Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 142

Archive 135

←

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

Archive 144

Archive 145

Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Gordon410 on 17:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Gordon410 (talk · contribs) Florian Blaschke (talk · contribs) Urselius (talk · contribs) The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) Collect (talk · contribs) Johnbod (talk · contribs) Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Freeman's extermination view is a fringe theory because it is not supported by sources and should be edited according to WP:Fringe_theories. Freeman's theory of extermination is a historical theory and should be documented as such. Currently, the theory takes undo precedence to the modern theory of Allen and others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain#.27Romano-Brittonic.27_peoples.27_fate_in_the_south-east Have you tried to resolve this previously? I submitted a dispute notice twice, I have submitted a fringe theory notice, and I have attempted to get a third opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ#What_if_my_dispute_has_two_viewpoints_but_multiple_editors.3F. How do you think we can help? Edit Freeman's theory of extermination to one sentence. Reword the lead to suggest the debate is over. Or we can put Freeman's theory into a historical section because, as TFD states, "the theory remains important because of its historical significance." Summary of dispute by Florian Blaschke Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I completely agree that Freeman's view is now considered fringe and far too extreme, as the evidence from historical, linguistic, genetic and archaeological sources all indicates more survival of the pre-Germanic culture and people than he was ready to admit, despite uncertainty about details. The History of the Norman Conquest of England#Themes points out how ideologically biased he was, personally invested in a belief in the "purely Teutonic nature of the English nation", which made him overlook that his view wasn't even internally consistent! Maybe this political context should be pointed out. Undue weight should certainly be avoided, which means the "extermination hypothesis" should be presented as obsolete, not as a still-current alternative hypothesis. Currently, the article does indeed present Freeman too positively. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Note that Urselius fails to appreciate that the relevance of the linguistic argument that points to a dearth of Celtic loanwords in English has been repeatedly been challenged in recent years. First, it is argued (e. g., in The Celtic Roots of English) that the number of loanwords is not as low as was thought in the 19th century (where it was thought there were almost none); second, it is pointed out (by Schrijver especially) that the Britons might have already been Latinised at the time (at least in the southeast), helping explain why there are not more loanwords; and third, loanwords may not even be expected in a language-shift scenario – there are analogous cases where we know that there was a shift, but there are few if any loanwords (Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Instead, we more frequently find structural influence, especially in the grammar; a particularly striking parallel is the substantive verb. See Brittonicisms in English for more detail. 19th-century scholars tended to know very little about Celtic, especially considering that Celtology was in its infancy at the time in general. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Urselius Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. As is explained in the article, the Extermination/displacement hypothesis is still referred to in modern (ie now, contemporary, happening at this point in time) reviews of the subject. It remains relevant because modern scholars are still referring to it, it is the starting point of their arguments. These arguments are in agreement or opposition to it to varying degrees, but it remains the fons et origo of all theories about English ethnogenesis. How did this viewpoint arise? The major starting point was the English language; it contains, and has only ever contained, perhaps a dozen words from the language of the native Britons - the most prominent word being "basket". What was the most obvious, and remains the most obvious, reason for this undisputed fact? The most obvious reason would be that the Anglo-Saxons rarely spoke to the natives, and that the modern English owe almost none of their ancestry to the Britons. Again the most straightforward explanation for this is if the Anglo-Saxons crossed the North Sea in huge numbers, and, once in Britain, drove out any Britons they did not kill. Fortuitously, there is a definite recorded immigration of Britons into the parts of NW Gaul that became Brittany, which occurred at the right time for them to have been displaced from Britain by the incoming Anglo-Saxons. The article as it stands is far, far more supportive of the acculturation theory than the mass-migration and extermination theories, whilst maintaining a degree of impartiality. In direct contradiction to what has been said previously in this resolution debate the extermination theory has a very low-profile in the article. Also, again in contradiction to a comment below, the results of DNA studies are far from reaching any consensus in resolving English ethnogenesis (to be brief, the English have been ascribed anywhere between <20% to 100% continental "Anglo-Saxon" ancestry). I am a geneticist, and know some of the people doing this work, and can prove my point quite easily by referring to half a dozen papers with widely divergent results (indeed some are referred to in the article already). Do I believe the extermination scenario to be accurate, do I support it? No I do not! I consider the acculturation theory to be much more plausible. So why am I defending the inclusion, integrated within the text, of this theory? I refer to my arguments above. It is still referred to regularly in modern scholarship. The people wanting to stick the theory in a "bin" labelled "fringe and historical" need to prove that it is no longer found in current scholarship. They cannot do this as there are countless books and articles written since 1990, since 2000, since 2010 that refer to it. Their arguments are pointless in the face of this fact. Urselius (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Note that Florian Blaschke has completely missed the point of my argument. Of course I know about recent linguistic supports for a Brittonic substratum for Old and Middle English, I have added references to them to the article myself (easily checked). He, like a number of others, mistakes my argument for the retention of the extermination/displacement theory within the text of the article for support for the theory. This is despite numerous instances of my stating my personal preference for the acculturation theory. How does one dispute with people who cannot grasp what the motivations of scholarship are? Personally, I am convinced that the extermination/displacement theory is incorrect, but it needs to be retained because of its importance in the history of scholarly debate, its continued position in the collective psyche, its continued use in scholarly writings and because it represents one extreme of a wide spectrum of scenarios. Urselius (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by The Four Deuces At one time there was a belief in ethnically homogeneous peoples sharing the same ancestry, culture and language. According to that theory, the British Isles were Celtic but the population of what is today England was replaced by Teutons. Current scholarship, partly aided by DNA research, rejects that view, but the theory remains important because of its historical significance. Another issue is the use of the term "genocide." Genocide is a modern concept and it is anachronistic to apply it to pre-modern mass killings. The modern concept of race had not been developed. TFD (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Collect The sad truth is that modern DNA studies offer actual evidence and not surmise on the topic, and theories which are in conflict with the latest such studies do, alas, are now "fringe." This article ought not present theories which conflict with DNA results as still being mainstream any more. Collect (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Johnbod Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Entirely agree with Urselius. Freeman is mentioned precisely twice, in the same para: "One theory, first set out by Edward Augustus Freeman, suggests that the Anglo Saxons and the Britons were competing cultures ..." and "However, Freeman's ideas did not go unchallenged, even as they were being propounded." This is entirely appropriate. Anyone who thinks all notion of "competing cultures" is now "fringe" has simply not been reading the literature; unfortunately I believe this applies to some of the editors here. There have been a number of studies (mostly on pretty tiny numbers of samples by normal medical or scientific standards) of DNA & isotope analysis, which have as always produced results that appear a good deal less than completely consistent. Anyone who thinks these have now settled the matter (as Collect does) is completely wrong. One day they will no doubt contribute to a more settled understanding, but a lot more data is needed; it is very early days for this branch of research. The whole subject is complex and controversial, with academic debate very much continuing, and we are lucky to have User:J Beake and Urselius, who respectively largely wrote the current form of the article and have maintained it against a string of inexpert assaults, of which that by User:Gordon410 is the latest and much the most persistent. He began back in April, starting the talk page section "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain - What Really Happened" with "I believe that the debate about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is over. The following account is difficult to disagree with: [terrible draft para follows, everybody disagreed]. Since then he has peppered the talk page with alternating demands and questions, rubbishing all sources produced that do not support him, and showing no capacity for following complex academic debates. The current form of the article is balanced, and certainly does not support an "extermination" hypothesis, which is given one para in a very long article. Reading the fairly short Chapter 6 of The Oxford Handbook of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology of 2011 on "the molecular evidence" should dispel any impression that the matter is settled - and by the way the author cheerfully says that "many feasible scenarios can be constructed, with analogues of genocide, ethnic cleansing, enslavement, social demoralization..." (p. 88 - thanks to User:Doug Weller for the link). If the article has a fault it is relying too much on primary research sources, and crappy short journalistic pieces on them, rather than "review"-type academic sources. Something of a WP:MEDRS approach would be useful here. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Odysseus1479 I haven‘t been involved long enough to summarize with any cogency or add to what‘s been covered above in that regard—I just commented on a couple of papers that were brought up at WP:FTN. That said, since others are also stating their positions, I‘ll try and briefly offer a few random ‘outside’ opinions. What I gather of Freeman‘s hypothesis from the article is that to call it “extermination” is something of a caricature, as it includes enslavement, expulsion, and so on—but that may be nitpicking. I don‘t think the essential idea, in some nuanced form, is “fringe“ either. Ignoring all the challenges and complications, or bringing along whatever chauvinistic baggage Freeman may have had, would be another matter. But nobody expects a 150-year-old work to be up to current standards, and I don’t think the article presents it so. Outdated ideas often have paedagogical value, and hold some interest with regard to the history of a discipline, even if they‘ve become irrelevant to modern researchers. Regarding the genetic evidence, it seems to me far from conclusive. One problem is distinguishing ‘insular’ genomes from ‘continental’, especially considering the similarity between ‘Celtic‘ and ‘Germanic‘ peoples (certainly in the eyes of classical authors), and demonstrated by the wide variations in various studies‘ results; another is that modern statistical distributions can say little about the population’s history, making it hard to distinguish an ‘invasion‘ from a process that may have been begun with the Iron Age or earlier; and even stipulating a discernible change in the post-Roman period there are several possible mechanisms, aside from extermination, to explain that. Overall I think the article does pretty well WRT neutrality on the question.—Odysseus1479 09:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Richard Keatinge Support Johnbod's account. I would add that the article could usefully be clearer to non-academic readers, but that any clarification should be done by someone who understands the underlying academic evidence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement_of_Britain#Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain_Wikipedia_Article_Revision discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has notified the other editors. Waiting for comments by other editors, since discussion here is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2016 (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.

