View source for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

{{Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Archivemainpage|Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 210
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(48h)
|archive = Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive index|mask=Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive<#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=no}}
<!-- When removing this, please put a note at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Archiving to explain why. -->
{{clear|left}}

{{purge box}}

__TOC__
{{clear}}

=Current disputes=

== Social Democracy ==

{{DR case status|open}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1632925745}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Twozerooz|14:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Social Democracy}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Twozerooz}}
* {{User|Czello}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

A prior consensus (minus 1 user) was reached on the second sentence of the preamble, specifically that its economic ideology is a capitalist mixed economy, not socialism.

This dispute now is over the very first sentence which states the exact opposite (that it is socialism). The first sentence is directly contradictory to the second sentence.

I believe we need clarification on 3 points:
1) That Economic Ideology and Economic Philosophy are synonyms, and are not different.
2) The first sentence directly contradicts the second sentence.
3) Since the second sentence is not in question, the first sentence should be changed to match the second.

Unfortunately most of the talk page with this issue has been archived. Let me know if I need to provide relevant archived discussions or any other additional information.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_democracy#Preamble]]

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>

Clarify the 3 points listed

==== Summary of dispute by Czello ====
I am surprised this post was made -- {{u|Twozerooz}}, I thought we agreed that an RfC was the best way to resolve this issue? 

However, my summary of the issue is simply that there was no consensus to remove "economic philosophy" from the opening sentence, and {{u|Erzan}} was in discussion with OP about this issue, before OP stopped responding. As the the text remained for the next few months, I assumed the issue was resolved -- until OP [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_democracy&diff=1043331014&oldid=1043218453 chose to remove the text again] by deceptively labelling it as vandalism.

All I want is for OP to pursue a consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring (something he has been reported to [[WP:EWN]] twice for, the second time resulting in a block). This is why I suggested an RfC, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_democracy&diff=1044491118&oldid=1044438448 OP agreed to this]. Why we've come here instead is rather bizarre. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>(Please tag me in replies)</sup> 15:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

::Just for clarification {{u|Czello}}: The first sentence was never discussed. But given that the second sentence now has consensus, it seems to follow that the first sentence was simply omitted by error. I think much of the confusion here is in regards to different synonyms being used, so as long as nobody has an issue with it I will make an edit to use the same term for both sentences, then we will go from there. --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::It has been like this for almost half a year. 'Economic ideology' and 'economic philosophy' mean the same thing. The reader will be taken to the same page, which is economic ideology so there is no confusion. [[User:Erzan|Erzan]] ([[User talk:Erzan|talk]]) 16:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::: Yes agreed, my point 1 is indisputably correct. --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 20:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

