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:Four Noble Truths (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs)
• Robertinventor (talk · contribs)
• Ms Sarah Welch (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Robertinventor thinks that the Four Noble Truths article relies too much on scholarly sources; he thinks that these scholarly sources are mistaken on the four truths; he thinks that "traditional pov's" are excluded; and he thinks that this gives a wrong impression of the four truths. His proposal is to split-off an article based on scholarly sources, and retain the main article for "traditional pov's", which in his opinion are best preserved in this version of 10 october 2014; I think that this is contrary to WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:CONCENSUS.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Endless discussion at the talkpage; several requests for topic-bans, one of which was admitted.

How do you think we can help?

Helping Robert clarify his arguments; help him formulate concrete proposals for textual changes (Robert does not want to edit the article himself).

I believe the reason for this DRN is that I objected[1] when @Ms Sarah Welch: removed my POV tag[2][3] from the Four Noble Truths. Please note that this was preceded by WP:TPOs by @Joshua Jonathan: who deleted my first post in several months from the talk page[4], and then when @Farang Rak Tham: reverted [5], by @Ms Sarah Welch: who then collapsed it[6]. This was followed by another attempt to get me topic banned by JJ, which lead @Softlavender: to warn him about trumping up a non-issue, and that if he persisted, she would request a boomerang, for his WP:TPO[7][8][9].

In my view we have two WP:SUBPOVs here. To demonstrates this, and the impossibility of consensus editing, see: evidence from editing history. Sutra tradition editors have given up attempting to edit now except for the Anatta article. They make occasional edit attempts there, but these are reverted by JJ etc.

There are few active editors remaining in the topic area with the SUBPOV of sutra tradition Buddhism. My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from readers, including previously active editors, and invite discussion. So, what I propose is to add POV tags to the four core articles Four Noble Truths, Karma in Buddhism, Anatta and Nirvana. I would like to leave the tags in place for at least several months to get some discussion going.

My current proposal is to separate out the SUBPOVs. This is already done in the religion topic area, for instance, Resurrection of Jesus has four versions according to WP:SUBPOVs. The idea is to use the current mature articles and the ones from before JJ's non consensus major rewrites in 2014 as starting points. I had some hope that JJ etc would agree to this, but we haven't achieved consensus. However I can still present it as one idea for the POV discussions.

Here is evidence that the western academics themselves recognize the two SUBPOVs. Here is a summary of some of the differences in the SUBPOVs.

My only wish is to add those POV tags.

@Ms Sarah Welch: The POV tags would of course explain what is POV about the articles. When you removed the tag, someone had previously edited it to remove its link to the section on the talk page where I summarized the POV issues. This is the section it originally linked to Short summary of the issues with this article. I would use a "SUBPOV" tag if such exists but can't find one. But an article which is SUBPOV, if it is not balanced by the presence of another article with the other SUBPOV becomes POV. Hope that is clearer now.

@Ms Sarah Welch: the cite to beyondthenet.net is a quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi, which the article itself cites to him. Bhikkhu Bodhi is a highly respected WP:RS in sutra tradition Buddhism. It is of course possible for even a mature article to have some unnoticed cites that are less than WP:RS. But that's not one of them, at least as far as the author is concerned, so long as one accepts Therevadhan scholar Bhikkhus as WP:RS for Therevadhan Buddhism. It would of course be reasonable to ask for the original source for that quote. But that is surely just a minor issue that would have been reasonable to raise on the talk page. It's not a reason for a major non consensus rewrite of the whole thing, that you are unsure of the provenance of a single quote on the page.

@Ms Sarah Welch: I can understand that if one is immersed in the views of western academics, this article may not seem to be a POV at all but to be NPOV. But it's only NPOV within the topic of western academic Buddhism, and doesn't represent the views of sutra tradition Buddhists. After all, why do you think we tried so hard to get @Joshua Jonathan: to revert his edits? If you can't see that we have a different SUBPOV, can you not see at least that we think there is a difference of SUBPOV? And why do you think Carol Anderson's "Basic Buddhism" makes no mention of her views in "Pain and its Ending" if both represent the same SUBPOV?

Do you think that "Basic Buddhism" and "Pain and its Ending" represent the same SUBPOV?

@Winged Blades of Godric: First, I'd use a SUBPOV tag if there is one. Suppose that you were a Muslim or a Jew, and felt that Resurrection of Jesus was POV because it doesn't mention the Islamic or Jewish views on the matter, and there were no articles yet presenting it from these perspectives - I think you'd add a POV tag but you wouldn't expect Muslim or Jewish editors to be able to work in consensus with Christians to make it NPOV. We tried that here and it doesn't work. But that doesn't make it NPOV. So what else can I do? If you have suggestions do say. We do need to attract editors from the other SUBPOV to the project and - maybe they will have other solutions. Also this idea that it can only be solved by two separate articles is just a proposal. if I add a POV tag then perhaps other sutra Buddhists can find a way to make a NPOV version of it, in collaboration with @Joshua Jonathan: when @Dorje108: and I were unable to do so - I don't know. And it is just my own view that such an article would be confusing - maybe they find a way to do it that is not confusing, and easy to read?

On Walpola Rahula he is one of many WP:RS in this topic area. However he was particularly notable, his book is perhaps the most famous one on Therevadhan Buddhism, it covers the four truths in great detail, and he spanned both the Eastern and Western scholarship being trained in both with a PhD at a western university, and working as a professor in a Western university from the 1960s to his death. Also, his book on Therevadhan Buddhism covers core teachings common to all the Buddhist sutra traditions because many of the Pali Canon sutras are common to them all. The 2014 article has numerous cites, and presents this SUBPOV throughout. [10]. For several more cites on the third truth of cessation, as a truth that is realized in this life, not at death, see the section Third truth: cessation of dukkha of the previous mature article. The cites used there are all WP:RS for this SUBPOV. See also the section: Experiental knowledge

@Winged Blades of Godric: I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but to hopefully help a little, I've just added three new sections to show the POV slant of the Four Noble Truths article towards the WP:SUBPOV of western academic Buddhism. I could give many other examples of this nature, indeed just about all sections in all four articles are POV like this. See POV sections of the article. Any questions be sure to say.

@Winged Blades of Godric: I've just edited Example 2 Historical Development with some information about the authors on the POV of authenticity (which JJ has now moved to a new section Pali Canon#Attribution according to Theravadins), and also added a new section About Religious Sources which quotes from the 2008 discussion on the talk page that lead to the current guidelines on Religious Sources.

@Winged Blades of Godric: Oh, I'm not talking about a few scholars who might have unusual ideas. We are talking here about the best sources there are, the most knowledgeable most reputable scholars on the Buddhist sutras. When I said that JJ says that the western scholars "note" but never the sutra tradition scholars, I didn't mean this was an evil ploy on his part. It just was an example of the SUBPOV of the article, that throughout it is written from the POV of western scholars who make observations about the Buddhist scholars SUBPOV mainly to make points that support their own SUBPOV.

My basic argument here is simply that these articles are POV and so need to have WP:POV tags. Try comparing

• The present version[11], with the
• previous version[12]

Is it not clear that they are presenting different ideas and use different sources? Anyway I've done my best. If it is not clear that they are different SUBPOV's, I'm not sure what else to say.

Can we not have the POV tags in place to permit readers of the articles to say whether they think they are POV? There are two of us, myself and @Dorje108: who say they are POV. If we could leave them tagged for a while, we can see what other comments we get.

Saying my comments are OR because I present the views of my faith there, is a bit like saying that someone's views are OR if they say that an article doesn't represent their Christian beliefs. There's surely nothing wrong in saying "This article doesn't represent the beliefs of my faith"?

@Winged Blades of Godric: Sorry to have given the impression that @Joshua Jonathan: is trying to sway the reader by using "states that" and "notes that". Have just made that a bit clearer, it now reads.

"As usual JJ uses "notes that", and "states that" to indicate editorial approval. Note, I'm not saying that this is intentional, as a way to sway the reader. I just take it as an indication that it is written from the western academic SUBPOV."

See Example 2 Historical Development

@Winged Blades of Godric: And yes, I edited Pali Canon a while back to add some extra references on the spectrum of views on authenticity. I added the Bhikkhu Sujato and Prayudh Payutto cites for the view of authenticity. I also added the Carol Anderson cite for the view of inauthenticity though for some reason @Joshua Jonathan: has now removed it.

However I can't even add a POV tag to Four Noble Truths without it getting reverted, and made subject to a DRN. And @Dorje108: of course did an attempt to revert during his major edit, and JJ just reverted the revert. He knows about these Therevadhan views on the authenticity of the Pali Canon - he has just now edited the Pali Canon page to move them [13]. I've also mentioned them to him many times in the talk page discussions. In his view they are not WP:RS for the article, because they are by Bhikkhus in the Therevadhan tradition, if I understand right. While he doesn't seem to mind them being used in the Pali Canon article. In any case this is just one section. Just about every single section on the page is WP:POV.

@Robert McClenon: Yes that's exactly what I'm saying.

"As noted, Christianity is presented primarily as it is seen by Christians. Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity are discussed, but are not the primary way that Christianity is presented. Buddhism should be presented primarily in terms of what Buddhist scholars interpret as the teachings of Gautama Buddha, not what non-Buddhist Western scholars say about the teachings of the Buddha."

That's my view and that's what these articles are not doing. I've been clumsy in explaining it but I guarantee that any sutra tradition Buddhist looking at those articles would not only find them POV but find them almost unrecognizable as Buddhism.

I respect Richard Gombrich as a scholar. He is a man of integrity and he is entitled to his views which he also says brings him some peace of mind. But his views and those of the other western academic Buddhists are a different SUBPOV. A minority one too in terms of numbers. You have millions of sutra tradition Buddhists and I'd be surprised if there are as more than a few thousand with the views of western academic Buddhism. And some like Carol Anderson have feet in both camps with her book on Basic Buddhism expressing sutra tradition Buddhism.

So yes, that's my basic point. Why should the main articles on Buddhist central ideas here in wikipedia express the SUBPOV of western academic Buddhism? When @Joshua Jonathan: made his non consensus major rewrite of the articles - he made it clear by his actions that in his view their ideas are so different from the views of sutra tradition Buddhists that the entire article has to be rewritten to take account of them, even against the protest of the sutra tradition Buddhists who tried to stop him. Yet now he tells us that his articles represent our SUBPOV. How can it? Surely just his actions are enough to show that this is a distinct SUBPOV?

I would support articles on the SUBPOV of the western academics which could be almost identical to Joshua Jonathan's articles. They would be like articles on the "Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity" indeed. And for some articles like these core sutras, the western academic views are so complex and detailed and extensive, reinterpreting just about every detail of the Buddhist teachings on the matter, that they couldn't be covered in a single section but need an entire article to themselves.

In my view, that's the situation with the western academic ideas on Four Noble Truths, Anatta, Nirvana and Karma in Buddhism. The western academic ideas don't differ in just a few details but they have build up a whole complex system of ideas which they call Buddhism, but is a different SUBPOV from sutra tradition Buddhism. They identify their own SUBPOVs as what they think Buddha taught before the sutras were recorded.