Talk:Obrenović dynasty

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by N Jordan on 00:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Obrenović dynasty (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved N Jordan (talk · contribs) Crow (talk · contribs) 24.135.188.99 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Since February 2016, the unregistered user (IP 24.135.188.99) continues editing this article by inserting information about the person who claims he's a legitimate heir of this royal house. He refuses position of leading contemporary historians and insists on an alternate view of the history. However, he does not provide any reliable sources but insists they are destroyed due to a conspiracy against that family. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I suggested a text that would acknowledge the existence of pretenders and their claims. I asked for reliable sources. User Crow also tried to help and asked for unbiased sources. I applied for WP:3 and user Robert McClenon tried to assist. However, the discussion is lengthy and disorganized, so he couldn't help. How do you think we can help? Help us to create a paragraph that will be based on reliable sources. Protect the article so it can not be edited by unregistered users. Summary of dispute by Crow I am not involved in this dispute per se, in that I have no particular interest in the content of the article, other than having insisted on reliable sourcing for any assertions made by either side. As most of the sources are in Serbian, that further removes me from active content opinions here. I became aware of this after seeing H.R.H. Prince Predrag R. Obrenović cross NPP as an unsourced blp. The disputed page was linked from that so I went there to find the same unsourced claims being added there. I reverted their addition once then went to the talk page to let the IP know that sources were required. That's all I've been asking for. N Jordan's summary is accurate from what I've observed: the IP insists that their version is correct but cannot provide sources other than suggesting someone write to a Serbian court for their ruling. If it can be proven via reliable source then so much the better for everyone. Failing that, I think N Jordan's offer of a compromise describing the claims and claimants is quite collegial given potential undue-weight concerns. CrowCaw 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by unregistered user Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Obrenović dynasty discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been adequate discussion at the article talk page. The other editors have been properly notified of this filing by the filing party. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am accepting this case for moderated discussion. I don't know much about the subject other than that the Obrenovic dynasty ruled Serbia before being displaced by another dynasty. It is up to the editors to state the facts; my job is to facilitate discussion. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, not to improve or complain about the editors. Every editor should check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and reply to questions within 48 hours. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Do not reply to the comments of other editors; avoid back-and-forth discussion; address your comments to the moderator and the community. Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors Statements by N Jordan The assassination of king Alexander of Serbia resulted in the end of the Obrenović dynasty. King Alexander seemed on the verge of proclaming his wife’s brother as heir to the throne. The coup d’état was organized by the military conspirators who invaded the royal palace and murdered king Alexander, queen Draga, and some members of the court. "Alexander". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alexander-king-of-Serbia>. The royal couple was brutally assassinated by officers in the palace in Belgrade in 1903, bringing an end to the Obrenović dynasty. The Skupština (Serbian National Assembly) invited Peter Karadjordjević to return as King Peter I. "Serbia: The scramble for the Balkans ". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 < https://www.britannica.com/place/Serbia/Government-and-society#ref477293 >. The officers’ conspiracy to assassinate the unpopular king Alexander Obrenović was initiated by Dragutin Dimitrijevic Apis (an army officer) in 1901 and carried out in June 1903. "Dragutin Dimitrijevic". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 04 Sep. 2016 <https://www.britannica.com/biography/Dragutin-Dimitrijevic> N Jordan (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderator One editor has made some sourced statements about the overthrow of the Obrenovic dynasty. Those statements appear to be consistent with what is currently in the article. I had asked for a statement of what the issues were. I assume that the editor who made that statement thinks that those statements should remain in the article. Is there a question about whether those statements should be in the article? Is there another issue? I assume that there is an issue, or the editors wouldn't have requested mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors Statements by N Jordan In current text, there is a statement that is not true: “…conspiracy organized by Prince Petar Karadjordjević”. Also, Black Hand was a secret military society established in 1910 (7 years after the murder of king Alexander), by officers who participated in May Coup – not an underground movement that murdered the king. The issue is the following sentence that is currently removed from the article: “After the overthrow one of their branch, descended from Jakov Obrenović, Miloš Obrenović's brother, H.R.H.Prince Predrag R. Obrenović became the successor of the Royal House Obrenovic and the Obrenovic claimant to the Serbian throne, after the breakup of Yugoslavia.”. The source was not provided since October 2015. Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Obrenović_dynasty&type=revision&diff=737124748&oldid=737119789 for differences. --N Jordan (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Comment by Crow @Robert McClenon: I made a preliminary above but as implied there, I don't have a lot to contribute content-wise to this dispute. To your second statement above, the crux of the dispute (I believe) is the IPs addition of the unsourced statement about Predrag R. Obrenović. I don't believe anything in the article as it stands is disputed by the IP, but that they wish to add that information on a claimant to the Serbian throne without a reliable source. I suspect the IP has been dissuaded from the dispute by the full-prot currently on the page. What may happen when that expires, we shall have to see. I would prefer the edit war not resume of course. CrowCaw 18:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator One editor has responded to my requests for statements of the issues. The other editors have not. If there is no reply within the next day, I will have to close this thread due to inactivity. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors Statements by N Jordan The statement that conspiracy was organized by Prince Petar Karadjordjevic is unsourced and should be removed from the article. The unsourced statement about Predrag R. Obrenovic should not be inserted. I'm afraid that after the expiration of protection, we may go back to square one. I'm suggesting the following compromise: The family's rule came to an end in a coup d’état by the military conspirators who invaded the royal palace and murdered Alexander, who died without an heir. The National Assembly of Serbia invited Peter Karađorđević to become a king of Serbia. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, some descendants from Jakov Obrenović, Miloš Obrenović's half-brother, declared themselves successors of the Royal House of Obrenovic and elected their pretender to the defunct throne of Serbia. --N Jordan (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Khan Noonien_Singh

