire#CLEAN_DISCUSSION_FOR_THIRD_OPINION:_WP:RSOPINION,_HISTORY_AND_ETHNOLOGY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khwarazmian_Empire#Quoting_Buniyatov_and_WP:RSOPINION https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&oldid=1254698909#Active_disagreements (got rejected)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1. Assess if my contribution fell under WP:RSOPINION. 2. Asses if the official website of a district governorship I cited is eligible as a corraboration to my edit (the two came together). 3. The book I quoted is already cited with-in the article but the adversaries even argue that "the source is not reliable for statemetns as to their author's opinion." - assess if a book is reliable or not for statements as to their author's opinion

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Bogazicili (talk · contribs)
• Buidhe (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The issue concerns examples used in Genocide studies, History and Methods sections. (Primarily, removal of examples about Americas Bogazicili (talk) 04:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC))

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

• Talk:Genocide#European_colonialism
• Talk:Genocide#Removal_of_sourced_information
• Talk:Genocide#Incomplete_information_in_history_section
• Talk:Genocide#Additional_problems_with_recent_edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

1) Help with resolving potential WP:DUE and WP:NPOV issues 2) Help with representing the sources in the best possible way

To be honest, I have not found DR helpful before. And in this case, I'm not sure what the dispute is, so I will have a hard time summarizing it. Does BG still want to reinstate all of his edits? If so, I already explained on the talk page why I don't think they are beneficial to the encyclopedia, so I'm not sure it would be helpful to rehash. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the other editor has made up their mind about the content. This is based on the fact that they have not changed their mind about any of the content they want to add, despite my introducing sources and evidence suggesting that several of their additions don't reflect the majority view in scholarship. If I am correct in this belief, further back and forth is likely to be a waste of time. (t · c) buidhe 04:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator if two (or more) editors want moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and state whether you agree to moderated discussion subject to those rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. (The purpose of any dispute resolution procedure is to improve the encyclopedia.) Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that the other editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that the other editor wants to change. It is not necessary at this point to explain why you want to change the article or leave it unchanged; we will discuss that later. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the filing editor has posted at length. Another editor has posted two brief statements that they don't think that discussion will be effective. I will be closing this case as sort-of-declined, and not going anywhere. The editors should resume discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Genocide. The filing editor may edit the article while discussing their edits. If the edits are reverted, the next step is more discussion, either at the article talk page or at a WikiProject talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree to moderated discussion subject to those rules. These issues are mainly the difference in this diff. These are:
1) Giving examples to colonial (and settler colonial) genocides in Genocide#History, using United States and Australia as examples. I had also said more examples can be given in history section, overall.
2) Giving examples to genocide methods in Genocide#Methods, with some of the methods used in Americas (and these methods were not mentioned in that section).
3) Definition of settler colonies, and giving examples of settler colonies, in Genocide#Genocide_studies
4) Wording issues in second and third paragraphs in Genocide#History and other wording issues in above areas

To show WP:DUE for those examples, I provided quotes from the introduction chapters in WP:Secondary sources, such as The Cambridge World History of Genocide Volume 2 and in Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. I also gave examples from genocide entries in WP:Tertiary sources, such as The Social Science Encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion, and Encyclopedia of Global Justice. I tried to accommodate wording concerns (for example: [6][7]). But we've been unable to resolve the issues.

Overall, my main concern is examples mentioning Americas or indigenous people are being removed in the article. This concern is amplified by this journal article: Wikipedia’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia Bogazicili (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: thank you. I had to move to other dispute resolution methods because of the decline of the other editor here. Bogazicili (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears that the filing editor has posted at length. Another editor has posted two brief statements that they don't think that discussion will be effective. I will be closing this case as declined, and not going anywhere. The editors should resume discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Genocide. The filing editor may edit the article while discussing their edits. If the edits are reverted, the next step is more discussion, either at the article talk page or at a WikiProject talk page.

The filing editor says that they have moved to other dispute resolution methods. I would like to know what other methods.

This dispute will be closed shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Double-slit experiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Johnjbarton (talk · contribs)
• XOR'easter (talk · contribs)
• Quondum (talk · contribs)
• Chetvorno (talk · contribs)
• Tercer (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I think a diagram in the article should be deleted. Three other editors agree, one does not. I tried applying the suggested compromise by Chetvorno but it was reverted. I asked for input on the Physics wiki project. I don't know what to do next.

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

Talk:Double-slit_experiment#Photon_animation_is_not_correct.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Do you have any suggestions?

It seems Johnjbarton is no longer interested in DR. If that's not the case I can summarize the dispute here. Tercer (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry can you explain what I should do? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the large block of info on the top of this page, you are required to notify the involved users of this discussion on their talk page (you can use this template or a personal message). However, I've already done so for you, so don't worry about it. TheWikiToby (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks, I appreciate your efforts. However I did not want to bug these folks. I was just looking for advice. Johnjbarton (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion, I think you have all made your positions clear and have not changed each other's minds. I think at this point, you simply make a formal proposal on the talk page of the article to remove the image and let the other editors have their vote. If there is a clear consensus to remove the image, then you remove it. If an entrenched editor, then continues to revert the will of the consensus, then you ask for help resolving the dispute. Constant314 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought I already make the formal proposal and three editors plus myself agreed to remove. But one does not. So what to do?

I agree that rehashing the arguments over here is not likely to make any difference. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Start a new thread. Make simple proposal to remove the animation. Cast the first vote. Constant314 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon thanks for your attention. I don't think this mechanism will help us. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, there is probably not much to be gained by moderated discussion. On the other hand, the way to resolve this content issue appears to be a Request for Comments. I am ready to work with one or more editors to develop a neutrally worded RFC on the diagram in question. If anyone wants assistance with a Request for Comments, please read DRN Rule A, only because it summarizes the need for civility. I don't think that anyone has been uncivil, but a reminder about civility is often useful.

Do any editors want to work on an RFC about a questionable illustration? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• Nagging Prawn (talk · contribs)
• Wolverine_XI (talk · contribs)
• Moxy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I attempted to add a sentence on the Wolf Wikipedia page citing a report from a peer-reviewed scientific journal of one wolf eating 181 Payette's Short-Winged Grasshoppers. Unfortunately, I encountered unexpected resistance, despite there having been no such disputes regarding this report in the citing literature. I was told to bring it up to the talk page, which I did. I was told to justify my edit, which I tried to do, citing precedent for similar dietary detail in other Wikipedia articles. An anonymous user concurred that it seemed worthy of inclusion, but I did not receive a rebuttal. After waiting for several weeks, I believed the support from a third party and lack of response otherwise might justify reverting the reversion. However, my edit was reverted again. Upon requesting reasons why this occurred on the talk page, I was told there was no context for the fact I was trying to add to the article. However, the citation provides this context, and upon mentioning this I received no response. After some days, I tried again to add this fact to the article, but after a few more days it was reverted again, with no new arguments given. As far as I can tell, this edit does not violate Wikipedia guidelines, so I am at a loss.

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

I was told to open a topic about this on the Wolf talk page, so I acquiesced. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wolf#Including_a_note_about_a_paper_reporting_a_lone_wolf_that_ate_181_grasshoppers When objections were raised, I made good faith attempts to address them in this topic.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Hopefully, I would like to be able to add this observation to the article, as it is such a surprising report. It neatly demonstrates the dietary breadth mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded this edit. Failing that, I would like robust reasons why this should be excluded. I hope moderation can encourage either the addition of this fact or meaningful dialogue about why it shouldn't be added.

One wolf eating 181 grasshoppers is hardly surprising. Why this user keeps on pushing this useless fact is beyond me. I'd like to hear what others have to say. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 19:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Odd random trivia about ONE wolf WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Moxy🍁 11:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am willing to act as a meditator in this dispute. I have no connection to the article or any of the users involved.

DRN is a voluntary process, and further meditation is on hold pending a summary to be provided by User:Wolverine XI. Should he not respond by next Monday, the dispute will be moderated between only you two.

In the meantime, please confirm in the respective sections below that you agree on having a moderated dispute and will follow WP:DRNA. NotAGenious (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree to a moderated dispute and accept the ground rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagging Prawn (talk • contribs) 03:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure.Moxy🍁 12:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I will, at least temporarily, act as the moderator. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Do not explain why you want that, at this time. I am only asking "What?", because "Why?" can come later. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add an example of wolves' dietary breadth; namely a wolf consuming 181 grasshoppers. The two other editors involved here do not want this added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagging Prawn (talk • contribs) 20:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It appears that one editor wants to include a mention of a wolf who was found to have eaten 181 grasshoppers, and other editors think that its inclusion is unnecessary. I am asking the editor who wants to insert the paragraph to provide the exact text that they want to insert. I am also asking each editor to make a concise statement, reflecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as to why they want to include or not include the paragraph.

Are there any other content issues or questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

This is the sentence I wish to include: One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a single sitting.^[1]

As to why I wish to include it, I believe it provides an interesting example of the dietary breadth wolves exhibit, as mentioned in the sentence that would have preceded it: "When such foods are insufficient, they prey on lizards, snakes, frogs, and large insects when available." It was said that this is hardly unsurprising, but this does not comport with the response in the edit summary upon reversion for the first time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolf&diff=1244332979&oldid=1244306429 Additionally, while it is true Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, this does not necessarily count as indiscriminate, as precedent for single occurrence observations of prey exists on other featured articles, such as the [bald eagle] article. Nagging Prawn (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any room for compromise. Either the mention of the wolf eating the 181 grasshoppers can be included in the article (as it is included in the article about Melanoplus payettei), or it can be excluded. Since the local consensus appears to be two-to-one against inclusion, the two options are to omit the statement, or to have a Request for Comments. That is up to the filing editor. If they want an RFC, they should provide the exact text that they want to include, with source, so that it can be included in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Duly noted. Thank you for taking the time to participate everyone! Nagging Prawn (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2024 (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.