=== Social Democracy discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer Note''' -While some precedent does seem to have been put forth roughly five months ago on the talk page, the discussion between the two parties mentioned here has been very short. Additionally, [[User:Czello]] has not been notified on their talk page. [[User:Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996">Iazyges</span>]] [[User talk:Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996">Consermonor</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996">Opus meum</span>]] 14:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
*'''Volunteer Note'''  - The discussion on the article talk page seems to be agreeing that a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comments]] is the best way to resolve the questions.  An issue should not be discussed in two or more places at the same time, and an RFC takes precedence over discussion at a noticeboard.  If the editors want assistance in formulating a neutrally worded RFC, they can request that here.  Are the editors requesting moderated discussion (in place of or prior to an RFC), or do they plan on using an RFC?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
*Sorry wasn't aware there was different processes. I haven't initiated any other process yet, so please let me know whether I should do that or any other actions. --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 15:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::{{ec}}Yes, I'm rather confused as to why this post was made after OP agreed an RfC is the best way forward. Given that the original talk page thread had several different discussions going on at once, I think an RfC makes the topic of contention ''much'' clearer. I would urge {{u|Twozerooz}} to pursue that route as agreed. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>(Please tag me in replies)</sup> 15:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::{{re|Twozerooz}} The best thing to do is follow the instructions [[WP:RFCST|here]]. As a suggestion for a neutrally-worded question for the RfC, I recommend ''Should "economic philosophy" be removed from the opening sentence?''". — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>(Please tag me in replies)</sup> 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::: Reading the processes, it does actually seem like a dispute resolution is more appropriate given that this is not actually a conflict regarding subject matter. The issue now isn't related to economics at all, but rather just confusion over synonyms and logical contradictions. Any unbiased party should be able to rectify this, regardless of their level of knowledge in economics. An RFC would have been very useful during the first dispute over the second sentence, but that has been resolved already --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 16:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::: You know what, I concede. I have no interest in arguing this further. I didn't feel strongly enough the matter the first time round, and it looks like it's just becoming a new edit war -- which is the very thing I was trying to prevent. Erzan appears to have returned this debate, so I'll leave it to him.<s> Although what, that was before I saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_democracy&curid=208520&diff=1044520636&oldid=1044519730 this]. It appears consensus may in fact be leaning to leaving it in.</s> — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>(Please tag me in replies)</sup> 17:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::::: Valjean was referring to changing the first synonym, as opposed to the second. He was right. I changed the second one to match instead - Valjean thanked me for the edit. And yes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AErzan&type=revision&diff=1043346554&oldid=1021454105 someone] canvassed Erzan to bring him in.... --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 20:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
:::::: As I've already explained to you, notifying someone who was part of a prior discussion that the discussion has reopened is not canvassing. See [[WP:APPNOTE]]. Again, my position on the matter isn't all that strong, so your dispute is with Erzan more than it is with me. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>(Please tag me in replies)</sup> 21:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::: From [[WP:APPNOTE]]: "but uninvolved"... "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". Given that Erzan was the subject of the original edit war who had clear and very strong opinions to the contrary - and is someone who has a long history of edit warring - it just seems bizarre that someone would deliberately bring him in in order to "stop an edit war in the first place". Regardless, the bell cannot be unrung. Tagging in another editor to take your place does not mean the dispute is over; The dispute is still on-going and needs to be resolved. --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 18:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::You know what, you're right. I didn't notice the "but uninvolved" part. Given the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Social_democracy&diff=prev&oldid=1043331014 nature of your reversion on this], where you [[WP:AGF|incorrectly]] labeled it as vandalism, I felt it appropriate to notify someone who was part of the debate. However, if I have misread the boundaries of [[WP:APPNOTE]] then I have erred and apologise. I do wish we'd had and RfC on this, but whatever -- I hope your other post resolves this. I worry that page is becoming a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] so I might just remove it from my watchlist. Peace. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>(Please tag me in replies)</sup> 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::::::::: You're right, I didn't understand what Wiki defined vandalism as so I apologize for that. I still fail to understand how that could justify canvassing other people to push a specific viewpoint. Regardless, this will be my last comment here - I'll let the dispute resolution process continue. --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 14:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
====First statement by moderator (Social democracy)====
I am willing to act as the moderator.  I will ask the editors to read [[WP:DRN Rule A]] and follow the rules.  Be civil and concise.  Overly long statements may make the author feel better, but they seldom clarify the issues.  I am neutral, except that one way to get me to be non-neutral is to ignore the rules that I set forth.  Do not respond to each other's statements, except in the section for back-and-forth discussion (which I have the right to ignore).   Comment on content, not contributors.  Discuss edits, not editors.   

It appears that there is some discussion of whether an RFC is needed, or whether moderated discussion is needed, or perhaps moderated discussion that decides the content of an RFC.  

The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so [[WP:Be Specific at DRN|Be Specific at DRN]].  I will ask each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want added to or removed from the article, or left alone in the article when someone else wants to change it.  Then I will decide how to proceed further.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

====First statements by editors (Social democracy)====
Change
::Social democracy is a political, social, and economic philosophy within the socialist tradition.
to
::Social democracy is a political and social philosophy within the socialist tradition.
Reasons were already given above. It looks like everyone understands economic philosophy and economic ideology are synonyms (#1 above). So only #2 and #3 need moderation. For reference, the 'second sentence' that everyone has already agreed to is:

"As an '''economic ideology''' and policy regime, it is described by academics as advocating economic and social interventions to promote social justice '''within the framework of''' a liberal-democratic polity and '''a capitalist-oriented mixed economy.'''"
Bolded to highlight the contradictions between first and second sentence.