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Davidkevin on 01:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Khan Noonien Singh (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Davidkevin (talk · contribs) Izno (talk · contribs) Dbrodbeck (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The 1967 Star Trek episode specifically describes in dialog Khan Noonien Singh as being a product of selective breeding. The 1982 movie Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan]] specifically describes in dialog Khan Noonien Singh as being a product of genetic engineering. There is a consistent effort to make the article inaccurate by the WP:OR of presuming that what was said in the television episode was not what the writer meant, and that what the writer really meant was the phrase in the movie despite what was actually said, a phrase not even existent in the English language in 1967. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Further, bad faith -- bullying -- is in fact being used to make the article incorrect and inaccurate through this OR. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Citing the dialogue in the episode and film as the writers' intended language. Weasel worded, Orwellian twisting is being used to assert that what the writers wrote wasn't really what they intended and that certain Wikipedian editors know what the "real" intent was. How do you think we can help? Making it clear that changing dialog from that stated in order to fit with their fan ideas of what was meant in a Star Trek episode and movie is inappropriate, and keeping the correct version of the article from being constantly changed by people practicing WP:OWN. The idea "that the characters in the screenplays are not reliable sources" for what they say is metaphysical gibberish -- what is said in the episode and movie dialog is in fact what is meant in them. Summary of dispute by Izno Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. David began this dispute over a year ago attempting to insert text similar to [1]. A discussion began at Talk:Khan Noonien Singh#RetCon Exists. David appears to believe that it is not WP:OR (specifically WP:SYNTHESIS) to attempt to make this edit. He has not presented a reliable source to back up his claims, and as I have explained on the talk page, the distinction he is seeking to make isn't relevant to the general reader--even if there weren't deeper policy implications. Three separate editors, including the editor that took the article to FA, have reverted him at one point or another, so it may be desirable to glance over the article history as well. --Izno (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dbrodbeck Thank you for the notification, I had no idea. Izno has pretty much summarized my thoughts. I simply was following BRD. I see above quite a bit of commentary about editors and not content. I didn't thank that was cool here, perhaps I am mistaken Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Khan Noonien_Singh discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: There has been discussion on the article talk page. All editors that have engaged in talk page discussion have been listed, but were not notified on their talk pages by the filing party. I have notified Dbrodbeck, as Inzo has already responded here. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 01:38, 11 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Naturopathy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Benders001 on 22:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Naturopathy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Benders001 (talk · contribs) NeilN (talk · contribs) McSly (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Many readers (myself included) feel the entire Naturopathy page is extremely biased. The page attacks the profession, rather than explaining it and letting the reader form a decision on their own. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Use of talk page and message on individual talk page belonging to author. How do you think we can help? Provide a mediator to help eliminate biased content and provide factual, but neutral information. Summary of dispute by NeilN Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by McSly Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Naturopathy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: The filing party has not notified the other parties on their talk pages. There doesn't appear to be very much recent discussion on the talk page. The specific content issue at hand is also not especially clear. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 00:11, 13 September 2016 (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.