Location of dispute

• Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Randomstaplers (talk · contribs)
• Bon courage (talk · contribs)
• Crossroads (talk · contribs)
• Conyo14 (talk · contribs)
• WikiEditor5678910 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This is my first extensive talking through a semi-controversial dispute, so forgive me if I wasn't perfect.

So, for the past month, I've had a bit of a problem with the articles wording. I edited it, it was reverted, discussion ensued. Eventually, we settled on a consensus for about a month from Mid-September to October of 2024. It was on a dispute between findings from source C and this source J, which cites source P. This is reflected in Special:Permalink/1245461692 on September 13th.

In the meantime, I decided to post some information I'd found for readers to see. I was not warned about this behavior at the time, but I feel it necessary, because I don't censor my own thoughts and biases.

On October 17th, I noticed that there were text-source integrity issues with source C, first documented at Special:Permalink/1251618081.

As a result I felt the need to rephrase certain parts of the article to better reflect the newly found reliability problems.

As I said, I'm inexperienced, but I feel there might be a content problem here, especially after seeing the referencing problems in Special:Permalink/1251618081, and the use of sources by the review that have been rejected.

Anyways, I hope working through DRN will help us improve dispute resolution in the future, and highlight areas where I, and we, need improvement.

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

Talk:Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Clarifying policy, and also, what to do about this article, with regards to how it treats its references, linked here (archived)

(involved; apologies if I am not getting the formatting right) The fundamental problem here is that Randomstaplers is engaging in what another editor succinctly labeled perform[ing] amateur peer-review on WP:MEDRS sources - in this case, the Cochrane review article above called "Source C". [8] It is not the place of Wikpedia editors to negate the findings of such MEDRS sources based on personal analysis, only to reflect expert views as expressed in the highest quality published sources.

Yet, Randomstaplers is insisting on this edit. It contains the text A review from the Cochrane Collaboration, updated in 2023, claimed (contrary to the claims of some of its cited papers[165][166]) that masking had little effect on the spread of viral illness.[6] 6 is the Cochrane review itself; 165 and 166 are individual studies Cochrane cites, which Randomstaplers is here clearly using to argue against the review's conclusions. This is original research and completely contrary to the instructions of MEDRS.

That previous edit also has at least some other problems. It states about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that Various reviews on RCTs find that masking reduces the rate of respiratory infection, but cites for this at least some sources that do not review RCTs at all, such as this and this. I can't ignore the irony that this is a clear lack of text-source integrity in their own content, the very thing they are accusing Cochrane of. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposed edit(s) seem to be a long and elaborate way of not simply saying with the best sources say (specifically, a Cochrane Review). I think we should just summarize the best sources faithfully. Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The filing editor has not listed and notified the other editors. One of the other editors has replied, and so does not need to be notified, but should be listed. Other editors who were involved in the discussion on the article talk page must be listed and notified. The filing editor and the editor who has replied should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on COVID controversies, and should acknowledge that they have read those rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Acknowledged. I did notify @Bon Courage with substituted {{drn-notice}}, but they appear to have deleted the template. If we come to a resolution, we might need to notify a proxy editor, because I... kinda don't want to be the one to write it.

When I said that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor, I meant that the other editors should be listed by the filing editor. I meant that they should be listed, regardless of whether they had responded without being notified, and regardless of whether they had declined to participate in moderated discussion. The filing editor should still list all of the other editors.

I said that the editors should acknowledge that they have read the ArbCom decision that COVID is a contentious topic. I did not ask for an 800-word history, which I do not need.

Since two editors have posted, we can continue, although the listing of other editors is still required, and is the responsibility of the filing editor. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I will ask each editor to make a concise statement about what part of the article they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not important to explain why you want to change the article or leave it the same. We can discuss that later. Just tell what in the article is the subject of the dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Listed.⸺(Random)staplers 04:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll ignore the previous issues that got consensus last month. The issue right now is that this contribution, which I implemented following noticing issues with Source C. It was reverted by Crossroads, and then we agreed to implement in stages. The first paragraph got added. The second paragraph then got reverted by Bon Voyage courage. Further discussion did not go anywhere with regards to improving the paragraph. ⸺(Random)staplers 04:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• Corrected a typo. Dang it... they pop up more often for me than the average editor, AFAICT.⸺(Random)staplers 16:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Late addition: It just occurred to me: I'd like to also discuss the addition of {{unbalanced}} to the relevant section. I posited the analogy of life jackets earlier (with regards to regulation), since for some reason, no paper has decided to cite the relevant regulation they are following for their RCT (this drove me nuts, given how much I have written on respirators).

Although we can't conduct original research, I feel we do have an obligation to let viewers know what research needs to be conducted to improve the article, because RCTs... also show that a lot of scientists read Wikipedia first. See [9] (linked paper) and particularly this paper (which is cited by the former).

I apologize for not making it clear earlier that I had read these papers earlier with regards to my copyright work, which inevitably influenced my judgement on my talk page.⸺(Random)staplers 20:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So, I tried to gather all I could from the talk page and it seems that you're disputing peer-reviewed articles with what content should be addressed in the article. Granted, WP:PERENNIAL allows you to view and discuss whether a website or journal is reliable. But if two peer-reviewed journals are disagreeing with each other, then that's content in of itself. I would go with whatever is more prevalent/frequent in discussed literature/news articles. Many scientific journals can exist on RTCs and offer differing opinions, but what you're trying to edit in, feels out of place. I also feel it borders some more original research. It also doesn't exactly have a WP:NPOV. The very first statement, feels false, given that Cochrane was disputed by other journals and there was only one other non-disputed journal. The rest of the paragraph doesn't even line up correctly compared to what it would have been after the constructive edits completed. I don't think what's current is perfect though, but I also don't think your edits would have made it better. Try re-writing it again? Conyo14 (talk) 04:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Conyo14, well you see, that's the problem. I don't have any other perspectives to work with. And the initial bold edits weren't refined, (other than the first paragraph, which was accepted).

The big problem, IMO, is a logical one. From the life jacket analogy earlier: How are we supposed to explain regulatory context of each RCT? That's why I brought up 29 CFR 1910 earlier. You change the regulation, you change the results. You change the way life jackets are regulated, the police patrols, etc. You change how effective they are.

There are a couple papers that I read in the article that point out that RCTs can't be relied on alone, and trying to imply the elephant in the room, so to speak, without directly bringing up the elephant is a challenge. (I already know WP:NOR exists, but the talk page allows a bit more leeway, and it's been bothering me, as you can tell).

I tried removal way back in September, obviously that was rejected, since I missed/forgot a few guidelines.

Now, I'm trying to figure out an edit, keeping in mind all these editorial consensuses, how to explain to readers this discrepancy, with the sources we have at the moment. (And also keeping in mind there are scientists reading this, as I pointed out above).

And on top of all that: The Cochrane source has mislinks and links to a study whose protocols were failed by the authors, and the review does not disclose this! WP:Inaccuracy, and all that.⸺(Random)staplers 05:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• By the way, if any of you happen to have a ref, feel free to interject. Just because I'm making these claims doesn't mean it's original research, since I may have heard the statement from someone else and missed or forgot the source. See the first section in Wikipedia:These are not original research. Off topic: There were statements in the N95 article that were implied in the FR documents I read, before I was able to confirm them through publications and the Wayback machine for instance. But that took a while. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Definitely don't be worried about scientists quoting Wikipedia. They should not be reliable if they're quoting Wikipedia.

  Second off, hearing from a source but not providing it is kinda sorta OR. Conyo14 (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Conyo14 - Of course most scientists won't say they are quoting Wikipedia... But even if they aren't quoting them, it influences their judgement. It's been documented in the judicial system, see [10]. Speaking of kinda sorta... yeah. If you've been editing like I have, you can see how my POV can shift, which I emphasize my POV to try and account for this.⸺(Random)staplers 06:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Conyo14 So I thought about this a little more, and it's occurred to me why our OR perspectives seem to differ. I wrote the part on the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, which was caused by voluntary respirator regulations. So... nobody in the disaster wore respirators.

There is also the 2001 DOL study, plus papers like this one from 2024 and this one from 2011, and this one exploring the reasons why. [11], which I mentioned on the talk page, is one of the few RCTs that actually takes usage into account, but they don't cite 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(a) when it comes to why they excluded people with facial hair.

Like, these connections seem obvious to me as someone who has written about respirators a lot. But obviously, I can't (and haven't) mention (or mentioned) all of this directly in the article, because this is an article about the pandemic, and I can't draw conclusions about the paper from 2024, because it just presents data.

Sidenote: A lot more papers have been published about this pandemic than any other, so it is possible that someone with my POV has written something. On the other hand, a lot of the AIHA's perspective is very much locked behind paywalls.⸺(Random)staplers 17:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a fair assessment, though I think quoting yourself (I know you won't be doing that) would be a WP:COI. The point I'm trying to make is that a source that quotes other sources can do so as long as it is considered reliable. If you are questioning the reliability of a source, you ought to open a discussion at WP:PERENNIAL.