--[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 14:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
====Second statement by moderator (Social democracy)====
One editor has responded, and has said to take out the phrase 'economic philosophy' from the lede sentence.  Does the other editor agree, or will an RFC be needed?

They also referred to second and third points needing moderation, and they gave one example. 

The other editor has not responded yet, so I will ask them again to state concisely what they want changed, or what they want left the same that other editors want changed.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

:I presume this is directed at me -- as stated above I concede on the matter; judging by the edit history of the article, I think OP's dispute is with {{u|Erzan}}, still. OP did have a dispute resolution case involving Erzan open but he appears to have closed it. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>(Please tag me in replies)</sup> 09:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

====Second statements by editors (Social democracy)====

====Third statement by moderator (Social democracy) ====
I am willing to start an RFC if any editor requests it.  If there are any other issues, please state them concisely.  If there are no issues or requests, I will close this case.
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

====Third statements by editors (Social democracy) ====

====Back-and-forth discussion (Social democracy)====
For the moderator's clarification:
The dispute was with Czello, but Czello has now canvassed another editor who agrees with him to 'tag out' and take his place. This editor is aware of this DRN and has already commented on it once. --[[User:Twozerooz|Twozerooz]] ([[User talk:Twozerooz|talk]]) 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

== Sri Lankan Moors ==

{{DR case status|closed}}
{{drn filing editor|UMDP|02:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)}}
{{DRN archive top|Closed.  The editors are obviously not ready for a moderator because they are still busy with back-and-forth discussion.  The notice says:  'Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.'  Continue on the article talk page.  When the editors have decided that they are ready to stop the back-and-forth discussion, they can make a new request here for assistance, without continuing back-and-forth.  Keep the back-and-forth strictly confined to the facts, because any personal attacks, such as lying, can be reported to [[WP:ANI]].  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 15:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Sri Lankan Moors}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|UMDP}}
* {{User|AntanO}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

User disagrees on the addition on research data involving x-str claiming contradiction. Does not provide sources or data for the so-called contradiction but uses selected sentences from wikipedia articles and goes on unrelated issues such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lankan_Moors&diff=1045910239&oldid=1045855704 linguistics]. Argues that because [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lankan_Moors&diff=1045841125&oldid=1045840043 sample size not including the entire population size] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lankan_Moors&diff=1045834989&oldid=1045811558 using unrelated individuals in research] and normal things as reasons for removal. The argument goes in circles and the user refuses to allow it to be added.

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>

[[Talk:Sri_Lankan_Moors#Removal_of_X-SRT]]

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>

At least get User:AntanO to provide the sources and data of the contradictions so they can be added if not disengage the argument and allow the research data on genetic relations to be added.

==== Summary of dispute by -AntanO ====
The result is based on 838 unrelated individuals which is a few samples from 1,869,820 moors. Also, Eastern Moors are Western Moors are not same in terms of culture, language and inter marriage with Sinhalese and Tamil, and the study did not say where were the specimen came from (Eastern Moors / Western Moors). The article says with RS that ''... Tamil is the mother tongue of the community whose maternal lineage are Tamil''. It is not about linguistics, and it's about "maternal lineage". Apart from the research, you have to understand the community issue in Sri Lanka. The issue is ethnic conversion. If I start to clarify, it might go for some more paragraphs. Also, read [[Genetic studies on Sinhalese]] which disputes (with RS) the claim that Moors are not most closely related to Sinhalaese and then to Sri Lankan Tamils are most closely related to Sinhalaese.