Tigrayans

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Sennaitgebremariam on 16:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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 Tigrayans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Sennaitgebremariam (talk · contribs) Otakrem (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Problem with user Otakrem after a long discussion lasting three months, after it was reported Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 1 after that there have been discussions with other users 1, ask the write lock for the user Otakrem on the page tigrayans the problem is a war of senseless changes in section1 Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people of which you complain of the sources that are authoritative sources, ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes and to warn Otakrem do not change more paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people but to change it just proving the opposite Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried with the page Talk: Tigrayans, with the help of other users, with reporting to Wikipedia: Administrators' noticeboard / Incidents, with my personal page User talk: Sennaitgebremariam How do you think we can help? stopping Otakrem in ruining the work of others Summary of dispute by Otakrem Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Tigrayans discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - This is still not stated as a content dispute, but as a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Robert McClenon I've discussed with SennaitGebremariam but I also discussed with other editors namely Soupforone on the "Notable Persons" and I am following the Wikipedia rules of properly sourced Notable Person entries when I edit sections in Articles. I am not the only one removing improperly sourced "Notable Persons" in articles. You are more than welcome to view the articles of Amhara people, Tigrinyas, Tigrayans, etc.Otakrem (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Comment - I'm not sure what Otakrem's discussion with SennaitGebremariam over on the Tigrayans page is about. However, as regards my and CambridgeBayWeather's discussion with Otakrem vis-a-vis the Tigrinyas page, we advised him that per policy, the ethnic heritage had to be reliable and verifiable beforehand in the respective link-thrus. After some brief back and forth, Otakrem eventually got the hang of it, and it worked out well in the end [2]. Soupforone (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC) After I discussed with Soupforone on the Tigrinya article, I followed the same reasoning for the Tigrayan article. If I am following Wikipedia guidelines, I see nothing wrong here. That is why I recommended to Sennaitgebremariam to discuss with Soupforone so that an understanding of Wikipedia guidelines could become helpful to Sennaitgebremariam in future edits.Otakrem (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC) the references are there, not to spoil the work of others http://orvillejenkins.com/profiles/tigrinya.html http://www.ikuska.com/Africa/Etnologia/Pueblos/tigrinya/index.htm http://www.ethiopianorthodoxchurch.org/saint_yared.html http://www.st-gebriel.org/Styared/gab_yared_music.htm http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/kaleb2.html http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/periplus.asp https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/KingdomOfAksum_StudentsWorksheets.pdf http://worldcoincatalog.com/AC/C/Aksum/300-310CE-Aphilas/300-310CE-Aphilas.htm http://www.dacb.org/stories/ethiopia/_ezana.html https://books.google.it/books?id=YTGRcVLMg6MC&pg=PA157&lpg=PA157&dq=Ouazebas+axum&source=bl&ots=qd0ji6e1Es&sig=jRzAKemdzj_pFW4v-dVhBWckEi4&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwim4dPpi7LNAhXGDBoKHYBoCTs4ChDoAQgqMAI#v=onepage&q=Ouazebas%20axum&f=false Bibliography Tellez, The Travels of the Jesuits in Ethiopia, 1710 (LaVergue: Kessinger, 2010), pp. 89F. E. Bernard, AJ Drewes, and R. Schneider, Recueil des Inscriptions de l'Ethiopie périodes des pré-axoumite et axoumite. Volume I:. Les Inscriptions Paris: Diffusion de Boccard 1991, p. 247. Siegbert Uhlig (ed.) (2016). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: D-Ha, Volume 2 Eight Harrassowitz Verlag .. p. 211 S. C. Munro-Hay, Aksum: an African civilization Late Antiquity (Edinburgh University Press, 1991), p. 91. letter to Antoine d'Abbadie, January 8, 1869 mentions a coin of this ruler. Sven Rubenson, Aethiopica Acta, vol 3: internal rivalries and external threats, from 1869 to 1879 (Addis Ababa: University Press, 2000), p. 3 See the article on ELLA Saham by Gianfranco Fiaccadori Aethiopica the Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Wiesbaden 2016 ask the page restore, of The Voidwalker 1 with Axumite kings, who has tried to mediate with the words Wikipedia: Accuracy disputes --tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Response to SennaitG Of all of your sources,which one of them claims that the Aksumite kings are "Tigrayans" or "Tigrinyas"?Otakrem (talk) 09:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC) can you read? is simple--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: This noticeboard focuses on content, not contributors. Please remain civil while discussing things here. Depending on what the content issue actually is, there may be more involved editors on the article talk page. The filing party should clarify what content issue is under discussion in the Dispute overview section. The other party should then make an opening statement. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - This noticeboard focuses on content issues only. Its purpose is to improve articles, not to complain about other editor. Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. The filing party has not yet made a concise statement of what the content issue is without mentioning another editor. If the filing party does not make a one-paragraph statement of what the content issue is, that does not mention other editors by name, it will be necessary to close this case again. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC) the problem is the restoration of paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigray people--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion before acceptance is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Otakrem's response SennaitG, the sources you cited on the Aksumite kings did not state that the said Kings were "Tigrayans" nor "Tigrinyas". Just as Ancient Romans were not Italians, nor are Ancient Aksumites identified as "Amhara", "Tigrinya", "Tigrayans"..(modern ethnic group) it just doesn't make sense. Ancient Babylonians are not Called Iraqis either. I think you can see the revisionist identification would make history questionable everytime a new group comes along and claims ownership of the ethnic identity of said ancient peoples.Otakrem (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC) source 1 1 1 1 read the article Ge'ez language All Axumite kings born in Tigray is the people Tigrayan and language is direct source for both the source Ge'ez language, most importantly the type of stone construction (Hudmo)1 of peasant dwellings, and the thousands churchs and rock hewn churches of Tigray in classic style Axumite and almost all of the practice of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of religion and most monumental archaeological treasures and inherits library stored in Tigray all bring back the Axumite period not retrievable in some parts Amhara and especially Oromo. The Tigray people live in Tigray for 3,000 years, and are direct descendants from the people of the kingdom of axum the axum became a Christian kingdom with King Ezana for Italy it is another matter passed a great variety of peoples in that region but that the Italian culture is predominantly Latin unlike other European peoples. the direct origin of the ancient Axumite was tigrayans with the rise to power of Menelik I first king of axum led to the creation in the first century the Axum Empire--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Look SennaitG, I am not trying to be unreasonable here. I argued with Soupforone to include living persons who are from Eritrea Tigrinya regions into the Notable Tigrinya section for Tigrinyas and Soupforone still deleted them. The criteria for living persons is so high and even for deceased persons like Aksumite kings. Why should the requirement be different for Aksumite kings? How are they Tigrayans simply because they were kings in a Axum, a town in Tigray? By that argument, one can call Ancient Egyptian Pharoah Ramses, a Muslim Arab simply because Muslim Arabs live in Egypt now.Otakrem (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Enough with this game--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 11:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party is requested, if this is a content dispute, to state concisely what the content dispute is, and to list all parties who have edited the article or its talk page within the past two weeks, not just one party. This thread will be closed within 24 hours unless a content dispute is clearly stated and all parties to the content dispute are listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC) the problem is the restoration of paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigray people for reasons I have already listed edited the article Otakrem, EthiopianHabesha, Soupforone, Richard0048--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2016 (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.