That being said, I very much see the connection of dots. If there is a source that shows this connection, I think that would be something that can be added in. Provided Bon courage and Crossroads agree on the language that will be added. Conyo14 (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

There are sources in the article, some put in place well before I got involved, that push back on the reliability of RCTs. The question is how to phrase it properly. If we were to give it too much detail, we would run the risk of making it seem like the RCT conversation is more important than it actually is, and obscure the lack of information. That's what I was trying to avoid with my last edit, by consolidating views as briefly as possible, per WP:Inaccuracy#Approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material. That last edit was also trying to remove thread mode, which... might also make it more likely that the issue will be noticed (due to the WP:REALWORLD concern of having scientists being influenced by Wikipedia) rather than glossed over as a controversy, IMO.

This might be a lot to take in, so I'll put together a proposal in a few days. ⸺(Random)staplers 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This still looks like a lot of WP:OR on your part, especially about N95s. It's not as simple as you seem to be saying; N95s meeting safety regulation is largely irrelevant here. There are all sorts of reasons why N95s might nevertheless be less effective than they are designed to be when worn by the general public; they may have poor fit, adjust them a lot, not follow mandates, etc. Plus, the topic of the Cochrane review, of the article, and of almost all mask mandates ever implemented, are "masks", not N95s specifically. All that matters here is what MEDRS reviews say about the topic of the article. If the Cochrane review is criticized by another review, that can be included, but not OR. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Crossroads As I have said before, there are citations already included in the article, even before I got involved, criticizing the Cochrane study. And there's still the issue of the mis-linking to work out, which has been noted in the web archive. We can work that out later, for now, I need to come up with a workable proposal.⸺(Random)staplers 03:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't notice that DRN Rule A says that there should not be any back-and-forth discussion between the editors. However, because there has been extended back-and-forth discussion, and it has been civil, we don't need that restriction, so I am changing to DRN Rule B, and I will allow the discussion to continue. We have one editor who wasn't listed. I am adding their name. Continue discussion. If you (the participating editors) conclude that discussion is not making any progress, I will try to refocus it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Crossroads @Conyo14 - Crossroads, your continuous comments on WP:OR annoyed me, so after more searching, yes, policy design RCT is indeed a missing POV - from Policy Design for COVID-19:

However, without conducting a randomized controlled trial, it is highly difficult to compare different government mandates’ efficacies (Haushofer and Metcalf 2020). Given the inherent challenges in launching randomized experiments (e.g., Abaluck et al. 2021), is it feasible to design an observational study with existing data on worldwide mandate adoptions to gauge their relative efficacies? [Continues on in a paper not about RCTs]

The following is more... anecdotal, but I feel it's worth mentioning:

• This paper mentioned before doesn't cite 1910.134,
• But Willeke, when he's testing surgical masks and DFM respirator filtration efficiency of all things, and only really needs to cite 30 CFR 11 (citation 23), nonetheless cites 1910.134 in citation 21 [12]. (This paper, if you recall, was cited by the NIOSH TB guide).

Isn't that weird? The POV slant of over-focusing on 1910.134 doesn't seem unheard of.

I would be careful, Crossroads, about mentioning "OR" over and over and over again without considering the situations in Wikipedia:These are not original research, or the fact people might not have the forethought of looking things up at the moment if they are busy arguing their point. I would also suggest asking for sources respectfully before making a claim about an editor.⸺(Random)staplers 09:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• I had totally forgot that I had cited this link from CIDRAP news in the past: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/study-masks-vs-n95-respirators-health-workers-spurs-concerns

By the way, heads up: I should have my proposal up in a few hours. It'll take a couple weeks to implement, even though it doesn't change all that much TBH.——Randomstapler's alt 21:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm going to borrow an idea from copypatrol - creating a '/Temp' page, normally used to rewrite copyright violations. This time, the page will be used to rewrite the lead and the Efficacy sections, as these are in dispute. This will be done outside (main), since the last attempt to rewrite in (main) failed due to reverting. Everyone (including those not listed on DRN) will be allowed to edit the /Temp page, subject to the following:

Set up

Since I was the one to do the initial edit, I will set this up, subject to these steps:

1. Cleaning up the talk page - All current threads will be archived. We'll be starting fresh to avoid biasing new editors.

2. I will set up the temp page with my proposed changes, along with the section headings Lead, Efficacy, and Pinned section. The pinned section will be a place where editors can briefly state policy concerns, or links to articles or odd verification failures that might change a readers point of view, but would break the flow of the article. This will be linked to by {{Unbalanced}} in the Efficacy section, so the issue is made visible to readers with minimal editorializing. If there are any concerns about editor statements, discuss on the talk page.

3. {{in use|two weeks}} will be placed in the Efficacy section on (main), and a comment will be added to the lead warning editors that the lead will be overwritten, and to go to the relevant /Temp page instead.

4. I will link to this DRN thread, and will copy first and second statements from the DRN thread (not involving this proposal) and collapse them. (Doing it this way should prevent any more controversial statements being made while the page is being set up, while providing accessible but optional context.)

The proposal will be collapsed separately, and titled "/Temp editing rules." Once that's done, people can begin editing for two weeks (around November 17th or later). The deadline can also be extended if necessary if /Temp is still not stale.

Editing

Because the /Temp page is already obscured from the public, reverting other users is discouraged. Please let it be and talk it out--contents will not be merged if not settled. If any unwanted reverting occurs, dispassionately point it out and ask to self-revert. Edits should be continually improved under Wikipedia:Bold-refine.

Once set up is done, copy-pasting will be discouraged, due to potential copyvio problems, plus the fact that verifying sources is important.

Merging to (main)

Some time after the two week mark, around (November 17th or later), if /Temp is stable, I will decide if /Temp, as it stands from the last edit that is not mine is stable enough to merge into (main). If it is, I will do the merging with the required attribution. If I miss an attribution, a minor dummy edit can be inserted after the fact. Pinned section with editor statements will be added to the talk page, and pinned. All sections will be then be closed two weeks later, around December 1st or later.

In the event no one happens to edit the '/Temp' page, or if it is not clear to me that '/Temp' is stable, or if there are any other doubts, I will ask @Robert McClennan, or someone else, to do the merging.

If you understand point 4, and there are no questions or statements to the contrary, the process will begin sometime on or after November 3rd (UTC). Once the process in Set up has been implemented, we can close this DRN request.

@Crossroads @Conyo14 @Bon courage⸺(Random)staplers 00:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you link it directly here? Conyo14 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll use permalink so people can check. I'll copy the collapsed section, since I'm the only author.⸺(Random)staplers 01:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I am not prepared to accept this proposal (the final judge and jury status status Randomstaplers assigns themself is particularly egregious). A WP:LOCALCON cannot deprive other editors their say. Note this whole face mask/COVID/RCT question has been subject to previous in-depth discussion with many editors to arrive at where we are (e.g.[15]). If Randomstaplers wants to draft alt text, they should do so in their userspace. Bon courage (talk) 04:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  • @User:Bon courage The initial set up is done by me for practicality reasons - because I drafted the proposal. I've demonstrated I always stop to discuss first when someone reverts, so there should be nothing behaviorally that could go wrong, especially with this detailed procedure. You've also seen me cease all editing after starting this DR thread.
  • Nothing will change on mainspace save for one template and one comment. That's it.
  • Closing this edit, as I described in the proposal above, will be deferred to Robert McClenon in extenuating circumstances. If you want me to always defer to a third party before closing, we can do that.
  • As for discussion in [16], well, it's missed what we discussed just above, along with new sources. So that warrants some sort of procedure for controlled changing of the article. If editing mainspace directly is unacceptable, this is much more conservative.⸺(Random)staplers 06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    This is meant to be DRN, but you are inventing some new process. I take it then the DRN effort has collapsed? Bon courage (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

    • @Bon courage - It's because I have a feeling that there are more people that want to change the article based on discussions above. Also, the DRN process is slow and naturally excludes non-parties while the process is going on. That's not conducive to building a neutral encyclopedia.⸺(Random)staplers 06:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

      Well, I do not recognize your preposterous new process and will ignore it while continuing to edit Wikipedia according to the well-established community norms described in the WP:PAGs. I thought this DRN might actually discuss some concrete proposals and achieve something. But if you're out you're out. Bon courage (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

      • @Bon courage - Ahem. @Robert McClenon, what's your take on this comment with regards to DRN rules?⸺(Random)staplers 06:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

      I fear this is WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Your personal analysis of the 1910.134 regulation, of how Cochrane linked to other sources, of the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster (???), etc is a confusing jumble of original research. None of this is based on following policies and guidelines like WP:MEDRS. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

      @Crossroads - If you read the statement above, you'll see that 1910.134 is not included. The reason why I brought up 1910.134, and the Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster, is to provide additional context for my confusion.

      • My point is: you shouldn't keep pressing people's confusion or beliefs - you should be leading them (or asking questions) that go to the correct sources. If they have sources they might lead somewhere, I suggest you drop the issues in the process that led them there. Like I said, not everyone has their sources remembered.
      • You seem to be pushing all the effort on me to find sourcing. While there is an obligation for the person asked to provide sourcing, at some point, providing sourcing yourself, with justification, might be helpful to the other party to drop the issue, or understand what sourcing may be needed.
      • As for the policy you cited, this is all for @Conyo14, who joined this conversation. You seem to be ignoring that fact when citing NOTGETTINGIT.

      For the missing POV, please see [17] and [18], which you seem to have neglected in your response. ⸺(Random)staplers 17:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

      I agree with Crossroads. This is OR. The content you want to produce is not viable. Plus, you are asking to add content that for the most part, no one agrees on the wording. Finally, you cannot claim the edits shall proceed per WP:OWN, especially since there doesn't seem to be a resolution in sight. I personally say that the wording of what's there isn't great, but what you want to include does not make it better.