@Joshua Jonathan:. Yes the sutra teachings are of course presented in the context of rebirth and the idea that when you realize cessation, you also no longer need to take rebirth again. But that's missing the point.

The Western academics you cite make it clear that total cessation of dukkha only happens at death. Indeed, at times it seems almost like a kind of "multi rebirth suicide", with the aim to cease existing and you no longer suffer because you no longer exist. In other cases it seems like the idea is a heavenly state after death that they are describing, that it's a way to get out of this world to somewhere else.

That is not how Buddhists think about it at all in the sutra traditions. It's not just an end to rebirth. It's an end to the dukkha of rebirth, the unsatisfactoriness and suffering associated with it, yes. But also to the dukkha of sickness, old age, and death.

And this cessation, it's explained clearly in multiple sources, is something that Buddha realized as a young man of 30, not at death. The cites on rebirth are about what happens once cessation is realized. But the four truths are expressed as a path to end dukkha, not a path to end rebirth.

And Buddha didn't teach us that we have to end dukkha by ending rebirth. It would have been easy for him to say that if that was his path, but he didn't. Instead he taught much more directly, that the "summum bonum" can be realized in this very life. None of your cites on rebirth contradict this, which is the fundamental distinction between the sutra tradition Buddhism and the SUBPOV of these western academics, who often are of the view that the most you can realize in this lifetime is to have somewhat less pain, and to balance sorrow with happiness, and to face your death with equanimity, according ot the article [14] "According to Ambedkar, total cessation of suffering is an illusion; yet, the Buddhist Middle Path aims at the reduction of suffering and the maximalisation of happiness, balancing both sorrow and happiness" to quote from your article.

Which could indeed be comforting, it may be a beneficial path for some. It just is not sutra tradition Buddhism. But throughout your article you present this and related views as what the Buddhist teachings are really about, and though you briefly touch on the views of sutra tradition Buddhists in a few sentences here and there, always the Western Buddhists get the last word in every section.

This is not a minority or fringe view. Walpola Rahula is one of the most respected scholars in the Therevadhan traditions, and other WP:RS on Buddhism say the same.

It is also a matter of quantity. Yes you have many cites, and occasional complete sentences about sutra tradition Buddhism, but the views of sutra tradition Buddhists are not presented in much detail. Only a small percentage of the words on the page are devoted to their views and nearly all the text presents intricate details of the western academic views. While the old version goes into the sutra tradition views on Nirvana in great detail multiple times, and of course barely mentions western academic views, so is weighted in the other direction. Neither is NPOV if they are the only articles on the topic. But both are presumably reasonably NPOV within their own SUBPOV, and if we had both articles that would provide the balance needed for NPOV, in my view as one possible solution, and that could be a basis for working on them further.

Indeed the articles as they are now could present the western academic views much more clearly if they were somewhat more focused on them, in my view. As it is, you get some idea of the Western academic views, but not that clearly, because it is mainly presented as "what is wrong with sutra tradition Buddhism" rather than going into much detail about what positively the western academic Buddhists think Buddha's message really was and how they think he intended it to be practiced. And it gives almost no idea at all about sutra tradition views. Putting them into separate SUBPOV articles I think would lead to greater clarity for both.

@Joshua Jonathan: I am afraid this is a poorly framed DRN request. FWIW, on April 21, an admin RegentsPark requested me to participate and help out on Four Noble Truths article.

My dispute with RW is the POV tag, which is procedural. RW tagged it, but did not identify specific issues with evidence verifiable in reliable sources ("I don't like it" or "I like it" is not a good reason to tag). I did not remove the tag immediately, and asked for specific clarification. I gave RW time, and waited for a response. RW promised a response. Later RW declined to address my request for explanation and specifics for the tag. I then explained why I am removing the tag, then removed the tag. If RW wants the tag back, he must explain the specific issue(s) with evidence that is verifiable in reliable source(s). Alleging that the article does not include traditional views or scholarly views, without specific evidence, is inappropriate. It is also false, the article has for a long time include both for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Robert Walker

• @Robertinventor: The "POV" tag is not meant to serve "My hope is that by adding a POV tag we can get comments from (...) and invite discussion." That tag is meant to help identify and fix specific NPOV issues. This is done by listing on the talk page the specific issue, with evidence of a missing or misrepresented POV from at least one RS with page numbers (more here). To invite discussion, try an RfC. You are welcome to create new SUBPOV articles in sandboxes and try to build support that they be made live. No POV tag necessary. I urge you reread Carol Anderson, Richard Gombrich, etc; because both I and @Farang Rak Tham already made a comment with concerns about what you claim about these scholars and the reality, last week. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• RW, Sorry, your reply is not clear to me. I don't know what you mean by SUBPOV in 4NT context. You give no specifics. Nor RS page numbers. It is Kafkaesque, "I say you are guilty [of POV], but won't tell you why or what evidence I have". Tag it so we can discuss what 4NT article or Joshua Jonathan could be guilty of!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• RW, Once again, please note the DRN volunteer's comment: we can't sole source anything, that would not be NPOV. Similarly, JJ and the article can't ignore Walpola Rahula either. We don't. The article already explains Rahula's POV over a dozen times, and many more times with others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• RW, you misunderstand Richard Gombrich, as @Farang Rak Tham already explained last week. The Buddhists scholars in Asia and West are saying the same thing. They do describe the views on rebirth, 4NT etc of millions of practicing Buddhists of various traditions. You champion the pre-2014 version of the article. But it cited blogs / non-WP:RS websites / WP:SPS such as beyondthenet.net, dharmanet blogs, etc. Blogs are not RS on "what millions of sutra Buddhists understand 4NT" to be, nor do they claim they represent the views of millions (some of those blogs/SPS are also by Westerners!). You allege Traditional Buddhists and Gombrich/ Bronkhorst/ Williams/ Harvey/ Rahula/ Keown say very different things. They do not. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• @RW, So once again you allege something.... this time, that beyondthenet.net is by Bhikkhu Bodhi, or what is on the webpage of a dead/under construction non-RS website is by Bodhi. But you never present evidence with your allegations, do you? DRN Volunteers: can you request RW to stop making allegations without evidence from reliable sources? If RW really believes something is from Bodhi, he should find a book published by a reputable publisher and give page numbers. FWIW, I checked google books, google scholar, library resources behind paywalls and I am unable to verify what RW alleges. The old pre-2014 version suffers with this systematic problem, and a few others. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Winged Blades and DRN volunteers

• Winged Blades: a technical question... how are we supposed to respond to the new allegations from RW linked to a wall of text on another page? For example, it isn't true that Rahula's views are not included in this section. Rahula is covered in para 3 and 4. RW's allegation that "So - there is no way Walpola Rahula's work can be used to support Spiro's idea that somehow the search for worldly happiness is wrong" is also a misreading of what the section is actually stating. The section is merely summarizing, in para 4, the different views of Rahula and Spiro (JJ: good work there!). RW: I feel you must focus on something specific, so DRN volunteers can try to help. Right now, I see a gap between your allegations and the evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Winged Blades: Thank you. Your suggestions make sense, and I am willing to accept them in the spirit of constructive next steps. @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: you? any further clarifications desired? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Robert McClenon

• RM: Thank you. My positions: [1] The POV tag on the 4NT article would be inappropriate, in light of the diversity of sources it cites and the different significant views it already summarizes. [2] If specific issues are identified, with source and page numbers, RW or anyone is welcome to edit the article, or we can work collaboratively on it through the talk page; so far, even after one of the largest walls of text and TL/DR case I have ever seen on wikipedia, I find no persuasive case here. [3] I do not mind RW drafting one or more SUBPOVs. JJ is right that RW seems to be arguing for POVFORK, but I accept RW's freedom to draft something somewhere without disrupting wikipedia's live articles (I guess JJ wouldn't mind too). [4] The article has over 200 cites, predominant number of which are Buddhist scholars. Some are practicing Buddhists (Theravada, Mahayana, Tibetan traditions), some are not, as well as Buddhists who left Buddhism (e.g. Paul Williams). But these are all widely considered mainstream scholarship and Buddhist scholars. [5] RW's "no rebirth and Buddhism" POV is fringe and isn't Buddhist scholarship. Rahula, e.g., accepts rebirth-samsara-dukkha-nirvana has been an integral part of Buddhism, so do all others. The article cannot be rewritten from a fringe POV. FWIW, this section of 4NT article does discuss the Western versus Traditional view on 4NT in Buddhism, with numerous WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment- Greetings friends: @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Joshua Jonathan:, @Robertinventor: . I will try to be brief. Walpola Rahula is cited often in many texts on Buddhism (both by Western academics and Buddhist scholars) because he is such a highly respected scholar and because he provides such a clear presentation of the traditional Buddhist POV. So it’s not that RW is relying on a single source; it’s more that Walpola Rahula is one of the more clear presentations of the traditional Buddhist POV. (When I was working on this article, I consulted many sources, but I often found the Rahula stated most clearly what many sources were saying.) I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist "assert" that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are “biased”, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are “unbiased.” Therefore, by this logic, the Dalai Lama (for example) as a source should be regarded carefully (as biased), but a Western scholar is not biased. Therefore a presentation or POV by a Western scholar should be given more weight. What I think RW is suggesting (and I agree with this suggestion) is that where there are different points of view in presentation of a topic (whether among different Western academics, or between Western academics and Buddhist scholars), that both POVs should be presented. What I encountered repeatedly in my discussions with JJ (from years ago) and what I have observed in recent discussion, is that when encountered with different POVs, both Sarah and JJ insist that one POV is valid (not biased), and the other POV is not valid (biased). Another problem I observed was that JJ seemed to be trying to write a definitive article on the Four Noble Truths. In other words, he seems to be taking on the role of an academic himself, in deciding what is correct and what is not correct interpretation of Buddhist teachings. Apologies for the length of this post. I am sure everyone involved has the best intentions, and we all have our own personal biases. Also, this is a vast topic, so it is not easy to summarize. But in brief I agree with RW’s point that the current article is not written from a neutral POV (for reasons stated above). I hope this helps. Best regards Dorje108 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• (note to volunteers: should this part be moved up, as Dorje108 is not a DRN volunteer?); @Dorje108: It is always a good idea to include diffs with accusations and when you cast aspersions.

You accuse, "I think the mistake that both JJ and Sarah are making is that they continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased."