Yom Kippur

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Purrhaps on 02:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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 Yom Kippur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Purrhaps (talk · contribs) Debresser (talk · contribs) Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) MShabazz (talk · contribs) Odysseus1479 (talk · contribs) Doug Weller (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It's impossible that Yom Kippur = Day of Atonement from etymology. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Talk submissions at Yom Kippur & my Talk. How do you think we can help? Arbitration regarding etymology & literal meaning. Summary of dispute by Debresser Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Waiting to see if this thread will be opened. Summary of dispute by Sir Joseph Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by MShabazz I had asked Purrhaps several times for reliable sources that support her/his argument. This afternoon she/he finally provided some. I have not yet had a chance to review them in order to reply. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Actually I am a HE, & it was Sept 2 (on my Talk page) & asked you after that to comment. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC) As I wrote, I asked you for reliable sources. Strong's numbers by themselves are not a reliable source. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Odysseus Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Doug Weller Not sure why I'm here as I haven't been involved in the article or the talk page. Ah, found it. I posted to his talk page. First a 3RR warning, then a mistaken comment suggesting he'd edited someone else's edit - this was due to interpolation problems. I also advised him about some of our policies and guidelines. And I removed some forum style comments of his from another talk page and dropped a notice on his page about use of talk pages. I see a new editor struggling with our policies and guidelines and convinced that they are right. And perhaps a bit confused, but that may be me as I find some of what he writes confusing. But again, I haven't been directly involved in the dispute. Doug Weller talk 13:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Yom Kippur discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been recent discussion at the article talk page by some of the editors. The filing party has notified the other editors. I will note that the filing party asks DRN to arbitrate concerning the use and literal meaning of words. DRN moderators mediate; they do not arbitrate. Does the filing party want mediation, which will facilitate discussion and compromise? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, please mediate. The following might be helpful to all participants. This dispute is like saying H1471 gowy (goy) literally means heathen or Gentile (no, it literally means a people, nation). -- Purrhaps (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) So what is the next step? -- 01:16, 7 September 2016 (UTC) The next step is to wait for a moderator to accept the case for moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Statement by possible moderator I am willing to accept this case for moderated discussion. However, I want to be sure that I am acceptable as a moderator, because I am not Jewish. If anyone objects to having a non-Jewish moderator, please state the objection. (I don't know if we have a Jewish volunteer handy.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC) To me, the moderator's religion is of no importance. The issues involved in the dispute are related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not religion or "truth". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Extended comment I believe in the same One God revealed through the Hebrew Scriptures as most Jews do. Not sure how that is either relevant or helpful. Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in this same deity, so it wouldn't help one way or the other as far as a perception of doctrinal bias is concerned, and the issue is about Wikipedia policies, not doctrine. Also, 'one' isn't a proper noun.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I will moderate this case unless a Jewish volunteer accepts it. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long posts are not helpful and sometimes obscure the issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article by compromise or by clarification, not to address any issue about the editors. Each editor should check on this case at least every 48 hours and reply to any questions within 24 hours. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. That has already been done on the talk page. Reply only to me and the community. Do not edit the article while discussion here is in progress. Commenting on the article at the article talk page may be ignored. Now: Will each editor state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is, without referring to other editors by name? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Reminder by moderator - Comment on content, not contributors. Comments referring to specific editors may be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Wrong place for this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Please add User:Jeffro77 to this discussion. He actively to part in the talkpage discussion recently (after this thread was opened). Debresser (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC) No thanks. This dispute seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how words work, but there is also a deeper vein of underlying religious POV about how 'sins' are magicked away by deities. The English word 'atonement' has existed for centuries, and Wikipedia should accurately report how the word is used. The complainant starts off at Talk that the word 'atonement' 'couldn't have been been in the OT because it was invented later'. This is true of literally all English words. Also, the year asserted for the writing of Leviticus by the editor is not that agreed by scholars and reflects a religious superstition.) The editor wants to 'right a great (perceived) wrong' after his "use of atonement all [his] life, was changed this past January when [he] did research". The usage of atonement in English as it relates to the concepts in Judaism and Christianity is well established. Please note that I have said all I am going to say at this discussion, and am not interested in going round in circles repeating what I have already said, so please don't add me here for further discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors Debresser 1. The Hebrew root "כפר" has a basic meaning and derived meanings, like all words in any language. The filing editor insists that only the basic meaning should be used in translation, and that claim is not correct. 2. His argument that the word "to atone" doesn't appear in English till a certain year has no relevance since English as a language is much younger than Hebrew, and all words in English didn't appear till later. Likewise, Latin and Greek translations are not really relevant to the issue. Not to mention that at least one of the Latin translations supports "atonement". 3. What he proposes comes down to saying that "to cover a song" means to put another object on top of it, rather than another artist making their own second version of the song. Which is absurd. 4. His point of view is based on his personal research, as he has stated himself, and Wikipedia is not a blog for people's original research. 5. There are hardly any sources for the fringe point he pushes, and of those he provided most are not reliable. Take for example the link he provided to a blog, which in addition renders a 404 error. In any case, they can not outweigh the vast majority of sources that use the translation "atonement". 6. As I said on the talkpage, I still think that this version of the article expressed perfectly what the posting editor and his sources try to say, without ignoring it or giving it more weight than it deserves, and most importantly, and without adding all kinds of extraneous detail (regarding 1510 CE etc.). 7. In conclusion, I propose to either keep the present version, which doesn't include the translation proposed by the posting editor, or use my original compromise version from the above diff. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Jeffro This dispute seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how words work, but there is also a deeper vein of underlying religious POV about how 'sins' are magicked away by deities. The English word 'atonement' has existed for centuries, and Wikipedia should accurately report how the word is used. The complainant starts off at Talk that the word 'atonement' 'couldn't have been in the OT because it was invented later'. This is true of literally all English words. (Also, the year asserted for the writing of Leviticus by the editor is not that agreed by scholars and reflects a religious superstition.) The editor wants to 'right a great (perceived) wrong' after his "use of atonement all [his] life, was changed this past January when [he] did research". The usage of atonement in English as it relates to the concepts in Judaism and Christianity is well established. Please note that I have said all I am going to say at this discussion, and am not interested in going round in circles repeating what I have already said, so please don't add me here for further discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Comment: I responded to Debresser's request to have me added to this discussion, wherein I specifically requested that I didn't want to be involved further in this discussion. Someone else has then moved my comments into a new 'discussion' section. With the exception of possibly responding to any false comments made about me, I won't be involved in this dicussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Back-and-forth discussion not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Comment: Jeffro77 writes: (Also, the year asserted for the writing of Leviticus by the editor is not that agreed by scholars and reflects a religious superstition.) ~ Feel free to correct the following Wiki-scholarship. ~ http://thewikibible.pbworks.com/enwiki/w/page/22174951/LEVITICUS -- Purrhaps (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC) The Wiki you cite is hardly a scholarly source. I see no need to correct that unimportant website. There are any number of websites devoted to promoting superstitious religious beliefs. Wikipedia is not one of them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Sorry. I relied on Wiki-scholarship, apparently to everyone's detriment. Perhaps somebody should correct Wiki content on this date-error. -- Purrhaps (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) You seem confused about the distinction between a Wiki—any website that uses the Wiki engine—and Wikipedia, a specific Wiki run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with your chosen religiously oriented Wiki. Anyone with a computer and an Internet connection can set up 'a Wiki'. They can even run it from their own home server. The fact that something is on 'a Wiki' does not mean it has anything to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors have no inherent affiliation with other websites that happen to use the same type of database engine, and are in no way responsible for the content on such independent websites. Wikipedia rules do not apply to indepenent Wikis, and the people who run other Wikis can allow and endorse whatever content or community behaviours they like.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderator It appears, from picking apart the statements of the editors, that the issue is whether "Day of Atonement" is a correct translation of "Yom Kippur". If there are any other issues, please state what they are. If the issue is one of translation, do reliable sources state that "Day of Atonement" is a valid translation of "Yom Kippur"? If, as has been noted, "atonement" is a secondary or derived meaning of the Hebrew word, a valid compromise would be to provide a linguistic explanation. However, if reliable sources provide a translation, discounting the reliable sources because someone thinks that the translation is wrong would be original research. So: Is the real issue one of translation? If so, what do reliable sources say? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Isn't it a bit quick to go for a second round, with only 2 editors out of 8 who have replied so far in round one? I don't want to carry the sole burden of one of the two sides in this dispute, when there are another 6 editors who share my point of view, and who perhaps have more time to do research. I can speak as a rabbi, a person with intimate knowledge of Jewish traditions, but to provide sources for the knowledge I have gathered over decades is a serious job. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors StevenJ81 I've been following this during a Wikibreak. I enter into discussion my comments at Talk:Yom Kippur#General response, excluding the introduction where I offer an opinion about editor bias which is not relevant here. Use of "Day of Atonement" for "Yom Kippur" must be so widespread as to qualify as WP:BLUE. Even the sources that User:Purrhaps brings there mostly include the language "Day of Atonement", even if they then modify that language or suggest that "coverings" might be more accurate. If the moderator does not agree that "Day of Atonement" is the widely used translation for "Yom Kippur"—whether it should be or not—I suppose we could try to prove that. But I'm going to express a hunch here that Googling "Day of Atonement" and "Day of Covering(s)" won't even be remotely close. My response on the talk page also discussed the parallel use of the root K-P-R (the one in question here) with two other roots (S-L-KH and M-KH-L) in the liturgy of Yom Kippur. There are many, many examples of that. All these terms refer to atonement and forgiveness of some type or other, and I've never seen a suggestion that there is another meaning of either of the other two. I'll provide sources if you want, but again, they feel like "BLUE" to me. But here's just one, a Christian site quoting a rabbinical source. An argument can be made that "Atonement" (or "forgiveness", or something else related to that) is a derived use for K-P-R. I'm not sure that's categorically proved, but I think there is an argument there. But that derived use is the one that is the common use in this setting. Outside of an explicit discussion of etymology, calling this "covering" is just confusing, and doesn't capture the meaning that people commonly understand. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Purrhaps The issue is the etymology & literal meanings of words. Wiki shouldn't allow someone to write: "kippur" literally means "atonement", when it literally means "to cover" -- looking at the 4 related Hebrew words. The Greek Septuagint Pentateuch (282 BC) understood the Hebrew to = hemera exilasmou in Lev.23:27,28. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (405 AD) understood the Hebrew to = dies expiationum in Lev.23:27, & dies propitiationis in Lev.23:28. These languages pre-date & supersede English-Atonement. -- Purrhaps (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Malik Shabazz I cannot continue this dispute resolution if the complainant cannot or will not read and understand such basic and core Wikipedia concepts as WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Neutral point of view (particularly WP:UNDUE). Without those necessary fundamentals, we're speaking English and he's speaking Martian. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Debresser Like Malik, I see one editor going against everybody and everything and view this thread as forumshopping. I repeat my my first statement. Just want to add that "dies expiationum" is translated "day of attonement",[3] and rightfully so.[4] Debresser (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator The first question is: Do reliable sources state that 'Yom Kippur' means 'Day of Atonement'? I am not asking whether that is the original primary meaning of the Hebrew, since words may have primary and secondary meanings, but whether reliable sources state that 'Yom Kippur' means 'Day of Atonement'. What is written in Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources. (The RS and OR policies are not negotiable and do not require compromise or dispute resolution.) The second question is: Would a compromise, in which a discussion of the history of the Hebrew word is provided, be acceptable? The third question is: Does the article currently state that 'atonement' is the literal meaning of 'Kippur', or only that it is the meaning in context of the name of the day? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC) I will note that I am doing my best to be a neutral moderator, but I don't see what the filing party's argument is based on what has been said so far. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Purrhaps Yom Kippur article currently states: Yom means "day" in Hebrew and Kippur comes from a root that means "to atone", which is related to the biblical name of the covering of the Ark (called the kapporet) Erev Yom Kippur (lit. "eve [of] day [of] atonement") is the day preceding Yom Kippur. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors Purrhaps Let me quote "GeneralizationsAreBad" ~ "About ~ I want to improve Wikipedia's much-maligned reputation, and transform it into a credible, respected source of research and news information, free from bias and editorializing. I am indeed opinionated, but also a strong believer in objective, judicious, and rigorous writing. I understand the importance of maintaining and improving existing content, as well as creating new content." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeneralizationsAreBad == Purrhaps (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Lev.23:28 CEB ~ it is a Day of Reconciliation to make reconciliation CJB ~ it is Yom-Kippur CEV ~ it is the Great Day of Forgiveness DRA ~ it is a day of propitiation EXB ~ it is the Day of Cleansing GNV ~ it is a day of reconciliation GW ~ It is a special day for the payment for sins GNT ~ it is the day for performing the ritual to take away sin ICB ~ it is the Day of Cleansing JUB ~ it is a day of reconciliations NOG ~ It is a special day for the payment for sins NCV ~ it is the Day of Cleansing NIRV ~ It is the day when sin is paid for NLV ~ it is a day to be made free from sin OJB ~ it is Yom Kippurim TLV ~ it is Yom Kippur WYC ~ it is the day of cleansing *YLT ~ it is a day of atonements (note the plural) *http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Yom-Kippur.html#.V9kqJq3UaGw ~ The name Yom Kippur doesn't really occur in the Bible, but rather Yom Kippurim (or even Yom Hakippurim). And as such it occurs only three times, namely in Leviticus 23:27 and 25:9 as ...yom hakippurim and in Leviticus 23:28 as ...yom kippurim -- Purrhaps (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Latin Vulgate (405 CE) Lev.23:27 = dies expiationum (literally Day of Expiations) Lev.23:28 = dies propitiationis (literally Day of Propitiation) -- Purrhaps (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Debresser To answer the questions asked by the moderator: 'Day of Atonement' is the standard translation of 'Yom Kippur' in reliable sources. Such a compromise would be acceptable to me only if the treatment were proportionate to its due weight, by which I mean very short. Like in the edit I proposed by way of compromise.[5] See the short Etymology paragraph. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator One of the statements above is simply a platitude about the importance of objectivity, but objectivity means the use of reliable sources. They haven't given a reason that is consistent with Wikipedia policies for ignoring what reliable sources say. As I noted above, I am trying very hard to be a neutral moderator, but I am not permitted to be neutral about the reliable source policy and the original research policy. If reliable sources translate 'Yom Kippur' as 'Day of Atonement', Wikipedia should state that reliable sources translate it as 'Day of Atonement'. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Does anyone have a reliable source that provides some other translation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) If there is no dispute that is consistent with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and original research, this thread will have to be closed, with advice that any further disagreements can be resolved by a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC) When I said that back-and-forth discussion was not permitted, I meant that back-and-forth discussion was not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I never read that part sorry. As previously noted, I didn't want to be involved in this discussion, and my comments were moved into another section despite that. If I am not addressed by other editors, I won't be involved in the discussion, as it's just a continuous circular argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors Sm8900 I agree with Debresser above. namely, the title "Day of Atonement." is the commonly accepted English name of the holiday of Yom Kippur. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Purrhaps I have no issues with wording such as: commonly accepted, also known as, widely known as. That is much different when the subject is etymology, or the literal meaning. And it is a Day of Plurals. A list of alternate English translations is shown in Statement 3. --Purrhaps (talk) 09:34, 14 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Serena Williams#Battle_of_the_Sexes