      Original research includes pointing out two sources that contradict each other, or don't cite other sources, or cite the wrong sources. You may have a different discussion on that. E.g "This source says this, while this source says this" is okay. "This source says this, but doesn't cite this source in the process" is OR, not okay. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

      @Conyo14 - Yes, but under OR by editors, so long as it isn't incorporated in the article, if it leads to more reliable sources, like this one (15 above), it might be worthwhile. Of course, it would be if it was pointed out in a more respectful manner, IMO.⸺(Random)staplers 17:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion has stalled. We will go back to DRN Rule A. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Answer questions by the moderator. Address your answers to the moderator and to the community. Comment on content, not contributors. I will repeat the starting question. State concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave alone, or what you want to leave alone that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to implement contribution, with some changes (not shown in this diff):
What is done:

• First paragraph is already implemented.

Summary of what will need to be added, in addition to contribution:

• {{unbalanced}} in the efficacy section, due to this this paper on regulation, mentioned above. The linked talk page section will mention this.
• Instead of mentioning the source C's link problems in the article (currently described in parenthesis like this) and disrupting the flow, the linked talk page section will mention the linking problem.
  • In other words, I will copy the statement I created above (and collapsed) in the proposal.
• Implementation of CIDRAP news can be delayed for now.
• I'm more concerned about the flow of the lead and the Efficacy section, per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, as well as the regulation paper, while relevant to the article, being unable to be implemented to no research being conducted.
  • This is because considerations have to be made with regards to [19] and [20] noting the influence on Wikipedia on science. The missing evidence noted in the regulation paper has to be noted. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarify second bullet point in additions section.⸺(Random)staplers 19:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Late addition: The "for example" phrasing might problematic, and why people might think it is OR, despite not being OR (thread mode consolidation was my focus at the time). That will be removed in a future revision.⸺(Random)staplers 16:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Late(r) possible expansion: I had a look through Retraction Watch and found this paper with an expression of concern. News coverage on Australian ABC. In case there are concerns about non-RCT studies being perfectly done or something, this could serve as an interesting counterpoint in the "efficacy" section. This non-RCT was conducted in Australia.

Coupled with this paper on regulation above, this could be the impetus of a more extensive rewrite, which would negate the need for having to include {{unbalanced}}.⸺(Random)staplers 06:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

A late connection... I cited [21] (the one on the talk page, wondering about the lack of 1910.134) and wondered where I got it from... turns out, it's linked in the CIDRAP news article.⸺(Random)staplers 07:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Another late (and hopefully the last) expansion: The NIOSH TB guide mentioned alternative respirators, like Powered air-purifying respirators instead of disposables for use in healthcare. Maybe we shouldn't be over-focusing on disposables.

Here's some 2020-and-later era reviews I found for a revision future revision of the diff above: PAPRs: [22] [23] Elastomerics: [24] Compared to disposables: (rapid) Regulation: [25] ⸺(Random)staplers 05:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I've said what I can. Unfortunately, the content at this point is borderline OR and should not proceed. It feels like an essay or a research paper based on the content, which is not what Wikipedia is. I do know the language can be altered a bit better. Regardless of where the language falls, I shall accept the outcome based on the moderator's judgment. Conyo14 (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

:* @Conyo14 - For the record, be careful: you're not supposed to add sections yourself.⸺(Random)staplers 23:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There are concerns being expressed that one editor wants to add content that other editors think is original research. Wikipedia has a noticeboard to try to answer questions about original research, which is the Original Research Noticeboard. My experience has been that questions posted there very seldom get answered. If any editor is willing to try posting a query there, we can put this discussion on hold while seeing if there is an answer. Alternatively, there is a more active Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, which is also a reasonable place to ask about original research. I suggest that one of the editors identify what the content is that is questioned, and that one of the editors post an inquiry either at the Original Research Noticeboard or the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard. If we try ORN with no results, someone can then raise the issue that that noticeboard is inactive, but that isn't the issue here. The article is. Will someone please summarize what the original research issue is? Either someone can post an inquiry to a noticeboard, or I will post an inquiry to a noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure what Randomstaplers exactly wants to add or change at this point. Their proposal seems to keep changing, and I find their comments hard to follow. They above, under "Third statements", seemingly want to add an "unbalanced" tag indefinitely to the article, as well as a news article as though it is a MEDRS. These are clearly inappropriate. But then they seemingly walk some of this back subsequently, so who knows at this point. All I ask is that they cease (if not already) trying to add any news articles and any attempts to personally deconstruct the Cochrane review (via tag or in text), and represent sources accurately. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Randomstaplers, WP:Inaccuracy is an essay and is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. It is no sort of "decision". Again, your personal analysis of the quality of the Cochrane review is completely irrelevant here. As we've said many times before, criticism of Cochrane's conclusions by other WP:MEDRS is fine to add. If you need a quote, here it is from MEDRS: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. I'm not going to compromise on not adding personal analysis to an article, either in the text or via a tag. If you want us forcefully overruled, you can try an RfC, otherwise I don't think there's anything left to discuss. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I still don't know what the original research issue is. The edits, if they are problematic, could be sorted speedily if I was given actual, pointed, quoted criticism, instead of this hand-waving-point-to-policy. Then I could have something to work from when I'm trying to created a revised edit.

As for the way I edit, and the constant changing of what I want to change in the article... look: information does not magically come all at once, especially since this is a volunteer effort.
I make statements- and the reasonable thing to do (IMO) is to ask for sources to back them up. (I ask myself this for months, and that's how certain articles end up with lots of edits over time, and also because I know I make a lot of mistakes.)
And as one can see now, the sources/references are now coming.

If the criticism is that the way I present this information is problematic... well, in the future, please just say it. We can always strike things out and self-collapse irrelevant information.

• I personally still think the mislinked Cochrane Source for Alamani 2015 is a problem, and it was the original impetus for the refinement of the "Efficacy" and lead sections.
  If that is original research, that might be a problem- it could very well mean that editorial decision in WP:Inaccuracy could count as original research, which seems to run counter to that consensus.

• Nonetheless, if there is a need to have the above bulleted issue solved on a noticeboard before we continue, we could start with that. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that the best way to resolve the question of original research requires that I suspend the rule against editing the article. The filing editor should insert the content that they want to add to the article, or at least one of the statements that they want to add. Rather than reverting it, the other editor should then ask the original research noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard for an opinion on whether it is original research. If the question is asked at ORN, be ready not to get an answer, and then to go to NPOVN.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to think of another way to rewrite both sections this weekend, incorporating the new sources I just discovered.

By the way, just as a sanity check for myself, @Robert McClenon, how much of the article should be edited at once? Should I do one paragraph at a time, or... should I rewrite a section in my sandbox and wait for statements first before incorporating? ⸺(Random)staplers 05:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The size of the edit that I am recommending should be the edit that you want to refer to a noticeboard. Include no more in the edit than you think that the volunteers at the noticeboard can understand and respond to. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Since whatever they want to say about the Cochrane review has been the biggest sticking point, I'd suggest they focus only on whatever they want to propose that is specifically about that at this point (if anything) rather than try to rewrite multiple entire sections again. Adding/changing a bunch of stuff all together, even including stuff that is unlikely to be controversial, is confusing and creates intractable discussions.

I'd rather do an RfC than another noticeboard discussion so we get a final consensus and closure. I don't want to discuss this issue perpetually. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Since I cited Special:PermanentLink/1251723011 as the edit the initial edit I intended to make, and since most of the changes in the section "Efficacy", I'll limit myself to that section. (The changes to the lead can come later).

I've made some changes since that diff- the differences can be seen in my sandbox at Special:Diff/1251793292/1256296796.

Basically, I made some changes to up the neutrality of the language used, correct some errors in the refs after checking them, rearranging paragraphs that were not properly arranged earlier, since AFAIK, that is not the main concern regarding this edit (and I haven't yet received a pointed criticism with regards to solving article problems per Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode.)

Due to the Source C's (Cochrane's) controversy by (not cited or added in this diff) refs in source J and source P, it is placed in it's own line.

• As for the mislinks in the Cochrane Source, I've decided to relegate it to the <ref> tags- previous edits adding notes here on other articles seem to be uncontroversial. As of November 8th, the PubMed link is still linking to the wrong paper.

I've also added the relevant quote to the main ref criticizing Source C. I think that just about covers it.⸺(Random)staplers 06:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• Of course, another typo. Here's the new special:diff link: Special:Diff/1251793292/1256301578 Special:Diff/1251793292/1256306632 ⸺(Random)staplers 06:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC) ⸺(Random)staplers 07:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon - The edit has been reverted by @Bon courage. I am open to them self-reverting if necessary. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon, I have decided to obvert with the following edit summary: Obversion of revision 1256309942. Template:Recently revised makes it clear that this has been cleared by the moderator for comment. ⸺(Random)staplers 20:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  What rubbish. Making stuff up and edit warring is likely to get you blocked. Bon courage (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  • @Bon courage - Please do not address your comments to me, address them to the moderator. Strike out your comment please; if you cannot resist talking to me, please remove yourself from the DRN party list. @Robert McClenon. ⸺(Random)staplers 20:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

    Stop inventing process. The bottom line is: you need to achieve consensus for edits, and you're unlikely to do for something which poisons the well of what the WP:BESTSOURCES are saying. You can try it here, at a noticeboard, or at the article Talk page. But it need to happen for any change to stick. So far, I (and others it seems) remain unconvinced. Maybe you should drop the WP:STICK. Bon courage (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

So Randomstaplers has started editing the article again, in a problematic way. So I assume the DRN is over. There seems to be an attempt to hide the substantive changes (misrepresenting the Cochrane source) behind some gnome work afterwards. This is getting very tedious. I have reverted. I still haven't seen any concise statement of what the problem is that Staplers is trying to fix. Bon courage (talk) 08:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Randomstaplers - Stop edit-warring. My instructions about the original research were sloppy. I did not mean that you should obvert any reverted edits, but that you should ask about them at a noticeboard. Do not lecture User:Bon courage about addressing the moderator. They erased the notice of this DRN. They didn't agree to the rules, and really are an interrupter, but that does not mean that you can take on my role of lecturing them. User:Bon courage - Do you want to take part in this moderated discussion that you previously declined by erasing the notice?