"Continually insist" was a poor choice of words. No offense intended. More comments below. Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I checked the Talk:Four Noble Truths, its archives, and the talk page of Project:Buddhism. I fail to see the support for your accusation. If you would kindly provide several diffs, to support your JJ and I "continually insist" language, we can examine the context and clarify any misunderstandings and associated dispute. For the second part, you too fail to provide a specific WP:RS, with page numbers, that states a POV different than the various POVs already summarized in the article. Without specifics and evidence, allegations cannot be cross examined with appropriate context and perspective. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings @Ms Sarah Welch: - I just read a comment of yours regarding Walpola Rahula as a source on a talk page; but I am having trouble finding the talk page again. (I think it was a sub-page of Robert.) I am looking for the page now. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Dorje108: Please take your time. It would be kind of you, and decent, if you would strike the "poor choice of words" containing phrases or sentences you are now unable to support with diffs, even if you choose not to apologize and you choose not to promise that you will never accuse someone of "continually insisting of something" without evidence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sarah: Here is an example of what I was referring to. This is your recent statement on Robert’s talk page: “Rahula's interpretations and expositions in English are one of many, but Rahula is involved. In more ways that just theology. Rahula's or such authors need to be carefully considered given the COI/Primary. Even Theravadins disagree with him, leave aside Mahayana / Tibetans / Zen / etc. So, what should wikipedia do!? The best we can do is what many editors and admins have been suggesting to you... rely on multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars who are one or two steps away from the numerous translations and interpretations of Suttas out there. ” Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robertinventor&diff=prev&oldid=776575916 - So here you are contrasting “Rahula and such authors” who need to be “carefully considered” vs. “well respected, highly cited scholars”. To me this is an example of bias against Buddhist scholars who were not trained in the West. Rahula happens to be a “well respected, highly cited scholar” who was trained in Sri Lanka. Dorje108 (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope you understand the word "bias" means "prejudice, usually unfair". The above does not support your absurd allegation, "continually insist that Rahula and other Buddhist scholars (or scholars who happen to be Buddhists) are biased, but that Western academic (who are not Buddhists) are unbiased". It explicitly states, Rahula needs to be carefully considered, as well as those in multiple WP:RS by well respected, highly cited scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, I am not acting as the moderator, and am not a principal party, but am exercising my right as an editor to comment. I haven't read the detailed history. I tried to read the statement by User:Robertinventor and found it to be too long, difficult to read. However, if I understand it, I think that he may be right about one thing. That is that Buddhism should be primarily presented as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources. I am not a Buddhist; I am a Christian. As noted, Christianity is presented primarily as it is seen by Christians. Jewish, Muslim, secular humanist, and Buddhist views of Christianity are discussed, but are not the primary way that Christianity is presented. Buddhism should be presented primarily in terms of what Buddhist scholars interpret as the teachings of Gautama Buddha, not what non-Buddhist Western scholars say about the teachings of the Buddha. The only real difference is that Buddhist teachings are based primarily on what the Buddha taught during his long ministry, while Christian teachings are based primarily on what was expounded about his teachings shortly after his short ministry. There are many Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources, just as there are many Christian scholars who qualify as secondary sources. Maybe that isn't what is in dispute. If so, then the editors need to clarify the issue. Other than that, the statements by Robert Walker are too long, difficult to read. Maybe User:Joshua Jonathan and User:Ms Sarah Welch can at least state concisely what their positions are. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

This case may not be appropriate for WP:DRN because it is not a content dispute as such. Rather it is a dispute on how the RS and NPOV policies apply to religion articles, or even whether they should apply at all. WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN noticeboards would be better venues to raise such issues. My understanding (having participated in both RSN and NPOVN) is that there are no special policies for religions. The normal criteria of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY apply. The adherents of a religion discussing their understanding of their own religion would constitute PRIMARY sources. If they are notable writers, their views can be summarised with WP:In-text attribution. However, the articles cannot be based on their understanding. Like all topics, Wikipedia aims to summarise SECONDARY sources, and religions are no exception. RI's idea of creating separate articles, one based on SECONDARY sources and on based on PRIMARY sources, is not permitted by Wikipedia policies, because they amount WP:POV forks of each other. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Note to participants: Please read User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules and ensure that you comply to the rules. Yashovardhan (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Filer note Robert will need more time than 24 hours: "I've got a lot on here, may not check in for a while. Things get easier here middle of next week for me. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)" diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Volunteer reply Fair enough. I'd want Ms Sarah Welch to file her opening summary above or state if she doesn't wish to participate in the discussion. She's given 24 hours from my last notice to do so. Robert is given 72 hours to file a statement above. Yashovardhan (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Yashovardhan: Please be fair as a volunteer, and not order around giving one side 24 hours, the other 72 hours. User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN rules is your own personal page. Did you create these rules on your own? Do you have a link to "wikipedia community agreed" DRN guidelines for DRN volunteers, and content editors? If you wish to mediate in this matter and thereby contribute to improving wikipedia, I urge you to review the edit history of the last 1000 edits of the talk/article pages, read the archives 2, 3 and 4, as well as the current talk page. It is a wall of text, but it will give you the context of who the disputing parties really are, and what the issues have been. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Withdrawn As per doubts raised by Ms Sarah Welch, I withdraw from this case with all due respect to all participants. I'll post on the talk page for another volunteer to handle the case. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer response to Sarah @Ms Sarah Welch:

1. firstly, there exists no compiled set of rules for DRN. The rules are roughly scattered around the notice board top and other places linked. I'd gone through and compiled all these points into my user space for the ease of disputing editors.
2. secondly, I won't go through 1000 edits just to know what kind of person you are. I'm neither required nor supposed to do so.
3. lastly, you and the filer both had asked me to provide extra leeway to Robert which I did. You had been served proper notices and were online to receive and reply to those. This, giving you any extra leeway was not necessary.

I've withdrawn from this case anyway and another volunteer will take over. Thank you! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment--I am taking over as the moderator.Winged Blades ^Godric 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer comment--Both the parties are hereby allotted a stipulated time of 72 hrs. to reasonably summarize/alter their opinion or to decline participation.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment-I see both the parties have clarified their stand.And am currently looking on the matter.At the same time,I will request you to not reply each-other back unless I ask someone to clarify his/her position.Thanks!Winged Blades ^Godric 03:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment-@Robertinventor:--A POV tag is not meant to get comments from readers and invite discussion.We have WP:RFC for that.Primarily if your views could be summarised(??) as that currently present in User:Robertinventor/Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal,I am afraid that is not a very good piece of policy-based writing.I may be wrong but I think your points are mainly derived from a lone souce- Walpola Rahula.Anyway, can you please provide a list of references that suport your point of view.I seem to have missed that.ThaWinged Blades ^Godric 03:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--Regrets for being off about a day.I am currently looking into this.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--I would advice all of you to kindly refrain from engaging with each other here.And please don't reply in other's sections.Winged Blades ^Godric 15:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer comment--I have to regretably say, the evidences against the accusations in User:Robertinventor/DRN Evidence and supplementary information#POV sections of the article look far too much.I am sorry if I am a bit harsh but my observation goes as follows:--

• That each and every phrase/idea has been quoted to the proponent and nothing is stated in WP's voice looks good to me and not some evil editorial ploy.Furthermore in the Theravadan section Rahula has been already quoted once.
• Somewhere down the line I find you stating-- why sutra tradition Buddhists find these articles POV--that's a pretty non-sense argument at it's best.Avoid invoking elements of own WP:POV and mixing them with some WP:OR.
• If you want the article to cover the scape only from the viewpoints of Rahula and a few like-minded scholars, you could be thinking on the wrong lines.
• At Four_Noble_Truths#Historical_development you are permitted to add a contrary view-point by the Theravadian scholars.(may-be in a line or two.)
• On the point of WP:SUBPOV and forking the branches, that seems like a good idea.I believe, launching an RFC and seeking the opinion of the un-involved editorial community at large is probably the best way out on the issue.
• As a side-note, please try to be as concise as possible..That you want to include more non-Western views is not an unreasonable demand. Unfortunately, the fact is that walls of text don't help always and the length and sheer volume of your posts makes it impossible to figure out what exactly you're seeking. Winged Blades ^Godric 15:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer comment--At the same time, Ms Sara Welch and Joshua Jonathan is advised that per this RFC and Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Advice by subject area#Religious sources --Rahula and Bhikkhu Bodhi may be considered WP:RS except if tdiscusssses matters concerning its personal connection with the subject matter.And I don't primarily see any bane to opoose RI so strongly in adding a few Buddhist sources to make and back up a few traditional claims/inferences in the article qwith relevance to WP:WEIGHT.But while I say this,I admit Rahula's views are fairly present in the article.Hence,WP:WEIGHT!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by JJ: @Winged Blades of Godric: thank you for your concise comments. I don't object to using Buddhist sources an sich; as a matter of fact, I myself added several quotes by and references to Walpola Rahula, Bhikkhu Bodhi, and Thanissaro Bhikkhu; and also quotes from the sutras.

What I do object to is the idea that those Buddhist sources stand in strong contrast to the scholarly sources; they don't. Robert thinks that the release of dukkha is the sole goal of the Buddhist path, and that the end of rebirth is not a/the goal. He thinks that "ending rebirth" is a western scholarly re-interpretation, despite more than a dozen references + quotes (section "ending rebirth, note "Moksha", note "samudaya", note "Samsara", note "Nirodha"), from both scholarly sources and Buddhist sources, which say that the Buddhist "goal" implies both. To compare:

• Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta [15]: "But as soon as this [...] knowledge & vision concerning these four noble truths [...] was truly pure, then I did claim to have directly awakened to the right self-awakening [...] Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'"
• Bhikkhu Bodhi (2011), The Noble Eightfold Path: Way to the End of Suffering, p.10: "[the] elimination of craving culminates not only in the extinction of sorrow, anguish and distress, but in the unconditioned freedom of nibbana, which is won with the ending of reapeated rebirth."^[1]
• Keown (2009), Buddhism, p.65: "The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to put an end to suffering and rebirth."

Robert is persistent on this personal pov of him; his proposal for a pov-fork is to split off all the scholarly statements and info into a separate article, and revert the main article back to his preferred version. That's not an option.

Yet, you propose to do an RfC on forking "the branches"; given the above, what do you mean with "the branches"? A main article, giving an overview (compare Jesus, which gives "an overview of all perspectives"), and a subsidiary article with specific Theravada views (compare Jesus in Christianity)? Or something different (compare Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus)? A fork with the sole aim to present Robert's personal pov would not be a subpov, but a povfork. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by JJ to Robert McClenon @Robert McClenon: I see your point here, but I do not fully agree with you. We do not "[present] Buddhism [...] primarily [...] as it is seen by Buddhist scholars who qualify as secondary sources"; we use secondary sources to present Buddhism as it seen by Budhists; in this, we do not restrict the sources to Buddhist scholars alone. The prime question is: do those sources give a reliable presentation? In addition, we also present scholarly studies on the history of Buddhism. After all, present views from within a religion can be different from past views; we do not exclude such a topic if there are no (reliable) sources by Buddhist scholars. To compare: for an article on the history of Christianity, we do not restrict ourselves to Christian historians, nor present only present-day views from Christians.