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Thad caldwell on 01:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Serena Williams#Battle of the Sexes (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Thad caldwell (talk · contribs) Svrodgers (talk · contribs) Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The "Battle of the Sexes" on Serena Williams article is being disputed as it seems biased, inaccurate, and unnecessary to most users save a couple. This section has been discussed for a while now though a bot has removed majority of the conversation. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The topic was talked about on the talk page and all but one (Fyunck(click)) wanted it removed as it is somewhat inaccurate and unnecessary. A RFC was suggested, however according to the Wikipedia help page this step seemed more appropriate. How do you think we can help? Please review the section and conversation as we've reached an impasse. Does this section meet Wiki's BLP policies? Please suggest ways in which a consensus can be reached. Summary of dispute by Svrodgers Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Fyunck(click) Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Serena Williams#Battle_of_the_Sexes discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. Some of the editors who have taken part in the discussion are not listed above. The filing party has not notified the other editors of the filing here. Leaving this thread pending to allow the filing party to add other editors and to notify the editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Hello, I noted that I posted a DR in the talk section. I only listed the members who are on the most recent thread. Should I also list the members who were in the discussion in the previous thread? Also, do I contact them individually? TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party has listed the editors who took part in the most recent thread. The filing party should also list themselves, and should notify the other editors on their talk pages. A template is available for the purpose, but its use is optional; any talk page message that is clear is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Where can I find the template? TJC-tennis-geek (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The template is {{subst:DRN-notice}}, but any talk page message is sufficient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - This thread will be closed due to lack of notice in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Thank you Robert. The conversation has resumed on the talk page so feel free to close this dispute. I will file another if the dialogue breaks down. Thank you for your assistance and patience! 208.58.4.22 (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Sciences Po