I see that the article has been restored to its status quo. We will go back to DRN Rule D. Leave the article alone. My experiment in allowing editing was a failure.

User:Randomstaplers - If there is one paragraph or section that you want to add to the article, ask for an opinion as to whether it is original research at a noticeboard. Do not add it and then request permission.

User:Randomstaplers - The next time that I ask a question and ask for a concise answer, I want a concise answer, and will fail this discussion if the answer is as long as the previous answers have been. Propose one addition, and ask at a noticeboard whether it is original research.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I erased a message? Bon courage (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with this addition. This will be added at the end of source C, the Cochrane source <ref>: Verification note: As of 9 November 2024, the Aelami 2015 PubMed link does not link to the correct paper. Archive Today. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the links to a paper in wrong in a source? You might want to notify the publisher, but Wikipedia is for summarizing accepted knowledge, not for novel notes about trivial errata. Especially if the suspicion is that it's being used to poison a source. Bon courage (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Bon courage - I apologize. I see that the template is on your talk page, and that User:Randomstaplers said that you deleted it. Maybe they had two views of your talk page and added it to one view, and then didn't see it on the other view because the previous version was cached.

User:Randomstaplers - Are you questioning the reliability of a source? What exactly do you want to add to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• The source was already questioned in the article by other sources. The article itself already cites [26]. I also later found [27], which cites [28] (but which is currently a preprint).
• The mislinked Alamani 2015 is something that I found last month. I found it particularly problematic, since the mislinked paper also talks about N95s, but which did not seem to follow OSHA regulations detailed in 29 CFR 1910. If someone rushed through the references, they might miss this, as I initially did. That's why there needs to be a comment here.
• Taken in total, the sources complaining about the review, as well as the mislinked reference, this feels like something that needs to be addressed.

I've been trying to think about the best way to address this, per WP:inaccuracy - from inserting text (not great, but again, keeping all these consensus in mind is not ideal), to {{unbalanced}}, to what has been done in this edit, a small footnote in the references. This last approach I think is the best at the moment.

By the way, I looked through whether peer reviewers skipping references is a thing - it turns out it is. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/09/09/an-isolated-incident-should-reviewers-check-references/ scratches the surface, but there are more substantial papers. Ultimately, it's an annoying Wikipedia:Verifiability problem. When combined with the sources above, well, that shows you the reasons for my initial reaction on the talk page. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Source for 1910.134: OSHA video ⸺(Random)staplers 05:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears that User:Randomstaplers is questioning the reliability of sources rather than proposing specific changes to the article. If any editor wants to make any changes to the article that can be stated concisely, please state what you want to change. If any editor is questioning the reliability of a source, the Reliable Source Noticeboard is thataway. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Clarification: Should I move on from this addition to something else? Verification note: As of 9 November 2024, the Aelami 2015 PubMed link does not link to the correct paper. Archive Today ⸺(Random)staplers 06:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Robert, I think this issue might be at the root of this whole DRN, so I would appreciate some guidance on the matter. ⸺(Random)staplers 06:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Break request

I think this matter might be better handled in a future village pump. In the meantime, I need to take a mental break for reasons I described on Robert's talk page.

If no one wants to continue this DRN, I'll give you the go ahead to close it. And I'll go ahead and archive the remaining talk pages following closure. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of musicals filmed live on stage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Wolfdog (talk · contribs)
• EncreViolette (talk · contribs)
• DeputyBeagle (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User EncreViolette and I seem to be stuck (much discussed on the talk page) on what constitute reliable sources and notable sources, as well as what items (and their relevant sources) should be included or not on this kind of a list page. I think it's time for some outside and better understanding of WP guidelines--speaking for myself here. Encre has stated Every entry on a list does not have to be notable (WP:NLIST). From WP:CSC, out of the three selection criteria, the last (everything that is verifiably a member of the group) seems to fit this the most. It gives 32kb as an upper size limit for this sort of list, and this list is currently 12.52kb. I want to understand if Encre is interpreting this correctly. Also, a third user, DeputyBeagle, has earlier argued The scope of this list is too broad to add every proshot musical, so per WP:LSC we should limit it to notable proshots, or at the very least notable productions and A page from a reliable secondary source would be good - Any articles from a major source would be ideal. On 21 September, I began to remove any Takarazuka Revue and other plays that were unsourced or used sources that do not clearly meet notability (largely, primary or self-published sources from what I can tell, though they are all in Japanese, which is obviously an obstacle for me). Encre expressed being upset with my removals on 3 November.

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

Talk:List of musicals filmed live on stage

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Can you straightforwardly explain to us all the relevant WP policy or guidelines that can allow us next steps to move forward?

A list of verifiably professionally filmed stage musicals is not too broad.

If the list is limited to works that already have English Wikipedia pages, it becomes redundant. There are far too many non-English works that don't have pages even if they are notable. Also, by list rules, this seems like a list that should be open to all professional, major, verifiable entries even if they aren't notable enough for pages.

If the list is too dominated by one or another category, dividing it is a better solution than cutting information that could be useful to someone (either someone casually looking for what to watch next, or someone trying to get a picture of the industry worldwide).

(Only a small portion of the entries removed were from Takarazuka, but they do film everything, and have for decades. People interested in the topic might want to know that.)

EncreViolette (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This dispute has been going on for quite a while now. It's really about how broad we keep the criteria for inclusion. IMO it's far too broad right now to be genuinely useful as a page. Either the scope of the page should be limited, or we should agree on some notability criteria. Especially given the large amount of Takarazuka Revue productions that are part of the dispute, who as far as I can tell seem to film large swathes of their output

@Wolfdog I don't believe you've notified the involved editors of this thread. I've done so for you. TheWikiToby (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Volunteer Note - The applicable policy on reliable sources is the policy on reliable sources. If there are questions about whether a specific source is reliable, that question can best be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, whose volunteers have experience in answering questions about source reliability. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent, thanks! I've begun the relevant discussion here. Wolfdog (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Ryan T. Anderson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Marspe1 (talk · contribs)
• Ttarta (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

In debate over large content edits made to the page of Ryan T. Anderson.

I am promoting this version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_T._Anderson&oldid=1230369906

Ttarta promotes this version of the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_T._Anderson&oldid=1244307532

See the line-by-line critique of his edit that I wrote here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_T._Anderson#Line-By-Line_Critique_of_Edit_Promoted_by_Ttarta

Ttarta has threatened my account with action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marspe1#Warnings

I am newish to Wikipedia and would appreciate assistance from experienced editors. I have tried to maintain the article in ideological neutrality and I sincerely believe that I have followed Wikipedia guidelines to the best of my abilities.

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

We have engaged on the talk page with more heat than light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_T._Anderson#Line-By-Line_Critique_of_Edit_Promoted_by_Ttarta. I have added my concerns in detail to the edit he promotes. He claims that I am engaged in mere edit warring, am implementing a biased version of the article, and am in blatant violation of Wikipedia policies. I am unsure of the validity of or deny the validity of each of these claims.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Calling balls and strikes on policy violations whether by myself or Ttarta, providing advice for future engagement and editing on Wikipedia whether or not I am indeed in violation, recommendations for how we can achieve greater consensus on the article content, and any other action that will ultimately place accurate information, free from loaded language and innuendo, on the text of Ryan's page.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• DinoGrado (talk · contribs)
• IDB.S (talk · contribs)
• Obi2canibe (talk · contribs)
• Not Wlwtn (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Few users are changing the political party of former SriLankan PM Dinesh Gunawardene to his initial minor political party. but when he was appointed he was the leader of Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna which has won the 2020 Sri Lankan general election. Reliable sources suggest that he is a member of then ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna but these users insists that his initial political party MEP as his party as the PM. However for the next PM Harini Amarasuriya the major political coalition she has contested is given as her party in the next entry.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_prime_ministers_of_Sri_Lanka#Dinesh_Gunawardena_Political_party

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Specifying a consistent policy considering reliable sources to name the political party of the prime minister in this page

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Isles of Scilly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RandomIntrigue (talk · contribs)
• Uness232 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Two editors are adding unsourced material to claim that the Isles of Scilly are subtropical. I have provided well sourced material to demonstrate the Isles of Scilly are not subtropical, which is being reverted.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uness232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Isles_of_Scilly#Climate_section_(2019)

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Assess the sourced material vs the unsourced claims.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

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

Users involved

• TahaKahi (talk · contribs)
• M.Bitton (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

A long-standing unresolved issue regarding including Arabic terms in an ethnic group article, particularly involving M.Bitton and me, has persisted on the page. Despite ongoing discussions, the argument has never reached a consensus. Recently, I re-added Neo-Tifinagh to the Berbers' Wikipedia page, as it is an ethnic script. However, M.Bitton moved the Arabic term to the first section of the right sidebar, claiming this aligns with the "COMMONNAME" guideline. They also deleted the endonym term that had been present in the article for months, alleging it was added by a "Berberist."