NB: Anderson and Batchelor are Buddhists; so are Bhikkhu Bodhi and Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Making a distinction between Buddhist and non-Buddhist scholars won't solve Robert's problem with the ending of rebirth. See Bhikkhu Bodhi on rebirth and Thanissaro Bhikkhu on rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Reply by JJ to Robert Walker: the phrase "notes that" can easily be changed into "according to"; no objection to that, of course. The Four Noble Truths article already contains the line "While the Theravada-tradition holds the sutras to be the complete and accurate records of the teachings and sayings of the Buddha". This line was added by me, without a source; it can be referenced with and expanded on with your authors 9(though I would prefer a scholarly source, but alas; Prayudh Payutto seems to be as orthodox and indigenous as can be). See Talk:Pāli Canon#Carole Anderson for the "some reason" why I removed it: a painful misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what the source says. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:40, 29 April 2017 (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

• User talk:Bbb23#Edits to The Mary Tyler Moore Show page were reverted.3B I disagree (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Msr69er (talk · contribs)
• Bbb23 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I made edits to a section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mary_Tyler_Moore_Show#Production with the editor citing WP:UNDUE. I noted my disagreement on the editor's talk page and on the talk page of the article. I also added an expert needed template to the beginning of the section, which was also reverted. I left a response indicating that I would refrain from any further edits to the article, and that such an experience was negatively impacting my experience on Wikipedia. I can understand the need for proper protocol, but such blatant deletions of good faith efforts to improve articles detract from user experience.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

None at the moment.

How do you think we can help?

Provide a third-party opinion on 1) the validity/correctness of my efforts to improve the article (was I correct? incorrect? what should I have done differently?) and 2) editor's efforts to maintain protocol and order.

Volunteer comment: Msr69er, have you considered WP:3O? That may be a better place for what you requested. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 20:22, 2 May 2017 (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:Big Brother Canada (season 5)#Wrapping (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VietPride10 (talk · contribs)
• Bgc7676 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The use of nowrap template to fix line breaks.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Going on their talk page and trying to communicate with no response.

How do you think we can help?

Give a definitive ruling, on wheter or not nowrap template should be used.

•  Volunteer note: There has been some discussion on the talk page and the two editors have been advised to go for Dispute resolution. The filer must notify the other editor about this DRN case on their talk page. Alternatively, the template {{DRN-notice}} could be used for this purpose. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Is this a yes/no question? If so, this noticeboard may not be the best forum to resolve the issue. This forum attempts to facilitate compromise. If the issue is a simple yes/no question involving only two editors, third opinion would provide a way to get the opinion, although it is not binding. A Request for Comments is a binding method to resolve a dispute. This case can continue here, but it may be a waste of time if the case isn't one where compromise is the objective. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2017 (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:Doping in Russia (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Xx236 (talk · contribs)
• Crossswords (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Crossswords adds Doping in the United States into See also without any explanation. There is no similarity between the USA money-driven doping and Russian state doping. It's a typical Soviet/Russian And you are lynching Negroes tactics, which deoan't make the page better.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I don't know how resolve the dispute

How do you think we can help?

To remove Doping in the United States from See also.

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:Katyn massacre (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Xx236 (talk · contribs)
• Crossswords (talk · contribs)
• Yopie (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

User:Crossswords adds links to pages about POW camps of an another war. In my opinion he follows the Anti-Katyn Russian propaganda. He doesn't quote any sources supporting his edits. Crosswords doesn't use the Talk page, he puts his comments into his Talk page (and removes it before I read them) or as Edit summary.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I don't know which steps are possible.

How do you think we can help?

To remove unrelated links.

First of all, its Crossswords with 3S. Xx236 there was no dispute i did exactly what you asked for here and here. You asked that i should ad the other prison camps too which i did here, including the one of polish prisoners. You were the one who kept harassing me for no reason and delete all the prisons.

I delete comments on my talk page if they are hostile in nature which was the case of you since day 1. More examples of hostility and accusations 1 and insults 2.

And you dont need and you shouldnt ad certifications for the See also category.--Crossswords (talk) 07:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - Discussion on the talk page has been minimal. Please discuss the links further on the talk page as a precondition to moderated discussion here. If there is no discussion on the talk page, this case will be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - One editor is listed above who has not edited or discussed recently. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - It isn't clear whether this is the right forum for this dispute. Since the inclusion of the links appears to be a yes-no question, and the purpose of this noticeboard is to facilitate compromise, either a third opinion or a Request for Comments may be more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2017 (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:Asian Americans (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• IceBrotherhood (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The person who operates the Wikipedia page Asian Americans repeatedly ignores the sources I try to put up for the head paragraph of the article about many groups of Asian Americans are disadvantaged and have low levels of income and education. Yet, they repeatedly either deletes the articles and or twists them. They don't reply to any of my trying to dispute them over the inaccuracy of the portrayals of the information he sources. As the information isn't objective as it tends to group all Asian American groups of different socioeconomic backgrounds together and not an individual basis. There is this tendency by this user to continually wishing to portray Asian Americans are a perfect group with no issues and it seems as though they lack objectivity.

I don't know who this person is because the user doesn't engage me at all.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Nothing else because I don't know the ways to.

How do you think we can help?

Many sources are reliable and have proven that the image of the model minority is false.

I wish for you guys to help the user see more objectively the irresponsibility he could cause by perpetuating the image and rejecting the sources that show the issues many Asian Americans groups face. To remove non objective content. Lastly to penalise the user for not engaging and or taking into account the sources given and just ignoring/deleting them.

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

• American English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• LakeKayak (talk · contribs)
• Zero077 (talk · contribs)
• Dudejets89 (talk · contribs)
• Bulbbulb29054 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

It began with User:Zero077 removing some content in the section Inland North. Although at first, I objected to the removal. However, he then explained that he felt what the section should be about. I have attempted to instate a tag {{expand section}}. However, he insisted the section did not need to be expanded. I then changed tags to {{Incomplete}}. However, he removed the tag without reason. I am left to conclude that this boils down to someone just likes it.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to change tags, thinking that the new tag would be more appropriate. I was still met with opposition.

How do you think we can help?

I think a moderator could determine whether or not a tag is either necessary or appropriate. If not, then the tag can be removed.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for responses from the other editors. Participation in discussion here is voluntary but encouraged. A volunteer moderator can accept this case if the editors agree to moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I think it was determined that the issue be resolved on the article's talk page. And therefore, I think this discussion can be closed.LakeKayak (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2017 (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:Common Cause#Requesting the addition of new section under activities: .22Ethics.22 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Coh848en (talk · contribs)
• It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There's an ongoing issue with describing Common Cause with the appropriate descriptor that has not been resolved on the Common Cause Talk Page.

On 4/24/17 AllinthePhrasing wrote in the "Introductory descriptor" section that "anyone seeking to remove this descriptor should first participate on this talk page and provide their justification." However, those justifications were made before and were made again by me (Coh848en) on 4/29/17 and others earlier, so I'm hoping an experienced editor could weigh in to resolve this so descriptors don't have to be redone and undone in the future as they have been in the past.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I made an editor assistance request on May 5 and never heard back, then AllinthePhrasing made another edit to the page on 5/10 (without consultation on the TalkPage as he/she suggested) and now I think it's worse then when I wrote the above.

How do you think we can help?

Review all edits and come up with a fair and consistent solution.

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - The other editor has been notified. Do the editors want moderated dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - If there are no comments by editors within 24 hours, this case will be closed due to lack of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2017 (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

• FC Barcelona B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Dongkyu Kim (talk · contribs)
• Josepolivares (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Recently I checked the current squad and updated it on the page FC Barcelona B. However, a user repeatedly undo this.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I left a comment on his talk page User_talk:Josepolivares.

How do you think we can help?

Please check the official homepage (https://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/barca-b/staff/players) to see who is right.

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

• Bill Nye Saves the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Anarcho-authoritarian (talk · contribs)
• Morty C-137 (talk · contribs)
• Scarpy (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Morty C-137 is repeatedly removing a reliably sourced negative review of this television program. The review comes from The Independent, which is a reliable source. First, Morty says The Independent is a tabloid/fake news website (shows WP:COMPETENCE is an issue), then twists my words to say that it stopped being reliable when it went web-only, and now says that the review is invalid because it mentions other reviews from user-generated websites, although the quoted opinion was from The Independent alone.

This show has been pilloried by the alt-right but this doesn't mean guilt by association when a reliable source like The Independent has a negative opinion of it. No user on the talk page agrees with Morty and they've all concluded that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is at play.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have discussed with Morty that The Independent is a reliable source, but he has instead twisted my words and keeps moving the goalposts to stop this reliable review being included on the page.

How do you think we can help?

It is already established that The Independent is a reliable source but there is an edit warrior who is not playing by the rules. I want somebody who has not been involved in this dispute to make a final decision because this edit war is becoming long and boring.