=== Sri Lankan Moors discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>
*'''Volunteer Note''' - The filing editor has not notified the other editor on their talk page.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
*'''Volunteer Note''' - Sometimes the genetic markers are being referred to as STRs, and sometimes as SRTs.  Since the full term is [[short tandem repeat]] markers, they are STRs.  (This does not affect the fact that there is a content dispute.)  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

: Sorry I added in the article talk page and forgot to add in the user talk page. Its done now. Thank you- [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 05:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


: Again user AntanO fails to provide a source or any research to dispute a peer-reviewed scientific research and relies on a single line in the language section. 
{{collapsetop|[[WP:NPA|Personal attack]].  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 19:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)}}
Also the user is lying about the "reliable source" because the source cited for that specific sentence is a [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/readersblog/vidiyum-munn/srilankan-moors-4081/ readers blog in a newspaper] with no citations to real scientific research. 
{{collapsebottom}}
Are we really going to dispute the factual accuracy of scientific research with some blog post and call the blog a reliable source over actual genetic information? - [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 14:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

:: It appears my comment was perceived as offensive. Apologies if anyone was offended and I did not mean to imply the user was liar but the statement was false as the source is a blog post and therefor not RS.  Thank You. - [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 19:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

User UMDP ignores that fact that I raised that so called scientific research is piece of work done by 2 or 3 persons with a few specimen. Do I need to repeat again to make awareness? --[[User:AntanO|Ant<span style="color:red">a</span>n]][[User talk:AntanO|<b style="color:red">O</b>]] 01:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