Here are the relevant edits for those reference:

[[29]] [[30]]

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

I have opened a discussion page. but it didn't seem to have become fruitful [[31]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute resolution board can facilitate a neutral consensus on the inclusion and placement of Tamazight names in the ethnic article, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia guidelines while preventing the discussion from veering into personal conflicts.

• Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I have, they deleted it [[32]] TahaKahi (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Willow Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• The-demon-next-door (talk · contribs)
• 162 etc. (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Hi, the user 162 etc. has come onto my user talk page to discuss recent edits I made to pages involving Willow Smith (I'm not sure why they came onto my user talk page rather than the Willow Smith talk page) regarding a source on Smith's pronouns. We have thus far been unable to come up with a compromise on the verifiability of the source, or on what to do with the article with regards to reverting it back to its original state or to changing it to something that meets in the middle.

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

Discussion primarily occurred at User_talk:The-demon-next-door. Also briefly mentioned at Talk:Willow_Smith after the discussion was taken up.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

A third-party opinion on whether this source counts as verifiable and whether it should be included in the article (and if so, how) would be helpful.

See Talk:Willow Smith. Two words on an Insta bio is not sufficient verification. 162 etc. (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Titan2456 (talk · contribs)
• SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

SheriffIsInTown added a large paragraph on the May 9 riots section under the History section of PTI, talking about one court order by a judge who implicated PTI's founder Imran Khan in starting the riots. I believe it is not WP:DUE, as it is lengthy and is not a significant event in PTI's history and is backed up by only one source. I have suggested either removing it entirely or heavily trimming it down. Sheriff has argued that it is to "balance" one of PTI's claims of a false flag operation in May 9, though the thing he is trying to balance is one sentence, while he is adding a heavyweight paragraph to "balance" it which is clearly an imbalance.

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

Talk:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf#May 9 riots ATC order

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

The dispute has reached a deadlock and SheriffIsInTown is arguing that removing it is simply 'censorship', so it would request an implementation/enforcement of WP:DUE, as well as a resolution, with an action taken with consensus to fix this lengthy, imbalanced and not due paragraph.

In August, they added a one-sided and unbalanced section titled “Crackdown against PTI,” which lacked neutrality. My aim was to add balance and neutrality to that section as a whole, not just one sentence. In my view, if the section includes details of the crackdown, it should also address the reasons behind it. They seem to want to keep only the details of the crackdown while excluding the context, which I believe is an attempt to censor information. I will oppose the removal of any reliably sourced content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to act as moderator if the editors are requesting moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and agree that you recognize that this is a contentious topic because the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan is applicable to Pakistani politics. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this moderation and accept Rule D. For Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf#May 9 riots and crackdown, I want this text:

In contrast to PTI's claims that government agencies orchestrated the May 9 riots as a "false flag operation," a detailed order from Anti-Terrorism Court Judge Khalid Arshad implicated PTI's founder, Imran Khan, in orchestrating attacks on military installations, government properties, and police officials. The order revealed that Khan had instructed PTI leaders to create chaos and exert pressure for his release if arrested, as testified by two prosecution witnesses. The court order described a meeting held on 7 May 2023, where Khan allegedly directed PTI leaders to prepare for potential unrest on May 9, should he be detained. He purportedly warned through a video message of a scenario akin to Sri Lanka's unrest; if he were to be arrested, encouraging party workers to engage in what he termed a "real jihad for real freedom." The prosecution suggested that Khan orchestrated a criminal conspiracy, rallying top PTI leadership to incite actions that culminated in the attack and arson of the Jinnah House (Corp Commander House, Lahore), aiming to intimidate the government.^[1][2][3]

To be condensed into this, as it is not WP:DUE for such lengthy text in a section about PTI’s history:

In contrast to PTI's claims of a false flag operation, an order from Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) Judge Khalid Arshad implicated PTI's founder, Imran Khan, in orchestrating attacks on military installations, government properties, and police officials. The order asserted that Khan had instructed PTI leaders to create chaos and exert pressure for his release if arrested.^[1][2][3] Titan2456 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree to Rule D and recognize that this is a contentious topic because of the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. While the moderator was waiting for their response, instead of replying here, they very conveniently went to ANI against me here, I want to draw moderator's attention to that to see if it invalidates this DRN under rule D. That being said, I would not like to concede anything at this point as I already has given enough concessions during the discussion at the article talk. I see this demand regarding the removal of the presumably negative content a tantamount to an attempt to censor information. The decision to remove content will set a wrong precedent and will encourage supporters of political parties to remove negative information at will. This will have far reaching consequences. The article legnth at this point is a little over 6,000 readable prose words and there is still a room for article to safely grow up to 10,000 words. The article can further expand and contain more information. As the saying goes, no information is too much information. The content is fully supported by sources and goes into detail about the activities of the founder of party and other members which led to the crackdown. It is essential to mention that riots were pre-planned in case of arrest, and prior instructions for riots were there by the founder. The reference to Sri Lamka's unrest, the quote "real jihad for real freedom", and criminal conspiracy to attack military installations are necessary parts for the reader to understand the gravity of the situation which led to the crackdown. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of UFOs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VaudevillianScientist (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I tried to construct a timeline article primarily on the modern investigations of unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP), previously called unidentified flying objects (UFOs), because of the recent developments in the field that has led it gradually outside the shadow of controversies. Wikipedia doesn't yet have an article with such a timeline, but has articles for ufo conspiracies and hoaxes. The article was automatically assigned to the fringe topic discussion board and got into some unwelcoming discussion. The topic of uap studies should also be assigned to at least to the astronomy/aviation noticeboard for others to adjudicate on the content. I feel very much being misjudged by the numerous editors frequenting the fringe community, who are really focusing on the pre-historic (e.g. pre-2000s) aspect of the topic.

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

I tried to reason with the editors in discussion and continuously update the timeline article to steer away from fringe community topics.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By bringing in editors from other noticeboards (astronomy, aviation, physics, psychology, neuroscience, etc) that have stakes on this interdisciplinary topic. Given the developments in the past couple of years, the topic on UFOs/UAPs shouldn't be handled solely by the group of anti-fringe activists in the fringe community.

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• First Chechen War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dushnilkin (talk · contribs)
• Iask1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a process of discussing one source, the question is being decided whether to include it in the article or not, at the moment the dispute has reached an impasse, so we need a third party's opinion on this, please.

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

Talk:First Chechen War#Grodnensky's book

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

To propose a solution that will satisfy both sides, or to resolve the right side, since the dispute has reached an impasse

• Volunteer Notes - The filing editor has not yet notified the other editor on their user talk page. There are two alternatives to mediation that might be quicker. The first would be to request a Third Opinion at the Third Opinion noticeboard. The second would be to ask the volunteers at the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of a biased source. This noticeboard is still available, after proper notice is given, but you might want to consider those alternatives either first or instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zsa Zsa Gabor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• PromQueenCarrie (talk · contribs)
• Remsense (talk · contribs)
• Aybeg (talk · contribs)
• Beshogur (talk · contribs)
• Last1in (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

This has been a bone of contention on Wikipedia for fifteen years, as you can see in this archived discussion from 2009 and the revert that led to said discussion. It's never been resolved.

Gabor wrote about an affair with Ataturk in her 1960 and 1991 autobiographies. Some additional references:

• "Zsa Zsa Gabor's tell-all autobiography" (Interview). Larry King Live. CNN. November 26, 1991. Event occurs at 4:37.
• Muammar, Kaylan (2005). The Kemalists: Islamic Revival and the Fate of Secular Turkey. Prometheus Books. p. 68. ISBN 9781615928972.
• Wall, Marty; Wall, Isabella; Woodcox, Robert Bruce (2005). Chasing Rubi. Editoria Corripio. p. 3. ISBN 9780976476528.
• Bennetts, Leslie (September 6, 2007). "It's a Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World". Vanity Fair.
• Moore, Suzanne (December 19, 2016). "Zsa Zsa Gabor knew femininity was a performance. She played it perfectly". The Guardian.
• Bayard, Louis (August 19, 2019). "Were Zsa Zsa and Eva Gabor the proto-Kardashians?". The Washington Post.

A few editors are intent on removing any information about Ataturk's romance with Gabor. It's sourced content, and quite relevant to the personal life of such an important figure. I brought this to the NPOV noticeboard and was stonewalled.

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

• [33]
• [34]
• [35]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

In the past the dispute has gone unresolved due to mass unwillingness to even participate in discussion. In order for a firm consensus to finally be reached, many editors need to engage.

• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their user talk page. Also, please check whether there are any other editors who should also be notified. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - If there is an issue about the reliability as a source of Ms. Gabor's autobiography, that can be asked at the reliable source noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
• Volunteer Note - The filing editor has added two editors, but still has not notified any of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

All three have since been notified. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• [Please move or remove if this is not the right way to participate. My notes only apply to the Kemal Atatürk article; I have no problem with the info being included (with appropriate brevity to avoid UNDUE) in Zsa Zsa Gabor] Exclude -- As the nom notes, the argument over this possibly apocryphal dalliance has been ongoing for over a decade.

Sourcing: Gabor's 'tell-all autobiography' is the only primary source for this event. She claims to have been deflowered by Atatürk. All secondaries are derivative of that primary. None explore the merit of the claim. Gabor get nothing more than a brief mention in the only source about Kemal Atatürk. The others are about the 'Mad, Mad, Zsa Zsa World' [the title of one cite]. Zsa Zsa was a proto-Kardashian, so fluff pieces are arguably useful for her article. They simply are not reasonable sources on a man who had enormous impact on the modern world.