• Volunteer note - Some of the editors who have been involved are not listed. The discussion has been minimal. The filing party is requested to include all of the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer I am KDS4444 and I am willing to take a shot at helping you resolve this conflict. First, it looks like only the filing party has made an entry on this page— I am going to assume that the other parties were notified and have so far chosen not to respond. Second, let me emphasize that I have no authority to issue any kind of "final judgement" or to mete out penalties for lack of cooperation— my role here is to see if I can help everyone come to some kind of compromise, if that is possible. If it turns out that it is not, then those involved are welcome to take this concern to another venue where someone who does have that authority may decide to become involved. Third, without having read over the talk page, my initial knee-jerk sense of things is that a negative critical review, provided it comes from a reliable source, is the kind of thing which is certainly allowed in a Wikipedia article, provided that it is given its WP:DUE WEIGHT. Fourth, now that this dispute is four days old, can anyone tell me if they still care about it? Is it still ongoing or has it calmed down? I will now have a look at the talk page and see what I can see, but those are my four initial responses to this dispute. KDS4444 (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• As I go: User:Milonica should have been notified and included in this discussion. I don't see this on his talk page anywhere. Any ideas why not?? Also: User:SamHolt6? KDS4444 (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• More thoughts, as I go: it looks like some of the editors involved here have very brief Wikipedia edit histories— the most controversial person involved has a total of 68. This is going to weigh somewhat heavily as I sort through the opinions of those involved. Newbies, while always welcome, are often best off deferring to more experienced editors in disputes such as this one... And 12,000 edits is a lot more than 68. KDS4444 (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• Last thought for now: User:Anarcho-authoritarian, I get the sense you may not get the participation here you are looking for. This is okay: if editors choose not to involve themselves in the dispute resolution process, then they are also choosing to exclude themselves from the outcomes of that process, and if they have been duly notified, then they may not claim ignorance. This means that if they continue to engage in disruptive editing, they are likely to face more rapidly escalating warnings and an eventual block than they might have otherwise. Please don't be disappointed if no one else comes to the table— everything will all even itself out in the end! Okay, I am done for now. Will await some response from other editors before I invest more of my own time in this discussion. KDS4444 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• I noticed my name pop up here. I have left a message on the article talk page basically saying I am losing interest in fighting for a source. As much as I disagree with its inclusion, it is still a source so I have to abide by that. My reversions were simply based on what limited information was available on the talk page regarding the Independent being reliable, which as has been mentioned, was never really brought to a consensus. Ultimately I hope something is figured out. I would like to step back from this discussion if possible, I've already been accused of edit warring by someone with 68 edits, so, I don't really feel like continuing to argue this. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 07:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Attrition is never a fun way to do anything— User:Milonica, you are welcome to bow out at any time, I just wanted to be sure you knew that this discussion was happening and that you had a chance to participate if you wanted to do so. No worries, mate! KDS4444 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
• Let me now point out that since this discussion was opened five days ago, Morty C-137 (talk · contribs) has not chosen to leave a statement nor participate in the discussion. Without participation of more than one person, we don't exactly have a discussion, all we have is a monologue. I get the sense that Morty may have come to the conclusion that he has been acting inappropriately, and that participating in this dialogue would only make this more evident. If I do not hear from him soon, I am going to mark this discussion as "closed" and "resolved" under the premise that there is no ongoing dispute, though I will not take credit for resolving it. On another note, let me say that I have now read over the article itself in its entirety (which is brief) and say that the way it stands following Morty C-137's last edit looks fine to me: the issue appears to be the public reception of the sexuality skit, which (according to the long list of sources I looked at) did not go over that well with the public— not because it wasn't "scientific" (which, as a song about sex, it really was not) but because it was perceived as distasteful in its presentation of known scientific facts. I don't see any need to emphasize the tall flirty wood sprite business— the article states that the skit was cringe-worthy, and that serves the purpose at hand. KDS4444 (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like Morty was, for some reason, never notified of this discussion, despite the ping. I have now interacted with him on my userpage, and he has made clear that he isn't interested in getting involved, despite my encouragement to do so. The last edit to the article was Morty's decision to remove the word "political" from the lead, a move which seems fair to me. I understand some mud has been slung, but that aside, do we still have a dispute about the article's current content? Because I get the feeling that perhaps we do not, and without Morty's involvement, I'd like to wrap this up. If the situation devolves again, the issue can either be brought back here or to the administrator's noticeboard, WP:ANI. KDS4444 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, the filing party never left notices on the talk pages of some relevant editors, including Morty's. I interpreted his silence as disregarding the notice, when in fact he never got one. Bad form. KDS4444 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not resolved. One of the editors involved in this issue (but strangely never invited to this discussion), is adding additional sources to the article that may not be from a reliable source, i.e. it is an opinion piece that is not worded as such. We need some kind of resolution as this apparently isnt going to stop any time soon. I have not reverted the edits Pepe made at this time but I have left my opinion on the talk page. The section was fine when it simply included the Independent. I do not agree with the inclusion of the Washington Examiner reference. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is labelled as an opinion piece.Pepe.is.great (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I see that, and that is much better thank you, but I still do not see how it justifies its inclusion in this post? I could be completely wrong but I have never seen this many problems with an article in the eleven years I have been on Wikipedia. I am trying to remain neutral as much as possible but your sources are problematic. If it was an actual newspaper, tv station, reliable source other than an online newspaper that said this, I would not have a problem. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 19:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Well it was adding another point of view to the reactions to include all views, including those of whom I disagree with.Pepe.is.great (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that, but it doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be there. I will allow another editor to make that call since I am not in the mood to start reverting again. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Time for me to enter the fray... only to jump out of it. I fully agree with ḾỊḼʘɴίcả that the Washington Examiner source may not be necessary to the article, and I believe that if any editor wants to make time to remove or rework it, they could do so. I will stand by it as a verifiable source in some context per the consensus reached before [16], but only in certain situations. If any further sources are cited that do not add to the article (with emphasis on opinion pieces), they should be reverted immediately lest an editing arms race break out on the page between the left and the right. Hopefully this will not be necessary as the debate around the show dies down. I am worried that two editors, Pepe.is.great (talk) and Morty C-137 (talk), are escalating their conflict, an occurrence that benefits no one. Hopefully we can resolve this situation with civility and haste. If not, I am always open for hearing differing opinions.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I added the article as it seems to be quite a notable reception to the show.Pepe.is.great (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This entire thing is a farce, a fraud. I was not informed of it until KDS4444 started messaging me and he has been nothing but belligerent and passive-aggressive about it, leaving "it's a threat but I claim it's not a threat" messages pointed at me repeatedly and now making good on them by making harassing "reports" in other places. It's ridiculous and I see NO reason to think that either the filer who deliberately did not notify anyone that this "dispute resolution" discussion even existed, nor the "moderator" KDS4444 who has tried to bully me into participation and now has launched false attacks against me since I would not participate under duress, are acting in good faith. I will not be saying one word more here until I get an apology from BOTH of them. Morty C-137 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Even if I apologized— which I have now, repeatedly— you wouldn't be able to hear me. You chose to engage in an edit war with another editor, and I chose to report it— not as "punishment" for not coming to this table but because it is the kind of behavior that makes dispute resolution harder and because you are not listening to me. If you don't want to say a single word, then please don't! Walk away— you are not needed here (or wait, are you now going to accuse me of dismissing you just when you were about to become genuinely involved, and call me a bully for that as well? Lord! It feels like getting an electric shock no matter what I try to do with you, and the "zapping" is making me numb, which is not a good trait for someone who had hopes of trying to resolve this dispute). Morty, you have made clear to me that sometimes there are people who will always cast the acts of others in the worst possible light. You have received a warning so that you will hopefully not continue to engage in 3RR behavior. You earned that warning. It didn't come from me, I merely pointed out the behavior. If you wish not to participate, all I can tell you is don't participate. My nerves are not up for more of what you have doled out so far. You are a very new editor in a very large world after all, and you are allowed a certain number of mistakes when starting out. I hope you can learn from them. But I will not be accused of bullying you to opt to take advantage of chance to participate in this discussion. I went out of my way to invite you. An invitation is not a threat, and there were no consequences for not accepting it, though you will probably choose to see it otherwise. I can't help that. You are beyond my skill set. Your demands for apologies from everyone as a precondition for entering the conversation is completely backward and only sounds like screeching. Please participate. Please don't participate. It is all the same now. It isn't important. KDS4444 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer comment--@Morty C-137:--Please comment on content, not on the behaviour of other co-participants or moderator.And a bout of WP:AGF will be surely helpful!Winged Blades ^Godric 17:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer comment--There is not much point in continuing the discussion given that the two prime parties to the dispute seem to be at loggerheads with one-another and one of the parties is esp. extremely reluctant to enter into discussion.So, I am closing this with some liberty as to what appears to me as the best compromising-course for the time-being.

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:National liberalism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Rupert loup (talk · contribs)
• Checco (talk · contribs)
• E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
• Autospark (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is disagreement on if National liberalism is an ideology and what the sources say. The article is currently in an AfD, also unsourced material is trying to be pushed in the article. Still there is no consensus about what national liberalism is. Comments would be apreciated.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

We tried to resolved in the talk page and in the AfD, but there is a strong difference in opinions and doesn't seem to change with the presentation of arguments.

How do you think we can help?

We need the opinions of other editors. The involvement of other opinions in the talk page and in the AfD will help to achieve consensus.

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:Oath Keepers (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• VQuakr (talk · contribs)
• DrFleischman (talk · contribs)
• Doug Weller (talk · contribs)
• MelanieN (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The opening line in the article on the Oath Keepers states that they are a "far-right" organization, as those it was a statement of undisputed fact, which it clearly is not. Not only do I dispute it, so do at least 3 other people who posted on the talk page before me. I recommend that the opening line state "Oath Keepers is anAmerican organization associated with the patriot movement and militia movement." The fact the ADL and SPLC describes them as right wing is in the second paragraph, and I am not suggesting that those references be removed. I just believe that for accuracy and neutrality, it should not be stated as though it were an undisputed fact. Mary Wilkes (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

discussed it at length on the Talk Page

How do you think we can help?

Weigh in on the subject

I am willing to participate here. This seems to be a straightforward application of our core policy of WP:NPOV, however. The description is sourced and sourceable to a much wider variety of reliable material than the two listed by Mary Wilkes above. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing to add that hasn't been said. The consensus on the talk page is that Mary's proposed edits are contrary to our verifiability, neutrality, and no original research policies. Simply put, Mary's proposed edits are not supported by the reliable sources. If she manages to find reliable sources that support her proposed edits, then the consensus might change. Until that time, I don't know what we can do beyond further educating Mary on our core policies. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Fleischman and now Melanie. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm pinging a few additional involved editors: User:VQuakr, User:DrFleischman, User:Neutrality. --MelanieN (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

My comment: since May 2 this new user has been determined to make the Oath Keepers article more reflective of the group's own self-identification and her own observations from having met some of its members. When she first started saying this, I actually agreed with her that the lede at that time emphasized negative descriptions too much, and I reorganized it to put more of the group's own self-description (including "nonpartisan") in the lede paragraph. That is the version in the article now. Since then she has tried very hard at the talk page to remove the descriptions "far right" and "anti-government" from the lede sentence, and to say "nonpartisan" instead. At first she mostly presented Original Research and non-neutral sources, but she is new and she is learning; she did find a few Reliable Sources that say "nonpartisan".

Two people agreed to say "nonpartisan" in Wikipedia's voice: DrFleischman (but they may have withdrawn their support after finding a contrary source) and me (as long as we also say "far right"; to me the terms are not contradictory since I think of "partisan" as meaning actually affiliated with a political party; I realize that is a narrower description than the others are using). Update: I am withdrawing my support for "nonpartisan", see below.