: : The "so-called" scientific research is peer reviewed and published. Putting a so-called in front doesn't change the research. Published research has stricter standards than random opinions pieces in blog posts as they are sent to many external scientists by the publisher. The review board of the publisher and external peers have decided the research is valid to be published in the journal. Questionininh the validity of the research results is not possible here unless you provide the data of these research results you claim to exist that contradictory to this. And that is how research is done, in fact most genetic studies done in SL specially pretty much all those in [[Genetic studies on Sinhalese]] have much smaller sample sizes. You don't take the population you take a sample and they make sure the individuals are unrelated to reduce the bias. The number of scientists involved is not even an argument against the results.  Thank you. - [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 02:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:So far, there no complete scientific research. A sample is not be a conclusion. The peer review is failed to say who were the participant and their origin, geographic location, etc. Eastern Moors are mostly connect to Tamil maternal lineage. Some hundreds specimen cannot conclude the entire community's genetics since the Moors have varies maternal lineage. --[[User:AntanO|Ant<span style="color:red">a</span>n]][[User talk:AntanO|<b style="color:red">O</b>]] 03:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:: What? I don't understand what you are saying. What is "complete scientific research"? This is complete that has been published. You only take samples in research to make a conclusion. Making up claims like "peer review failed" means nothing, [[WP:SOURCE]] clearly says peer reviewed articles have highest verifiability. Where are the sources for your claims? You said there is contradictaory research but still haven't posted anythinmg and instead making up nonsense to [[WP:FILIBUSTER]]. -[[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 03:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:If it a black, I can just say black without referring any nonsense. First, you should understand the facts of Moors community. So far, you skip my points. Again I ask what were specimens since there are four major Moor groups in Sri Lanka. Give me supportive references for your claims. If it anyone ask further reference, someone has to give regardless of [[WP:SOURCE]] --[[User:AntanO|Ant<span style="color:red">a</span>n]][[User talk:AntanO|<b style="color:red">O</b>]] 07:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:: SO you are making up everything and expect your opinion to be equal to peer-reviewed research? [[WP:SOURCE]] is clear on this, you claiming something and demanding to "understand" it cannot be taken as fact here. You are calling your own personal opinion and your own classifications based on [[WP:OR]] as sources which cannot be accepted. You are also not a authority to "fail" peer-reveiwers. You claimed that the research is contradicted by other research so you should take the [[WP:ONUS]] to provide peer-reviewed research to contradict it not some random reader's blog. You claiming something doesn't mean anything as all of your claims are made by you, not backed by any source with the only exception being a random reader's blog. The research is [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92314-9 published in open] so you can read it yourself. So yes you are [[WP:FILIBUSTER]]ing by wasting time and making up your own claims to avoid adding reliable sources instead of unreliable reader's blogs- [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 07:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:Moors, Malays, Memons, Bohras are part of Sri Lankan Moors and they were from different ethnic backgrounds (Arabs, Indonesian, Kathiawad & Gujarat) and intermarried to Sinhalese and Tamils. Peer-review failed to say it in details than a vague report, not detailed. Do you say we have to accept peer-review if it not failed to figure out many facts since it is "research"? How could you say or give reference if I want to see genetic relation between Malays and Sinhalese? Do not give earlier reference since it failed to give details to all Moors. --[[User:AntanO|Ant<span style="color:red">a</span>n]][[User talk:AntanO|<b style="color:red">O</b>]] 08:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:: Ah yes now you are making your own categories of 4 up from your previous classification of [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1045995001&oldid=1045967301 2]. You claiming the authority to decide peer reviews doesn't mean anything and won't be taken seriously. [[WP:SOURCE]] makes it clear you not accepting  peer review process is irrelevant. Malays are not Moors they are a seperate ethnic group which they acknowledge. The research clearly states 'In addition to these ethnicities, around 0.5% of the Sri Lankan population comprises other minor ethnic groups belonging to numerous descents. They include Malays (descendants from island of Java) Burghers (descendants of colonists from Portugal, Netherlands and UK) and other Chinese and African migrants who came to the island in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.".
:: Also your made up classifications aren't even reliable. Malays are an ethnic group while Bohras are a religious sect. If you are going to put up your own [[WP:OR]] at least make it consistant, not changing 2 to 4 and mixing ethnic groups and religious denominations. Its impossible to resolve any dispute when you attempt to [[WP:FILIBUSTER]] by creating [[WP:OR]] on the go. I will await Moderator view before trying to debunk all the [[WP:OR]] you cook up on the go thinking it has weight against actual scientific research that has been peer reviewed and published in a journal.- [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:Read Islamic Outreach by Centre for Islamic Studies to know more about Moors. I am clear about Wiki policies, and I encourage you to read [[WP:GF]] since you point your finger towards me than the subject. [[Research#Scientific research|Scientific research]] says "This can be represented through tables, figures, and pictures, and then described in words." But so far you are not ready to show any figures on where I raised concern. Therefore, [[WP:IAR]]. Because, those finding are not clear. Still not clear? I can come up with more questioning figures. --[[User:AntanO|Ant<span style="color:red">a</span>n]][[User talk:AntanO|<b style="color:red">O</b>]] 10:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:: You have not even talked about the subject rather making up [[WP:OR]] on the go. On the contrary you have false claimed about including Malays as part of Moors which they aren't, [http://www.statistics.gov.lk/pophousat/cph2011/Pages/Activities/Reports/FinalReport/Population/Table%20A3.pdf SL census] clearly considers them a separate ethnic group and not even considered as part of the research as the very above the research report it is explicitly stated that it only includes Sinhalese, SL Tamils, Indian Tamils and Moors with Malays being a separate group. You keep on creating new ethnic classifications on go. Also you were the one that is against representing research data in the Moors page claiming it contradicts your blog post, instead of providing [[WP:RS]] with contradictory data. Now complaining about not including other forms of data representation is not even relevant to what you are trying to argue. You [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lankan_Moors&diff=1045844726&oldid=1045842607 you] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sri_Lankan_Moors&diff=1045841125&oldid=1045840043 claimed] multiple times that contradictory research exist but only put links to wiki articles. I have assumed good-faith but now you explicitly stated  that you are going to "come with up" things rather than providing the so-called contradictory research and you have expressed to abuse [[WP:IAR]]. This is why I will wait for moderator opinion because you will just "come up with more figures" rather than using research data to create an argument against it so you can continue the DNR for infinity just like how you make up two different classification systems that demanded it to be answered.  - [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 10:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

:The research results are represented in tables and figures you can just read them including the [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92314-9/tables/1 AMOVA analysis]  in a table and the [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92314-9/figures/2 UPGMA phylogram  based on X-STR data]. The phylogram could be added to wiki in the future. I don't think adding the [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-92314-9/figures/1 figure showing the loci of the STRs that were studied] is necessary. - [[User:UMDP|<span style="color:purple">UmdP</span>]] 10:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