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Launebee on 10:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Sciences Po (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Launebee (talk · contribs) 75.156.54.227 (talk · contribs) 2001:569:78d8:3200:7d54:2562:a143:ad69 (talk · contribs) 193.54.23.146 (talk · contribs) 2003:42:2e66:436a:98d:9112:7ec7:e8be (talk · contribs) 2003:42:2e66:436a:98d:9112:7ec7:e8be (talk · contribs) 2800:370:69:d440:5d6a:1409:3cd3:f59d (talk · contribs) 2003:42:2e00:1db3:c09:d546:69b8:84c7 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The Sciences Po page was a pure advertisement page. I tried to put it in an encyclopedical form and was personnaly attacked for it (saying that I carry out a personal vendetta against Science Po). The user admitted using several IP adresses. Now, they are trying to put back the advertisement style and remove the banner. For example, they insist putting in the lede, without any source, sentences like: "Beyond its academics, Sciences Po is well known for its international outlook." "The Institute also maintains a robust sport programme and competes against other grand écoles in the Île-de-France." "Sciences Po and its innovative curriculum would inspire and serve as the model for the London School of Economics." (the article says part of the inspiration, not the model and innovative) "Almost every member of the French diplomatic corp since the Fifth Republic, and roughly half of ENA’s cohort each year are also graduates." Etc. I tried to prevent it, but now I face strong personal attacks like being called "Lameadee the vandalist" and saying that I "hate Science Po" in a summary, saying I am a "dishonest editor", implying that I have to be a Science Po alumni to edit the page, writing things like "You're just lying at this point.", "clearly you are a vandal", "Consider this your warning." And the user implies that because he spent time on his advertisement, nobody must touch it. I claim that there is also sexism here. I know for sure that I never wrote anywhere that I was a woman, so sentences like "she was lying about the citations she was using" or "she is a dishonest editor", is an attack on me as a woman (it’s easy to say that women lie and are dishonest). And it’s untolerable. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to discuss in talk page and to tell him (them) not to personnaly attack me, but it’s getting worse. How do you think we can help? Temporaly banning those IP addresses (except those claiming to be another person than the user behind the first one) and semi-protect the page (I know, there is a special page for that, but it seems preferable to discuss it here as a whole first). Summary of dispute by 75.156.54.227 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2001:569:78d8:3200:7d54:2562:a143:ad69 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 193.54.23.146 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2003:42:2e66:436a:98d:9112:7ec7:e8be Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2003:42:2e66:436a:98d:9112:7ec7:e8be Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2800:370:69:d440:5d6a:1409:3cd3:f59d Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 2003:42:2e00:1db3:c09:d546:69b8:84c7 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Sciences Po discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - On its face, this appears to be partly a content dispute about promotional content but partly a conduct dispute, if there have been personal attacks. Since the personal attacks and the questionable content are being inserted by unregistered editors, semi-protection would be an appropriate measure. The filing party has not notified the multiple IP addresses, but notification is only required as a precondition to discussion, and discussion at DRN is for content disputes, so that notification may not be necessary. This case may be closed in the near future with advice to request semi-protection. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Administrator note - Due to the content dispute also involving auto-confirmed users, the page has been temporarily fully protected. Some clean up of promotional content has also been carried out but more may be necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Northern Epirus