Three people opposed it: Doug Weller, VQuakr, Neutrality (and possibly now also DrFleischman). --MelanieN (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Update: The report cited by DrFleischman, and other similar reports of their members doing "poll monitoring" to prevent "voter fraud" exactly as requested by the Republican candidate for president, caused me to rethink. Here is the Oath Keeper's own description of their poll watching efforts;[17] the "problems" it aims to prevent are entirely from a partisan Republican standpoint. I hereby withdraw my support for "nonpartisan". --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply to User:Seraphim System: you keep talking about veterans, but the organization's own publicity and description of itself focuses at least as much on current and former peace officers and first responders. Both veterans and peace officers pledge to recommit to their oath to support and defend the constitution. The examples of specific things they are told to watch out for / orders they will refuse to carry out are examples of far-right paranoia and conspiracy theories - "unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial."[18] I don't think those conspiracy theories came from Ron Paul. --MelanieN (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of sources being provided to say it's not right-wing, or to counter the reliable sources. If there's good-quality, reliable sources, at least approaching the level of the ones that say it's a right-wing organization, then, yes, that's a genuine dispute. But given the lack of any such evidence being provided, there is no legitimate cause of dispute. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Thank you for your comments here. If you're involved in the dispute, please add your name to the users involved list above and move your summary to a section titled summary of dispute by XYZ. You're however free to add your comments and follow the case without being a party as well. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Volunteer note: There has been considerable discussion on the talk page. Filing party must notify all users involved on their talk pages. There's a template : {{DRN-notice}} available optionally for this task. Yashovardhan (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The filing party is a brand new user. I will take care of notifying people on their talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. I assumed it was not necessary to notify the filing party or myself. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - I have corrected the spellings of editor names. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I have not been involved with the discussion on talk, but it seems like part of the normalizing of Bush under Trump described here. The Oathkeepers are described as non-partisan but libertarian-leaning in this article. The organization started around the time Ron Paul was running for president. Now, some news organizations have decided (for reasons that remain unclear) that the organization was part of a racist anti-Obama backlash movement of "disgruntled veterans" that put Trump in the oval office. At least one Oathkeeper has left the organization in protest recently (2015). So, there is some complexity here, the organization seems to have evolved over time. That can't be easily summed up with a label like "far-right." Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• ADD here they are described as "a decentralized group composed of individuals with wide-ranging conservative views" - another source describing the organization as "broad group of citizens" with different motivations. And another saying the organization is "many things to many people" and Media reports have characterized the group as right-wing and deeply conspiratorial in outlook, but that doesn’t quite get at the complex forces and anxieties driving it. Oath Keepers take inspiration from both the far right and the far left. Members preach the gospel of the Constitution, but also don the mask of Guy Fawkes, the fabled Englishman executed in 1606 for plotting to kill King James I. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• @MelanieN: They were also among the veterans who demanded roll call on the Convention floor. Jim Ayala is on the board of directors, he is a founding member, a Convention delegate and Ron Paul supporter. The fact that some members of the organization supported the Republican candidate, while other did not supports the many sources that use the term "non-partisan" Nevermind, this is the 2012 election where they were more involved with the Ron Paul campaign. The media has never been that great on covering Ron Paul, this was covered extensively back in 2011, so it's not surprising that they have also chosen to selectively recast libertarianism as "far-right extremism" - hopefully better sources will be available for this in the future. It seems like a case of WP:RECENT (just compare the organizational history section to the rest of the article - most of the content starts covering activities since 2014, and ignores the history from 2009-2014) Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
• One more note here - this organization is not veteran only. There are many police officers involved as well (for this reason characterizing them as an extremist organization that may be involved with acts of domestic terrorism is an extraordinary claim, and two biased sources plus a few media reports parroting them should not be enough for a claim like this.) Further, the organization was founded at a time when the veteran community in this country was in crisis. Material is difficult to source, because the press coverage was so minimal it is embarrassing. Illegal orders were discussed a lot at the time. I can't speak for the veterans beyond that. But the ADL's tone is disrespectful and outrageous. I have seen long discussions in ARBPIA arguing that HRW and Amnesty International are not good sources because of they have an alleged anti-semitic bias, and those sources present copious amounts of hard facts and statistics in every report. The ADL comments are little more then personal ad hominem attacks questioning veterans sanity, mental competence and smearing them without any backing up anything they have said with facts, reasons or evidence. It's unfortunate that the complexity of this organization is so poorly understood, even by major advocacy groups like the ADL and the SPLC. Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I don't understand - are you saying that warrantless searches and the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants are conspiracy theories? - An interesting fact about searches, most of them are warrantless. Ever since Terry v. Ohio established a probable cause exception. What the constitution says is, "No warrants shall issue, except upon probably cause..." - I had a professor in college who wrote that on the board because he thought every single word was important. But ever since Terry it is, in effect, only enforced for home searches. This is considered an "exception" to the warrant requirement by academic and legal sources, but it is not in the Constitution. And yes, libertarians consistently raise issues like this, despite derogatory comments about being tin-foil hat wearing loons. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know whether the editors actually want moderated discussion, but I will try. Please read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules. I don't know anything about the organization, and will leave it up to you to explain to me what the issues are. Is the primary issue one of how to label the organization in the lede, or something else? Will each editor please summarize their issues in one or two paragraphs? Be civil and concise; comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Oathkeepers is an organization that was founded by supporters of Ron Paul in 2009. They have been described by various media sources as "libertarian leaning" - Steve Rhodes, one of the founders in an interview saying he does not advocate violence or overthrow of the government, and that "the entire point of Oath Keepers is to advocate nonviolence." Does WP:BLP apply to quotes like this one from Mark Pitcavage: "heavily armed extremists with a conspiratorial and anti-government mindset looking for potential showdowns with the government".

The second issue is the use of "far right" - following the link will show our article is about traditional far right movements, which are generally authoritarian. While the organization is self-described as non-partisan, numerous sources describe them as libertarian, and the organization was founded by libertarians. Right wing libertarianism has its own article. This wapo articles states that Oath Keepers combine elements from left and right ideologies. The economist quotes the SLPC classifying them as a "patriot" group. I can find more sources if they are needed. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment Thank you for undertaking to moderate this. Yes, all the issues raised by Mary Wilkes have involved the description of the organization in the lede sentence. It currently says "far right" and anti-government", with sources. The specific issue she has brought here is whether to remove "far-right". Earlier she tried to replace it with the term "nonpartisan", but that did not have consensus and has since been pretty much demolished by the evidence that the group took overtly pro-Republican actions in the 2016 election. Now she proposes replacing "far right" and "anti-government' with simply "American" - a proposal I don't think she ever raised on the talk page. My position is that "far right" and "anti-government" should remain in the lede sentence. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. The reporting party has not been online since May 11. I posted a note on her talk page requesting her to participate in this discussion. I don't see how this can be moderated without her participation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I generally agree that there is ample sourcing available to support the description "far-right" in WP's voice in the first sentence. I think it is worth noting (in this discussion, not the article lead) that the overall assessment of the organization in secondary sources has crystallized over time so more recent descriptions should carry more weight in my opinion. See for example the following quote from the SPLC:

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:Ethereum#Contentious editing (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Aliensyntax (talk · contribs)
• David_Gerard (talk · contribs)
• Warzuckerberg22 (talk · contribs)
• ClareTheSharer (talk · contribs)
• 129.15.41.148 (talk · contribs)
• Jtbobwaysf (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I'm having a dispute with an uncooperative editor about the content of the lead on the Ethereum article. I have provided an extensive explanation of my standpoint on the issue, but he refuses to discuss it further. He does not seem to want to engage in a rational dialogue about these concerns.

Quite the opposite, he is taking the position that 4-1 users are in support of the edit, when in truth only two other users have stepped in to say something. As can be seen from the talk page these 2 other users made a single comment, said very little, and did not respond to my POV. As it stands, there was one other user who had supported my counter-revision in the edit history, but no comments other than my own have been made on my end of the talk page. So technically, the conflict is 3-2 or 3-1 depending on what should most naturally constitute support in this instance.

The editor has at this point asserted consensus on this basis, even though he, along with the 2 other commentors, have made practically no effort to take my concerns seriously and engage in discussion. He has revised the lead paragraph and reintroduced the edit, even though the page had just recently been protected for an edit conflict and very little rational discussion had taken place.

I undid this edit and informed the user that Wikipedia was not a democracy. I told him he had no right to assume consensus and should respectfully explain himself on the talk page. I don't believe a fair and reasonable consensus has been reached on this issue as very little argumentation has in fact been presented to support the opposing POV of the warring editors. Finally, I think the editor in question has a very long history of contentious and malicious editing on this article. I do not believe he is acting in good faith and can provide further evidence on this point.

I would appreciate some form of intervention here. Thank you.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've done everything in my power on the main article and talk page to this point. I've exhausted all options at my disposal to this point. I'm hoping the dispute resolution process can make things right.

How do you think we can help?

A neutral intervention to reiterate the policy guidelines would be helpful. I suspect the process of mediation itself would encourage the other editors to properly express their reasoning. I also think it would be helpful for the page to be in a longer-term protected status to prevent further contentious editing.

Aliensyntax insists on repeatedly removing all mention of The DAO and Ethereum Classic from the article lede, on the basis that it is mentioned lower in the article (it's been shoved into a section titled "criticism", which is in itself inappropriate for history). Multiple editors have added it, he keeps removing it.

I believe this is inappropriate on the basis that, per WP:LEDE, the intro section should constitute a complete short article in itself, and The DAO achieved widespread mainstream press and caused a fork of the chain and breaking of the smart contract promise of immutability, which was discussed in RSes at length, so not mentioning them is excluding relevant information. It's one of the most important events in the history of Ethereum, and there's lots of RSes concerning it.

When I noted it was 4-1 against him, this was after also reiterating my points above; this is misrepresented by Aliensyntax in his summary of the dispute.

Aliensyntax's reasons for wanting to exclude Ethereum Classic are, per the talk page, his belief that it is immoral and mentioning it would blacken the good name of Ethereum:

there is consistent and pervasive illicit behavior and manipulation with respect to Ethereum Classic. The Ethereum Classic community is responsible for enabling the theft of millions

(there's several paragraphs more of this)

Of course, this is not a Wikipedia criterion - we document reprehensible people at length if they are relevant and in RSes, and his claims above are not documented in RSes present in the article. However, he wants to exclude Ethereum Classic from the lead contingent on his RS-less critique being added to the article:

There is no legitimate reason to mention Ethereum Classic without also mentioning these other relevant details.

I'm pretty sure that's not how our sourcing policies work.

He also advocates a WP:POVFORK:

Even better would be to reassign this content to the Ethereum Classic article itself or possibly a completely separate article.

Again, we don't do POV forks.

While I don't question his sincerity, I do believe he is slipping into advocacy rather than documentation. Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs.

He also seems to take others' edits as evidence of hostility, but not his own similar editing. His lengthy posts about morality on the talk page should be read by all interested in this dispute. - David Gerard (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

David Gerard - I welcome your participation in the dispute resolution process. This is the clearest statement of your views I've encountered to this point. Thank you. However, I must challenge a number of your claims. I've added my comments to the talk page. - Aliensyntax (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not especially involved, just a bystander, but did express the view that David_Gerard's reasonable addition to the lede is not as obviously toxic as Aliensyntax (talk · contribs) asserts and would be better improved than (repeatedly and rapidly) removed. I still hold that view. ClareTheSharer (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with David's statements here. This appears to me to be an WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS issue where aliensyntax wants to wipe mention of Ethereum Classic from this page, thus creating an WP:NPOV problem. It appears that aliensyntax was repeatedly reverting other editors relating to this Ethereum Classic content, thus creating an WP:OWNERSHIP issue. Relating to the content, the fork that created Ethereum Classic is the most notable (widely covered) event that has occurred to date with Ethereum (it was on CNBC, WSJ, NYT, etc). We need to keep in perspective that the fork occurred at a time when only Ethereum existed, as by definition Ethereum Classic didn't exist until the leadership of Ethereum decided to execute the hard fork. The fork certainly should be included in the article leader, and there also should be section in the article called Ethereum Classic, with a link to the main article as well. Like David says, Ethereum Classic is not a matter of controversy, it is just part of the history of this Ethereum story. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer note - There has been discussion at the article talk page. The filing editor has not yet notified the other editors of this filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Volunteer note - Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss the issue of the addition and removal of content, but it is not necessary to express the opinion that another editor is being uncooperative. (The purpose of this noticeboard is to facilitate cooperation.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I will be opening this thread for moderated discussion. Please see User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules and follow the rules. In particular, comment on content, not contributors. Be civil and concise. I don't claim to know anything about Ethereum. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph or at most two, not more, what they think the content issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

1. The proposed content aims to introduce a news-style item with dubious significance and no direct bearing on the primary subject (per WP:LEAD); 2. This content gives undue attention to a complex and controversial event in a manner that could easily mislead the reader into inferring a false equivalence between the primary subject and a minority point of view (per WP:NPV, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:PSCI); 3. Because the lead cannot be used to concisely summarize the nature of this controversy it is liable to obscure the relationship between the primary subject and this minority point of view; 4. There are perverse incentives and conflicts of interest involved in this situation that can motivate this minority to exploit the credibility, prominence, and public visibility of the primary subject for its own financial and political advantage. My judgment from the beginning has been to diffuse this contentious and peripheral issue by excluding it from the lead paragraph and confining it to the criticism section where it can receive a balanced and critical summary. I believe the insistence that this issue deserves a special place in the lead is borne out of ignorance and simple bias for the minority view.