Substance: In what possible way does this illuminate Atatürk? What does the reader learn about an international leader and founder a modern state by discovering that he had a brief, consensual affair with a woman who famously quipped: When asked how many husbands she had had, she used to say: "You mean other than my own?"^[1] If the claim was that Atatürk took the virginity of, say, Rock Hudson or Rin Tin Tin, this would merit a mention; a tryst with a beautiful, famously promiscuous, female human just does not. It is wonderful gossip, great tabloid news, and cool trivia for pub night, but those are not what we're building.

I didn't fight to take it out until it again hit the Talk page. Policies, guidelines and essays are clear: The fact that this happened (a debatable statement itself) is not enough to warrant inclusion per BUTITSTRUE. This alleged tryst is not important to the subject of the article. Cheers Last1in (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to act as the moderator if at least two parties agree, and if at least two parties disagree about article content. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change.

I see two related but different questions about policies and guidelines that apply to the articles. The first is whether Gabor's autobiography is a reliable source for her account of the sexual encounter with Ataturk. That question can be asked at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. This discussion will be paused if necessary to wait for an answer from RSN. The second is whether a mention of the reported affair is undue weight in the article about Ataturk.

An editor who had not originally been listed has made a statement, and so has been added to the list of parties to this dispute.

Are there any questions about policies, or about how this discussion may be conducted? If not, my questions are whether the editors agree to the ground rules, and what changes to the article are in controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm OK with you moderating, as well as taking the discussion to the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

As for what I want to change in the articles (both Ataturk's and Gabor's), the phrasing doesn't really matter, I just want this to be acknowledged. If words like "claimed", "alleged", etc have to be used, that's fine by me. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

So tell me what does a claim that's only verified by Gabor's autobiograhpy contributes to Atatürk's relations with other 4 women that were known by everyone? I just want this to be acknowledged why? Are you Gabor? Beshogur (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It appears that there is agreement that Gabor's account stating that she had a sexual involvement with Ataturk can be included in the article on Gabor. It also appears that there is agreement that that statement should be attributed to Gabor, not in Wikivoice. Is that correct?

It appears that there is disagreement about whether Gabor's account of the affair should be mentioned at all in the article on Ataturk, both because Gabor's account should not be considered a reliable source except about herself, and because it would be undue weight. Is that correct? If so, I will post an inquiry at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

All correct. No further questions. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I have posted questions about the reliability of Gabor's account as a source about an affair between Gabor and Ataturk at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Zsa_Zsa_Gabor_and_Kemal_Ataturk and discuss there. We will resume discussion here after the volunteers at RSN have provided their opinions.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

There have been several answers at the Reliable Source Noticeboard, that are consistent that Gabor is not a reliable source except as to the fact that she says she had a sexual encounter with Ataturk. Some of the editors have said that whether the report should be included in the biography of Ataturk is not a question of reliability but of due weight. I would like each of the editors to comment on what they think should be included in the biography of Gabor, and what if anything they think should be included in the biography of Ataturk.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Genocides in history (before World War I) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs)
• The Banner (talk · contribs)
• Gawaon (talk · contribs)
• Cdjp1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The editor Cdjp1 has the Irish Famine listed as an example of a pre-WWI 'genocide' despite the fact that this is a fringe pov among academics. My position is that this topic belongs on the main Irish Famine article, and in fact there's already a detailed section there that covers the controversy quite well. Instead of participating in a dialogue on talk, this editor keeps expanding the section with obscure sources and in a way that seems to bolster the fringe view. It's been about 2 weeks since there's been any feedback and it's now clear the involved editors don't want to engage with this issue.

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

[[36]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Ideally I'd like to come to an agreement on whether or not a genocide theory that's on the academic fringe and is more political than historical belongs in a list of historical genocides. I don't think so.

This discussion became a conflict due to the harsh words from Jonathan f1, including doubting that the added historians are worthwhile.

My opinion is the same: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away.

As I have no idea why I am involved in this dispute, as it is mainly a conflict between Cdjp1 and Jonathan f1, no further comment will be forthcoming from me. The Banner talk 03:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The tone of the discussion is often enough to blow up a disagreement into a conflict. And the "minor penalty" is not so minor as portrait by Jonathan F1. But I repeat my opinion from above: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away. The Banner talk 21:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area, so I'll stand by. Gawaon (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll also notice, for what it's worth, that Jonathan f1 is permanently blocked from editing in the article namespace. Opening a dispute resolution case here might therefore be considered a case of bad faith. Gawaon (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to clarify that despite the insinuation, the addition of the great famine pre-dates my work on the article. As I detailed in the talk page, as part of my wider work updating the page with some recent notable publications, I was planning to update the section with recent literature. Jonathan highlighted some of the minor authors that have existed in the section for quite a while, while seeming to ignore the additional citations from respected scholars in the field of genocide studies where their assessment/commentary is published in RS.

As per the criteria for the series of articles on genocides in history, they detail the varying frameworks used in defining and understanding genocides, and include various instances that are discussed within the literature.

On the note of it being "politically motivated" descriptor, this argument is touched on in the section referencing Mcveigh, who highlights that at the time of his writing there had been near zero analysis of Irish history using analytical tools of genocide studies, and how the response of of previous historians who claimed the description of events in Irish history as "genocide" were responding specifically to popular claims by political groups. As has started to be shown, there has been more recent literature that analysis events in Irish history as potential cases of genocide. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For what little it's worth, I have no strong opinion on the specific inclusion of the great famine in the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

As to moving information to the great famine article, despite Jonathan's characterisation, it is based on Jonathan's suggestion that the information be moved there that it has now been moved. --Cdjp1 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

After seeing the comments left by The Banner, who's quite concerned with my tone, and Gawaon, who brings up a minor penalty I received that's got nothing to do with this article, I think it's best these two not participate in the discussion. This should be about sources and rules, not personal critiques of me. The dispute was primarily between myself and Cdjp1 anyway.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to act as moderator for discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. See Be Specific at DRN. State in detail what you want to change about what is said about the opinions of historians on whether the Irish famine is considered to be genocide. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor who is blocked from article space but is not blocked from talk space or project space is in good standing to participate in a discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree to all the rules, and I'll try to make this brief.

The section in question contains a number of scholars who lack relevant backgrounds, and should be removed on the grounds that the theory's widely rejected by historians of Britain and Ireland. Neysa King was removed from the main Irish Famine article after myself and another editor realized she wasn't a professional academic (see talk). King nevertheless acknowledges that: '"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."'[37] Mark McGowan similarly notes: ""The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."[38] Cormac O Grada: "While no academic historian continues to take the claim of genocide seriously, the issue of blame remains controversial." (p. 4 [39]). Liam Kennedy: "“In the case of the Great Famine no reputable historian believes that the British state intended the destruction of the Irish people.."[40][41]

In addition to King (who is still cited in this article), Cdjp1 cited a couple of genocide scholars (who study famines in Africa), two lawyers with no academic background in Irish history (as noted in the article on the Great Famine, but not in this article), and the lonely voice of Robbie McVeigh. Cdjp1 needs to demonstrate that this view is held by more than a tiny minority of scholars with questionable backgrounds, otherwise we are dealing with WP:Fringe. Just to reiterate my position again: Equating the Irish Famine with genocide is a fringe pov, should not be listed as an example of a pre-WWI genocide, and the recent additions Cdjp1 made to the Great Famine article in the genocide section (including linking it to the pre-WW1 genocides article) are undue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where to post a reply to Cdjp1, but I have to say something.

Please read Mark McGowan's paper which explicitly argues against genocide. McGowan: "This paper argues that it is inappropriate to affix the label of genocide on English action/inaction during the period of the Great Hunger in Ireland." (p. 88[42]). The entire point of McGowan's paper was to defend the consensus pov (that it was not a genocide), yet he is cited in the article after pro-genocide content.

McGowan's detailed paper also shows why it isn't enough to have a vaguely related background in "international law" or "famines" on continents like Africa (which is Alex de Waal's expertise). Scholars in genocide studies tend to specialize in specific areas, yet it is telling that not one of the genocide scholars cited by Cdjp1 has any background in Irish or British history. Rice and Boyle are law professors with no relevant historical background (as noted in the Irish Famine article), and Cdjp1's list is also padded with pseudo-scholars like Neysa King who isn't a professional academic of any kind (look her up).

And finally, while Cdjp1 claims to have no personal bias, one does wonder why he's citing a source he hasn't read to defend content it explicitly rejects. My own view is that this matter is important beyond this particular issue, and goes right to the heart of how meaningful some of our core policies are if they can be circumvented so easily. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I stated what is present in the article, and I never claimed not to be biased. Please engage with what is actually written, instead of arguing about things that have not been written. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

As to McGowan, that was an error grab in the quick response I provided, he is cited to support the statement that later genocide scholars have considered it genocidal. So claiming he is cited for pro-genocide content, is a misreading of where he is actually used in the articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

On what page does he say "later genocide scholars considered it genocidal"? McGowan wrote a 15 page essay (not including annotations) arguing against the genocide theory, with over 80 references. He talks about the divide between professional historians, and amateur commentators like Coogan who push these genocide theories. I believe it was you who cited McGowan with no page number except pp. 87 -104, which is the entire piece.