::I cannot access the link, and browser says ''Your connection is not private'' --[[User:AntanO|Ant<span style="color:red">a</span>n]][[User talk:AntanO|<b style="color:red">O</b>]] 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
{{DRN archive bottom}}

== Second Anglo-Afghan War ==

{{DR case status}}
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1633795630}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->
{{drn filing editor|Noorullah21|16:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)}}

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Have you discussed this on a talk page?'''</span>

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

<span style="font-size:110%">'''Location of dispute'''</span>
* {{pagelinks|Second Anglo-Afghan War}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Users involved'''</span>
* {{User|Noorullah21}}
* {{User|199.82.243.110}}
<span style="font-size:110%">'''Dispute overview'''</span>

Both of us are having a dispute over if Afghanistan was a protected state or a protectorate.

Brief summary of what a protected state is: [https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100350514#:~:text=A%20state%20that%2C%20although%20nominally,control%20over%20its%20internal%20affairs.], and the difference between the two. [https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1082]

I am disputing and saying that Afghanistan is a protected state, and the other user claims it is a protectorate. 

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?'''</span>

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Anglo-Afghan_War#Afghanistan_Protectorate_State]

<span style="font-size:110%">'''How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?'''</span>

I wish for someone to help find a solution or to tater to either side, we both have multiple sources that veer and mine also explain the difference between protectorate and protected state, his sources claim protectorate but then go on to explain the defenition of what a protected state is for what the British had in Afghanistan. Which was foreign affairs grants given up to the british only, this is a protected state. a protectorate is more of a puppet-ish to their overlord.

==== Summary of dispute by Noorullah21  ====
Me and IP user are disputing over if Afghanistan is a protected state or a protectorate after the [[Second Anglo-Afghan War]], we both have multiple sources that tater. 

I also explain the meanings between protected state and protectorate, his sources also go on to claim protectorate, but then give the definition of what a protected state is, I am arguing for protected state by the way.

#[https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1082] (difference between both)
#[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100350514#:~:text=A%20state%20that%2C%20although%20nominally,control%20over%20its%20internal%20affairs.] (protected state meaning)
#[https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/iais/downloads/Onley_Raj_Reconsidered.pdf] (sources that mention Afghanistan as a protected state)

IP user posts sources that claim it is a protectorate, but has the definition of a protected state, the explanation behind this is that protected state was commonly referred to as a protectorate as its side name, but the two meanings have jarring differences hence why I am arguing for the second anglo afghan war page to include protected state instead of protectorate, because Afghanistan only gave up foreign rights access to the British, but did not give up its internal affairs, if it gave up internal affairs access, it would then be considered a protectorate.

 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Types_of_Restricted_Sovereignty_and_of_C/ttUsAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover] (one of the sources that state Afghanistan as a protectorate but then describe it as a protected state. 
#[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195557558.001.0001/acref-9780195557558-e-2668] (also a source that refers to protected state as a protectorate, hence why most modern scholars used to use protectorate, essentially same meanings at the time until noticed otherwise.
#[https://www.jstor.org/stable/164403] (more sources that state afghanistan as a protected state, giving up foreign rights only)
[[Treaty of Gandamak]] page also states that afghanistan gives up foreign rights access. 

#[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Entangling_Relations/Ul3sDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover] Talks about it being a protectorate but also describes it as a protected state with foreign right access given to the British.