- Aliensyntax (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

One editor has expressed an opinion, which is that some proposed content would provide false balance and would be inappropriate. Unfortunately, the first editor, Aliensyntax, doesn't say what proposed content they object to, and so their statement is an objection to something. Will they please explain what they are objecting to? Will the other editors please explain, in one or two paragraphs, what their positions are? (If only one editor says anything, and they don't say what they don't like, we haven't accomplished much.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

My content objection is against the lead mention of the DAO, the DAO hack, the DAO hard fork, and more specifically Ethereum Classic. I've presented my view on this false balance at length on the talk page. The Ethereum blockchain and its community "forked" overwhelmingly in one direction, while a minority of participants opted instead to stay on the "pre-forked" chain. This created 2 versions of "Ethereum", in the sense that the protocol now exists on two separate networks: "Ethereum" and "Ethereum Classic". The point of contention is the relative significance assigned to this event by these two competing networks. Ethereum is widely understood as the "official chain". It represents the super-majority of the userbase, including the miners, business partners, and developers in this ecosystem. It's the only network that's supported by the Ethereum Foundation. Currently, "ether", the cryptocurrency of this network, is valued at $90. In contrast, "Ethereum Classic ether", the competing cryptocurrency, is valued at $6.50. So, in effect, Ethereum Classic ether retains approx. 5.85% of the market cap of ether. Accordingly, my claim is that the Ethereum Classic community has a number of biases and perverse incentives to exaggerate the relative significance of the DAO hard fork controversy and insinuate that they are the "real" Ethereum. Conversely, the Ethereum community itself largely considers this matter to be settled. They continue to operate in total independence of Ethereum Classic and are not directly involved with its existence. The DAO hard fork is widely understood to be the will of the community.

One way to describe this situation is to say that a disproportionate fork has occurred in the point of view of these two communities. This is already established by the fact that there exists two separate articles on this subject: "Ethereum" and "Ethereum Classic". My concern is that this minority point of view is infringing on the primary subject by vying for more attention than it would otherwise receive if it were treated from the majority point of view. I argue that the majority point of view is the primary subject and the representative neutral point of view for the article. My recommendation to exclude this contentious mention from the lead paragraph and isolate it to the criticism section where is can receive a properly balanced and critical summary is grounded on this position.

- Aliensyntax (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my position on the intro: removing all mention of The DAO and Ethereum Classic from the article lede, on the basis that it is mentioned lower in the article, is inappropriate on the basis that, per WP:LEDE, the intro section should constitute a complete short article in itself, and The DAO achieved widespread mainstream press and caused a fork of the chain and breaking of the smart contract promise of immutability, which was discussed in RSes at length, so not mentioning them is excluding relevant information. It's one of the most important events in the history of Ethereum, and there's lots of RSes concerning it.

The reasons for removing it are bad and against Wikipedia policy and practice: the morality of Ethereum Classic is not an inclusion or exclusion criterion, we don't remove mention contingent on one editor getting to include an unsourced critique of Ethereum Classic, we don't do WP:POVFORKs, and Wikipedia isn't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

The talk page opinion is now 5-1 against Aliensyntax, with Jtbobwaysf also objecting to its removal from the intro. Note that Jtbobwaysf and I differ in our opinions about nearly everything concerning Ethereum, and even we agree on this one.

It appears that the issue is whether the "split" or "hard fork" should be discussed in the lede paragraph. I haven't researched all of the details, but it appears that multiple editors favor discussing the "split" or "hard fork" (which appears to have been a response to theft) in the lede, and one opposes its mention, or favors a very brief mention. Do any editors have a compromise proposal? If there is no compromise proposal, then the only way forward will be a Request for Comments. Have I understood the issues correctly? If not, please restate the issues, in one paragraph (not in a wall of text). If so, does anyone have an alternative to an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that the originating editor has now added the topic to the lede with edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethereum&oldid=780440090 ClareTheSharer (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I revised the lead (against my better judgment) to incorporate the disagreement of the other editors. The lead was then changed by Jtbobwaysf to be more concise. This, of course, reintroduced the neutral point of view / false balance issue and trivialized my attempt at compromise. This editor has made a number of other changes and we have gone back and forth on a couple of points. In the end, I chose to improve the article itself in order to further support the required lead edit. I've offered an account of my alterations on the talk page. At this moment, I believe the article is in a decent state. Providing the other editors are satisfied with this result, I'll move to close this dispute. - Aliensyntax (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

In recent edits someone moved the entire history section to the last section in the article, I moved it back up to the top as this follows the format used by Microsoft and Oracle Corporation. Second, in your recent edits you added content stating one chain Ethereum is the majority and Ethereum Classic is the minority. You added 4 citations WP:OVERKILL, none of which mentioned anything about one being the minority and the other being the majority. It appears that your edits are purposed to propose that Ethereum is superior to Ethereum Classic. Even if you can find WP:RS to support this, I suspect this will run afoul of other wikipedia policies that even if you can find RS, that would prevent you from putting in such content. I guess wikipedia also would't support Microsoft's PR department from saying their database is better than Oracle's. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - This is a technology and engineering article. It's about a platform, not a company or corporation. You're simply conflating "Ethereum" with the "Ethereum Foundation". If you take a look at the Bitcoin article, the most legitimate comparison for the current article, you'll notice that "design" is the the top-level section relative to "etymology and orthography". Stop fishing for reasons to prolong this conflict. The architecture and ecosystem of Ethereum dwarf the notability of "history." You have no logical basis or precedence to assume it should be otherwise.

On to your second point, the citations I've added refer to the hard fork chain. There was overwhelming consensus for the hard fork by the miners, coinholders, investors and users, as demonstrated in a wide variety of empirical metrics. I've added several citations establishing that fact and can provide more if necessary. You've exhibited a rather clear failure to understand the consensus mechanics and social nature of the two networks. You've also exhibited an unwillingness to accept the reliable sources I've offered on this issue, choosing instead to ignore and delete the relevant context. Your stance on this matter is demonstrably biased and is typical of my reason for seeking to establish consensus on the talk page and dispute resolution notice board.

I strongly oppose your most recent contentious edits and have reversed them. Your editing at this point, after all that's been said, is simply unreasonable. I'd like to open this dispute up to a request for comments, as suggested by the moderator. I advise that the page be protected until a neutral third-party can assess the situation.

Robert McClenon - Can you help to facilitate this intervention?

Aliensyntax (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Some basic references on the hard fork for those interested in this discussion:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

- Aliensyntax (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

My understanding of the dispute here is that this article represents a technology that was split into two parts Ethereum and the new one Ethereum Classic. These technologies are still quite similar (bordering on identical to my understanding), but now maybe also can be viewed as competitors as they have different value tokens that investors can purchase, and this creates potential WP:COI and WP:NPV issues. I think the question here is what treatment Ethereum Classic should be given on this Ethereum page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All of you: Did you read User:Robert McClenon/Mediation Rules? Did you read: "Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress"? Did you read the instruction not to engage in back-and-forth discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

An editor wrote: "I advise that the page be protected until a neutral third-party can assess the situation." I am the neutral third party. Is it really necessary to have the page protected for 30 days while there is a Request for Comments?

Are the editors willing to agree to use a Request for Comments concerning the lede paragraph? Is there any suggestion for a compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The original conflict was concerning the lead mention. As Jtbobwaysf entered the dispute and I remained the only one defending this position, it seemed reasonable for me to acquiesce and reintroduce the lead mention, hence annulling the dispute. I made the edit in a neutral manner. I didn't anticipate this to set-off a chain reaction. I'll accept responsibility for using this maneuver. I'll also refrain from the back-and-forth. This wasn't intended in a combative way, but as argumentation. You did say that it "would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages". It wasn't entirely clear to me how you wanted to carry out the moderation process. I see your point now.

I think the article is in a decent state currently. I'd like the other editors to continue as usual. My concern has always been the WP:NPV issue. As long this issue is carefully monitored I see no reason for the protection. Whether we should pursue a request for comments at this stage mostly depends on the state of opinion and sentiment of the other editors. Their perception of my editorial judgment is still rather ambiguous to me. I'd like to hear their view of the current situation before agreeing to an RfC.