You should also cross out Neysa King, who is not a professional academic; Rice and Boyle, who are law professors with no background in academic history; and Alex de Waal, who's a "specialist in famines" but specifically in Africa. There are some editors on here who think that one historian is much like another, but Irish history (and British history) is a particular specialization and someone with a background in Africa simply isn't going to have the technical or textual knowledge to cover this subject accurately. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Once again, my first point is to clarify that a claim that I added something to an article is plainly false. I did not add a link from the article on the Great Famine to the Genocides in history article. Scholars cited who argue it is a genocide in the article are as follows:

• Legal scholar Charles E. Rice is detailed in an article by Mullin, James V. (2002) in the journal Eire-Ireland: Journal of Irish Studies.
• Legal scholar Francis Boyle is detailed in an article by Mullin, James V. (2002) in the journal Eire-Ireland: Journal of Irish Studies. Boyle is a specialist in international law who has been a member of legal teams presenting cases of genocide in the ICJ.
• Historian Mcveigh, Robbie (2008) article published in the Journal of Genocide Research
• King, Neysa (2009) paper in the conference collection Re-Imaging Death and Dying
• Historian McGowan, Mark G. (2017) published in the journal Genocide Studies International. Specialist in Irish Catholic history - accidentally grabbed from the references in the article.
• Genocide scholar Jacobs, Steven Leonard (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in religious history, and the religious aspect of genocides.
• Genocide scholar Conley, Bridget (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in mass atrocities and memory studies.
• Anthropologist de Waal, Alex (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in famines.

As Mcveigh points out (as is explained in the entry), while statements such as McGowan's on "virtually all" are correct, many of the arguments and historians have not engaged with genocide studies, it's tools, etc., and have nearly always denounced the assessment of potential genocide, due in part to the fact they were responding to activists and not scholars.

As previously stated, I have no strong opinion on the specific inclusion of the great famine in the list, while it is in the list I will work to make sure it is appropriately covered with relevant sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The article currently has four paragraphs on opinions as to whether the Great Irish Famine was genocide. The article clearly states that most scholars do not consider the famine to have been genocide, and a few scholars do consider it to be genocide. Please state concisely what, if anything, you want to change in the article. Please also state whether your opinion, if you want to change what is in the article, has to do with due weight, with the reliability of a source, or some other policy or guideline. Do not reply to the other editor. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The Great Famine section in the pre-WW1 genocides article should be completely removed on the grounds that most scholars don't regard it a genocide, and the few dissenting voices don't have any expertise in Irish or British history -so we're dealing with both due weight and reliability of a source. The list of sources supporting the genocide position is padded with two law professors, scholars with specializations in Africa and other continents, and one person who's not a professional academic. There's nothing stopping historians of Ireland and Britain from publishing in genocide studies journals, and in fact Mark McGowan did just that but only to refute the genocide theory. This theory is mainly political, not scholarly, and this controversy's already covered in the Great Irish Famine article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The filing editor has been blocked from article space for four years. It appears that their comments in article talk space and in project space are being ignored by other editors, which is probably what can be expected. My advice to the filing editor is either to request to be unblocked in article space, or to develop a history of productive edits in article talk space and project space to support an unblock request, or to expect to continue to be ignored.

The article currently has four paragraphs on opinions on the Great Irish Famine and opinions that the famine was genocide. One editor wants to remove the discussion of the Irish famine completely. The other editors have not commented. If there is to be further discussion, I would suggest that it be focused on trimming the discussion of the Irish famine to one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk)

If there are no further comments within about 36 hours, I will close this discussion as unresolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, and I've been meaning to make an unblock request but I only sporadically engage with Wikipedia these days and it hasn't been a priority. Editors who ignore the issues I raise in talk do so mainly for personal reasons (as we've seen here -my 'tone' is not to their liking) which says more about them than the quality of my contributions. Editors are not supposed to be using article space blocks to shoot down constructive editing suggestions in talk, but this is their go-to method of avoiding any engagement with content they may not want changed.

The "opinions" that the Irish Famine was "genocide" come mainly from people who are not subject-matter experts. Genocide studies isn't an academic department -it's a program, and the scholars who participate in it have tenure in other departments and use their expertise to study genocides related to their specialization. There isn't a single Irish or British historian of distinction who believes the Irish Famine was a genocide, so there isn't any reason to list a fake genocide among a list of actual genocides, unless you believe that any accusation of genocide, however naive, belongs in the list (and if not, why's the Irish case so exceptional?). The Irish Famine article already covers this controversy and makes it clear that the consensus pov is against this position.

But I do agree it's time to shut this discussion down. As expected, it's going nowhere.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Talk:Jani Lauzon#Identity Fraud (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AceSevenFive (talk · contribs)
• 135.12.162.209 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am writing to request a dispute resolution regarding an ongoing issue with the editing of Jani Lauzon's Wikipedia page. The issue centers around the claim that Lauzon is Métis, a statement that is both factually incorrect and damaging. After thorough research and analysis of credible sources, it is clear that Jani Lauzon is not Métis, and she herself has admitted to this fact. I am requesting that the term “Métis” be removed from her Wikipedia page to accurately reflect this reality.

However, my attempts to engage in a constructive discussion with *acesevenfire* have been met with resistance, bias, and harmful behaviors that I believe warrant intervention.

The factual evidence proving that Jani Lauzon is not Métis nor Indigenous.

Wikipedia’s core policies, particularly those on verifiability and neutrality, are being asked of in this resolution

1. Factual Evidence that Jani Lauzon is Not Métis or Indigenous

According to the article published in The Walrus (2024), Lauzon's claim to Indigenous ancestry has been thoroughly questioned. It is established that Lauzon's familial background does not trace to any recognized Métis or Indigenous community. The article explicitly states that her assertion of Indigenous identity is not supported by reliable genealogical or community-based evidence(sovereign indigenous) Lauzon herself has admitted that her previous claims to being Métis were incorrect, and she has clarified that those statements were made when she was uncertain of her ancestry. This admission was noted in an interview with The Walrusand is also reflected in the correction on her own website, where she no longer identifies as Métis. These corrections, alongside genealogical records and the findings of reputable journalists, directly contradict the claim that Lauzon is Métis. Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) clearly states that only reliable, publish

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

I have asked open discussion in the process to getting edit made, and was told to open a talk page regarding so followed that instruction. The editor in this talk has not be open to my edit requests so far. This is the step I am taking now, (in part because some of the editors language has been racially harmful and i no longer feel safe proceeding in the talk without another measure in place) and because the change request complies with wiki standards and i don’t know how else to go about it.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I’m not very educated in wikis policies and processes, I have made a valid wiki request in compliance with wikis policies, I would like the edit be made. or support in navigating the procedure in ensuring that it can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.162.209 (talk • contribs)

I have two main concerns with chronicling the accusations of Lauzon being a "Pretendian" as absolute fact: 1. The only reporting on it that I've seen derives from a single article in The Walrus, which didn't provide the records that supposedly back the claim that she isn't Métis. I've been informed that they're available on Ancestry (and I assume that's where The Walrus got them from), but I'm not sure if that would be a reliable source, and it seems improper to record things based on evidence not presented in our citations.

2. "Mixed settler and Indigenous heritage" is fundamentally what being Métis is. This self-identification is not meaningfully distinct from self-identifying as Métis; I suspect it was changed on her website in an attempt to mitigate the criticism. (I place no judgment on whether this claim is accurate; the Walrus article didn't evaluate her mother's heritage, only her father's, and the Walrus article didn't claim that she's lying outright about being Indigenous at all.)

I also note that someone on Reddit attempted to invoke WP:MEATPUPPET to get supporters for their side: [43]. I don't believe it was the IP user that's counterparty here, but I think it's necessary to note for a full account of what's occurred here.

I think the article as it currently stands (describing her as "Canadian" in the lede and leaving the Métis-related categories intact) is a fair splitting of the difference until we have more information from Lauzon. She's stated on her website that she intends to speak in greater detail "soon", so we can revisit once that happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceSevenFive (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Jani lauzon has an extensive history of claiming indigenous ancestry through her father’s side exclusively. She has stated her mother’s ancestry as non indigenous. The walrus is a credible news source that has verified ancestry whether they chose to disclose those public ally or not.

The definition you provided doesn’t define the Métis who are a distinct nation, with language, culture and a birth place of origin. They are often wrongly described as mixed, but that is not accurate. There nation began in the red river valley and Métis citenzens are descendants of those people. There is much information on the unique heritage and belonging of the Métis. Jean telliet is a good start. Jani herself in the article states she is not Métis, you can infer reasons behind this all you like but it is a fact, by her own admission not Métis. This is my request to remove Métis. We’re not having a debate about redefining Métis that is not what’s being asked or necessary. The article is a relatable source on the matter, your opinions or guess on what is Métis are not.

Your response is just gatekeeping change and not responding to my request. The fact was clearly presented. Removing Métis is a valid request in alignment with wiki policy. 135.12.162.209 (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

* Close as Not here. Now. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon — Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Reclining. And abstraining. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon

• This article had some issues. Myself and Pigsonthewing went in and I think resolved the major problems, which were that the article wasn't using sources right, and that it was stating her ethnicity in the lead on WikiVoice, which is not something we usually do. No one has yet expressed discontent with our revised version, so if that sticks, I think there isn't really a dispute. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I thank User:CaptainEek and User:Pigsonthewing for mediating in advance. If there are no responses, or if the only responses are agreement, I will close this case in about 48 hours. If either editor will wants moderated discussion, please read WP:DRN Rule D, and the policy on biographies of living persons and the ArbCom case on editing biographies of living persons. Then please state that you agree to the rules and you want moderated discussion. If so, please also state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If you agree with the resolution, you don't need to post anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Now you can close this as resolved. And way way quicker than I thought. Also send the two a reminder about how to resolve disputes in the future. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:11, 30 November 2024 (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.