And finally, a source that states Afghanistan as a protected state.
#[https://www.google.fr/books/edition/A_Traditionalist_History_of_the_Great_Wa/cJUYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=afghanistan+british+protected+state&pg=PA372&printsec=frontcover] (by Alexander) 
#[https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/iais/downloads/Onley_Raj_Reconsidered.pdf]] (Jame's source that also mentions afghanistan as a protected state)

==== Summary of dispute by 199.82.243.110  ====
Dispute is that Noorullah21 claims that Afghanistan is a protected state when all sources state that it was Protectorate after the Second Anglo-Afghan war which concluded with British Victory, resulting in Emir signing Treaty of Gandamak making Afghanistan a British Protectorate state. The Treaty was later reformed in 1907 during Anglo-Russian convention and again in 1919 where Afghanistan was given independence where British Government still continued to have influence over Afghanistan. But that is irrelevant to the topic of discussion which was about the result and treaty signed in 1879 which clearly states that Afghanistan became British Protectorate as a result of British Victory and the signed Treaty of Gandamak.
Here are references by acclaimed scholars that Afghanistan became British Protectorate after Treaty of Gandamak. 3rd Opinion also claimed the inclusion of Protectorate. Below references:<br>
Reference 1, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Entangling_Relations/Ul3sDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover] states '''Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate. Following the Peace of Gandamak, the Amir of Afghanistan agreed to leave the control of his foreign relations to the British Government....Afghanistan's status as a PROTECTORATE was recognized in the Anglo Russian Agreement of 1907.'''<br>
Reference 2, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Types_of_Restricted_Sovereignty_and_of_C/ttUsAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA14&printsec=frontcover]. Reference states that '''1879, May 26 - Peace of Gandamak. Afghanistan became, in  effect, a protectorate of Great Britain.'''<br>
Reference 3, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Milk_of_Paradise/TzeDDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PT272&printsec=frontcover] Reference states that '''At the Treaty of Gandamak in 1879 Afghanistan became a British PROTECTORATE and Kabul was opened up to a British mission, something Afghans still consider to be an appalling loss of face.'''<br>
Reference 4, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_SAGE_Encyclopedia_of_War_Social_Scie/idw0DQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA9&printsec=frontcover] Reference states ''' The following year, Anglo Indian troops invaded Afghanistan and imposed, through the treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879, an English PROTECTORATE and the loss of control over the Khyber Pass....'''<br>
Reference 5, [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Peacemakers_in_Action/WTuZJxwYltEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA385&printsec=frontcover] Reference states ''' In 1878, the Second Anglo-Afghan war broke out. It ended two years later with the Treaty of Gandamak, which effectively made Afghanistan a PROTECTORATE of Britain. '''<br>
Reference 6 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Subjects_of_Ottoman_International_La/n6UEEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PT163&printsec=frontcover] Reference states '''Afghanistan was technically a PROTECTORATE of the British Empire since the treaty of Gandamak of 1879 and reinforced in the Durand line accord of 1893.''' <br> 
Reference 7 [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Afghanistan/J9_wDMaOowMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=treaty+of+gandamak+protectorate&pg=PA126&printsec=frontcover] Reference states '''by the treaty of Gandamak of May 1879, Afghanistan, in effect, became a British PROTECTORATE and gave British control of the Khyber Pass to ensure easy entry by the British troops.''' <br>
Reference 8 [https://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/rp/publications/no14/14-05_Toriya.pdf] Reference states: According  to  a  large  number  of  previous  studies, Afghanistan was fixed as a buffer state between Russia and British India as a result of the war and the  Gandamak  Treaty,  which  was  concluded  between  Amīr  Ya‘qūb  Khān  and  the  British  on  26 May 1879, substantially as proof of the surrender of the Afghan side. In this treaty, the Amīr of Kabul,  a  previous  ruler  of  Afghanistan,  not  only  ceded  various  territories  but  also  handed  over  diplomatic rights to the British. '''In short, Afghanistan was virtually a British protectorate until 1919.'''

This is what 3rd opinion said on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Anglo-Afghan_War&diff=1046174633&oldid=1046162837], '''Here is my non binding opinion. I am for inclusion of protectorate. David A. Lake writes "Afghanistan after 1879 is a classic example of protectorate". Princeton University Press. Seems enough. Cinadon36 09:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)'''. [[Special:Contributions/199.82.243.96|199.82.243.96]] ([[User talk:199.82.243.96|talk]]) 17:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

=== Second Anglo-Afghan War discussion ===
<div style="font-size:smaller">Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.</div>