- Aliensyntax (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon After discussing this issue further in the third party opinion section, which didn't sound like a "neutral" third party, I think an RfC would be the right course of action. Perhaps we should have one last round of statements before taking this step. Aliensyntax (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I support page protection, bitcoin is a protected page and it seems useful. I also think an RfC would be a good next step and the RfC should address what treatment Ethereum Classic should be given on this page. It appears most or all of Aliensyntax's edits revolve around how to position Ethereum Classic (in the lede and elsewhere). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was incorrect not to even mention the DAO or Ethereum Classic in the intro. I expect there's plenty to discuss over how much and how - I thought my posited version was pretty minimal and just-the-facts - but I'm not wedded to it, my concern was its removal entirely from the intro - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It appears the nature of this dispute is whether the lead paragraph (or paragraphs) should detail a fully comprehensive summary of the article in its entirely or a partial summary. I am of the opinion Wikipedia should be a projector of knowledge and Editors should avoid omitting knowledge, however, my personal opinion just mentioned is not the pillar to why I advise Aliensyntax to concede in this dispute. The fact that the article mentions the content of the dispute later in the article is why I find no reason why the content of the dispute should not be mentioned in the lead paragraph. My opinion as a third party is the consensus is not with the filing editor. Meenmore (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Meenmore - Thank you for your third-party opinion. Please note the dispute has moved beyond the original contention. The partial summary to which you refer has already been incorporated. This summary is a partial reflection of the content of the DAO hard fork subsection. My concerns have been directed to the misleading and biased framing of this content in the lead and in the article body. I've since introduced the required neutral point of view that I believed was lacking and have no further concerns at present. Aliensyntax (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Aliensyntax - I have examined the subsection, it has over twenty sources, and whether editors like it or not readers will generate their own opinion after reading sources. I am also keen to suggest that sources should go hand in hand with the content framed. This dispute should be party to special consideration. It would be inappropriate for third party observers to treat an article which is evidently rooted in a dispute as the same as an article which is not. This article because of its very nature is destined to create tension among editors. Meenmore (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have a problem with the phrasing "The minority fork was renamed to Ethereum Classic,[3]". The Ethereum Classic chain is not a fork. It did not change it's code. It is a continuation of the blockchain and Ethereum forked off the Ethereum Classic blockchain to the Ethereum chain it is today. It may certainly have been a minority of the original community. It certainly had less hash power, users, and developers. But it did not fork. --The 13th 4postle (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to express these nuances in the lead, but you make a fair point. How would you feel about this phrasing?: "In 2016, Ethereum was "hard forked" disproportionately into two blockchains, as a result of the collapse of The DAO project. A relative minority in the network continued their support of the pre-fork version of the Ethereum blockchain and dubbed it Ethereum Classic, while the vast majority opted instead to support the community consensus and push onward with the official post-fork Ethereum blockchain (the subject of this article)." Aliensyntax (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The word "disproportionately" has been previously challenged by other editors, correctly in my view since it silently imports a POV about the parameters for judging the two projects. (I'm unclear whether back-and-forth is permitted here so apologies if I am erring.) ClareTheSharer (talk) 10:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I also apologize if my replies are breaking with the spirit of the back-and-forth guideline. I've restricted myself to no more than one concise remark per editor. ClareTheSharer, as I see it, there's an unmistakable political dimension to this state of affairs. The fork served as a kind of referendum on the future direction of the Ethereum project and the kind of network the community wanted to live in. It's a question of consensus and legitimacy. Is it silently importing a judgmental POV when we report the results of an electoral decision? There was a clear winner and a clear loser in this case. It may not make the other side feel good - but it is what it is. "Disproportionate" seems to me like the most polite and neutral way of describing this event. I think if we start straining for euphemisms on this matter we'll only be obscuring the issue. Aliensyntax (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Just omit any such word in the lede. Your statement is not diminished by doing so, and balancing POV on scale, importance, relevance and so on can be left to the discussion in the article body where concision is less essential. I'd say this also applies to your choice of words later in the proposed addition although I'm not a subject expert, just a bystander. ClareTheSharer (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Seems clear you want to place some type of bias as you are not a fan of Ethereum Classic. You could try, "In the summer of 2016, the Ethereum community decided to hard fork the Ethereum blockchain as a result of the hacking of The DAO project. A minority portion of the community did not support the hard fork on philosophical grounds and has continued the pre-forked chain, now named Ethereum Classic." --The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The back-and-forth appears to be useful (which it sometimes isn't). Continue the discussion. I will intervene if I have to do so. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

ClareTheSharer The bias is directly related to how these two networks are being described in relation to each other. My phrasing certainly gives a positive frame to Ethereum and a negative frame to Ethereum Classic, as it positions one network with more consensus and legitimacy than the other. This only "appears" biased because of the relative weight involved in the fork decision. I say "appears" given the fact that this isn't actually biased. It's a perfectly accurate and objective description. There's no real prejudice or unfairness in disclosing these facts to the reader. Rather, the prejudice, as I've argued from the beginning, is in precisely omitting these details; in insinuating a false equivalence between the two networks. This is the reason why I argued against the lead mention. It was clear to me from the outset that the lead concision argument would merely be used to rationalize away the need to communicate these essential and highly relevant nuances. As such, I'm very much opposed to your suggestion.

The 13th 4postle We seem to agree on some of the phrasing, but I think you're still trying to frame this content in a non-objective light for Ethereum Classic. For instance, you speak of "philosophical grounds" as though the argument of the Ethereum Classic community were more securely rooted in rationality than the Ethereum community. I very much believe the opposite. In my view, the arguments of the anti-fork side were quite ideological and dogmatic in nature. In any case, the lead isn't the right place to talk about the nature of the argumentation in the hard fork dispute. What we should be focused on are the most relevant and non-controversial facts. Secondly, you accept the phrasing of a minority portion of the community, but you neglect to make the converse statement about the "vast majority" with respect to Ethereum. Thirdly, you seem to be using the end of the paragraph to build a positive emphasis on Ethereum Classic, to the effect that Ethereum Classic has achieved some special logical precedence in the order of your description. This is a minor point, but I'm very sensitive to this kind of language. I think the structure of this sentence should rather emphasize the post-fork Ethereum since the post-fork Ethereum is the primary subject and also the most significant development in this sentence. As I see it, my current phrasing is the most neutral.

My apologies for the lengthy edit. Aliensyntax (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Saying Ethereum is more "legitimate" than Ethereum Classic is clear bias. It's like saying Bitcoin is more "legitimate" than Litecoin. They are both legitimate blockchains. Hell, one could even make the argument that since Ethereum violated immutability, Ethereum is less "legitimate" than Ethereum Classic, but we won't go there. You need to get over the ideological reasons that Ethereum Classic stayed on the pre-forked chain. Both sides feel that the other side was wrong for their own reasons. Hence the split. Also, by stating that a minority portion of the community stayed on the pre-forked chain, it implies a majority coalesced around the new fork. So how about....

"In the summer of 2016, the Ethereum community decided to hard fork the Ethereum blockchain as a result of the hacking of The DAO project. A minority portion of the community did not support the hard fork on ideological grounds and has continued the pre-forked chain, which acquired the name Ethereum Classic with the ticker symbol (ETC). Since the hard fork, Ethereum has consistently maintained a significantly higher price and hash rate than Ethereum Classic." --The 13th 4postle (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

This will be my last statement on this issue for the time being. The legitimacy in question derives from the very fact that there was a community consensus to hard fork. It's a political distinction rooted in the explicit consent of the network participants. This legitimacy is established further by the fact that the Ethereum Foundation as well as the technical leadership of the Ethereum community have declared an exclusive commitment to the hard fork chain. The creators of the network essentially supported the will of the community. This is important.

As I understand it, this is the dominant narrative and public point of view of the event. The argument against this interpretation, on the contrary, is grounded in the minority point of view of Ethereum Classic supporters. According to this point of view, the Ethereum Foundation and the Ethereum community had no right to hard fork, even though the consensus mechanics of the network clearly permitted and even encouraged this form of action. This is a constitutional, deontological, or moral absolutist interpretation. It presupposes this principle of "immutability" is inviolable. But, of course, it can be violated and it can be violated for a variety of reasons. The only force that can do so is the consent of the network majority. Therefore, the consent of the network is the law. It's precisely because the anti-fork side of the dispute failed to secure this consent that the network split.

In any case, I don't want to rehash the whole hard fork dispute. I just want us to be fair and objective about what actually happened. It's not that I'm opposed to your description, it just seems to downplay the differences I'm concerned about. I don't think the price of the underlying tokens for example are especially relevant. It's the significance and magnitude of the differences between the two networks that should be emphasized. I've already compromised beyond what I believe is reasonable in re-introducing the lead mention of this event. So, if we're going to mention it, we should at least mention it critically and with sufficient context to draw the relevant parallels. I believe the two most important parallels to focus on are the accurate weighting of the consensus and the official nature of the post-fork Ethereum. The phrasing shouldn't matter all that much so long as we can fairly and properly acknowledge these two essential distinctions.

Aliensyntax (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion of summarizing why Ethereum is bigger/better/majority/etc than Ethereum Classic on this Ethereum page violates WP:SUBJECTIVE. This is not to mention that you have not found any RS to support your claim. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)44

The Ethereum Classic position has never been that a hard fork violates immutability. They have hard forked themselves for multiple reasons. Their position has always been that a hard fork to violate the immutability of the ledger was inappropriate and should not have occurred. That hard forks should be reserved for fixing or upgrading the underlying protocol itself. Historically, when hard forks have been done for those reasons within Ethereum, their have been no network splits. Both ETH and ETC believe their position is both moral and legitimate, and that the other side is wrong. That is the neutral point of view in this case. It is not the place of Wikipedia to cast an opinion on which blockchain or community is right or wrong. Wikipedia's place is too simply state the facts as they are and which all parties can agree too. Whether or not you believe you have compromised too much is irrelevant. You need to learn that just because a majority of opinion sides with a particular narrative, it does not make that narrative true or correct. If you have a factual basis to disagree with the statement as written, please say so. --The 13th 4postle (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The back-and-forth is concluded. Will each editor propose a statement as to what they think the lede should say about Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, in one paragraph? I will choose two or three of the proposed statements for a Request for Comments. Also, if there are any other issues, please state them, in one paragraph. You may also state your reason for a proposed lede, but concisely, without commentary on contributors. If anyone has a proposed compromise, they may propose it. Please respond within 48 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

My proposal for mention in lede:

The hack of The DAO in July 2016 led to a hard fork in the blockchain to reverse the hack, with a separate blockchain, Ethereum Classic, for those who rejected the DAO fork.

The statements are backed by references already in the body. It's a minimal form, but I think it's enough for the intro (which IMO should keep things as simple as possible but no simpler). I'm not wedded to it.

As for how to describe it in the body, that can get discussed on the talk page, sorting through the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe this phrasing is most appropriate:

"In 2016, Ethereum was "hard forked" disproportionately into two blockchains, as a result of the collapse of The DAO project. A faction of the network continued their support of the pre-fork version of the Ethereum blockchain and dubbed it Ethereum Classic, while the vast majority chose to move onward with the official post-fork Ethereum blockchain (the subject of this article)."

This description is widely covered by reliable sources and heavily supported in the article body. It takes the view that there is a profound and highly misleading difference in notability between the "pre-fork" and "post-fork" versions of Ethereum and seeks to further redress the false equivalence that would be created by the omission of this difference. My standpoint has been expressed extensively on the article talk page and the dispute resolution noticeboard. I advise everyone reviewing this case to carefully and critically think through all the relevant details before putting forth their remarks.

- Aliensyntax (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I propose "In the summer of 2016, the Ethereum community decided to hard fork the Ethereum blockchain as a result of the hacking of The DAO project. A small minority portion of the community did not support the hard fork on ideological grounds and has continued the pre-forked chain, which acquired the name Ethereum Classic with the ticker symbol (ETC). Since the hard fork, Ethereum has consistently maintained a significantly higher price and hash rate than Ethereum Classic."

I believe this accurately and fairly depicts the events of the DAO hacking and resulting split into two blockchains and is supported by a number of articles and sources. The 13th 4postle (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I have formulated and posted a Request for Comments. I will comment that I did notice that there continued to be discussion on the article talk page after discussion began here. That didn't help; the rules did say to avoid continued discussion on the article talk page, which splits the discussion into two parts. Also, one editor who entered the discussion later just complicated things by referring to themselves as a third party (when there already were more than three parties). However, please now let the RFC run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Why are users from the dispute resolution thread commenting on this RfC? The comments should be coming from neutral parties with an understanding of the context of the dispute, not the disputants themselves. David Gerard and ClareTheSharer have both already expressed their views on this issue.

Aliensyntax (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Aliensyntax - The purpose of the RFC is to obtain the consensus of the Wikipedia community. They are members of the Wikipedia community, as are you. When the RFC is closed in 30 days, and I will not be the closer, the closer will not be looking at this noticeboard, only at the RFC. Their views count just as much as those of other editors, no more, no less. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2017 (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.