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Resnjari on 03:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Northern Epirus (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Athenean (talk · contribs) Alexikoua (talk · contribs) Resnjari (talk · contribs) Dispute overview For over a year now on my part i have engaged other editors in the talkpage about making needed additions based on peer reviewed scholarship to the article. My first port of call was not even to go by WP:BRD. Instead i placed multiple proposals based on peer reviewed scholarship in the talkpage seeking input from other editors (for more see talkpage archive 3, 4, 5, 6). After a complicated discussion where at first i was accused of many things before the scholarship was even considered, some edits eventually got through (with great difficulty) while other additions have not (some remaining in hiatus without response/s). The article overall is about Northern Epirus. The content around this topic is complex. Northern Epirus from a Greek stance represents a region defined by Hellenic culture and heritage. It encompasses areas ranging from Korçë all the way to Gjirokastër areas taking in hundreds of villages. Apart from the southerly Greek speaking areas, this area takes in areas that are inhabited by Muslim Albanians, Orthodox Albanians and Aromanians. For Albanians this area is the southern part of Albania containing numerous sub-regions with its history, culture presented through those. The issue of contention has been around whether inclusion of the Albanian population and element is of relevance to the article. Editors have said to me that no mention of the Albanian element should occur because they are "irrelevant" as the article is about a Greek irredentist concept. Then i was told that it is about Greek culture and heritage and toward the end that i need "Islamic literature" for the discussion, which baffled me. Fundamental problems, questions and gaps remain. To understand the Northern Epirus matter, omission of the Albanian element and the socio-political role it played in the late 19th and early 20th century leaves more questions for a reader. The area in the end became part of Albania, yet how and why that happened and the reasons/context for it are absent and obscure. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I engaged other editors in good faith in the talkpage for a prolonged period (for over a year) and waited for replies/responses from them sometimes for many months. I placed proposals in the talkpage first seeking input without even making additions to the article which is not even Wikipedia policy. I have done this out of respect for others knowing the article can stir passions. Recently i did things through WP:BRD and edits were reverted and the talkpage discussion reaching an impasse. How do you think we can help? As a Wikipedia editor since 2008, I used the talkpage to resolve things through good faith and respectful dialogue and its my first use of the DRN. Regarding this matter, i seek clarification of where to go forward with the editing process. Is the Albanian element of relevance to the article ? Am i misguided or not in seeking to have sentences based on peer reviewed scholarship that deal with the Albanian element and socio-political issues? (Also see article history revision page of my [reverted] edits). Summary of dispute by Athenean The main issue is that Resnjari wants to add material that is off-topic and POV. And a lot of it. Many of the sources he uses do not mention Northern Epirus at all, they are lengthy discussions on questions of identity in the Ottoman Empire and are general in nature. In other articles this has resulted in bloated articles that are essentially unreadable (e.g. Upper Reka and Islam in Albania). This is a problem in the tp discussions as well. As this user is unable to be succinct, it has resulted in bloated discussions that are impossible to follow. Athenean (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Alexikoua Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Talk:Northern Epirus discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: The filing party has listed and notified all editors that participated in talk page discussion on this topic. There appears to have been sufficient talk page discussion, spanning over at least 2 archive pages, with the most recent discussion being 2 days ago. AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 10:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am opening this case for moderated dispute resolution. I expect every editor to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to respond to any requests within 48 hours. Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, not to discuss editors. Uncivil comments, or complaints about other editors, may be hatted. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to me and to the community, not to each other. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Discuss the article here; discussion at the article talk page or on user talk pages may be overlooked. I have no particular knowledge of the subject matter and expect the editors to explain the issues clearly and concisely. Now - Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they believe are the issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors Resnjari Regarding a recommendation here on length, the articles will be split: Upper Reka (a separate one on culture and another on dialect) and Islam in Albania (whole Ottoman era as a separate Islamisation of Albania article), as per WP:SPLIT. Of the Northern Epirus article, the issue is the relevance of Albanians to the subject matter of Northern Epirus. My edits have been contested because for example editors have said that Albanians are irrelevant [6] as they are not cited directly in the material related to Northern Epirus, etc. As editors themselves cited the term's usage as being in a irredentist way [7], a number scholars have refrained from using the term (apart from a few [8] and others Greek). When scholars referred to events and issues that took place in the region, southern Albania is used (i.e: Nitsiakos' work: [9]) or if in the late Ottoman era, the two main administrative units or Kazas/Sanjaks of Gjirokastër (also Agyrokastro and Ergiri) and Korçë (Koritsa and Görice) are used that cover areas defined as Northern Epirus (i.e Kokolakis [10]). Moreover official Greek government statistics (by settlement) compiled by the Greek army staff (who cites in whole both Gjirokastër and Korçë kazas/sanjaks) that was presented to the Paris Peace conference (regarding territorial claims) acknowledges the presence of Albanian speakers (the Muslim element): 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks [11] [12]. The comment/s that the Albanian element was insignificant is untenable. These numbers are relevant to the article as for one it was the then official Greek government view. I repeatedly asked editors for a response [13] and got none. Also Wolfgang Stoppel who is peer reviewed gives numbers about the religious composition of the two sanjaks (early 20th century), pp. 9-10: [14]. My additions of these has been called cherry picking, yet no additional or other numbers have been given by editors [15]). To get a grasp of why Northern Epirus became part of Albania and why it has remained a irredentist concept, the large Albanian element was the main factor. As is presented now, the article gives the impression that the region was wholly Greek populated that became part of Albania and that the Albanian element present there was the result of some kind of "Albanianisation", (while not giving context about this population, their issues and its historical presence within a few sentences as i did: [16]; [17]; [18]; [19]; [20]). Much of the content already in the article is based on sources that do not even use the term Northern Epirus, but Epirus in a generic way such as all the ancient era sections (i asked editors about the relevance of these) and have had different replies (i.e: [21]). Even some of the scholarship used to write up the contemporary era does not cite Northern Epirus, but is there because it only refers to Greeks. If one was to take editors comments about only adding content directly citing the term Northern Epirus and POV, then either the ancient section ought to be transferred to the generic Epirus article and likewise a large chunk on the contemporary era to the Greeks in Albania article. Even so, the Albanian element for this article is still of significance and understanding as to why the area became part of Albania. Before other matters are discussed some clarification of these by other editors. Best. Resnjari (talk) 07:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Too long, didn't read. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderator Will each editor please make a one-paragraph statement of what they think the issue or issues are involving the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors Resnjari The issue of contention is whether citing the Albanian element in a few sentences is of relevance to the Northern Epirus article. My edits have been contested because for example editors have said Albanians are irrelevant [22] as they are not cited directly in Northern Epirus material. Editors themselves acknowledged the terms irredentist usage [23], and a number scholars refrain from using the term (apart from a few [24]). When scholars referred to regional events/issues that took place: southern Albania is used (i.e: Nitsiakos: [25]) or if in the late Ottoman era, the two main administrative units or Kazas/Sanjaks of Gjirokastër and Korçë are used that covers area defined as Northern Epirus (i.e Kokolakis [26]). Moreover official Greek government statistics compiled by the Greek army staff (citing both Gjirokastër and Korçë kazas/sanjaks) presented to the Paris Peace conference (regarding territorial claims) acknowledges the presence of Albanian speakers (the Muslim element): 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks [27] [28]. I asked editors for a response [29] and got none. Peer reviewed Wolfgang Stoppel also gives numbers about religious composition of the two sanjaks (early 20th century), pp. 9-10: [30]. My additions of these has been called cherry picking, yet no additional or other numbers have been given by editors [31]). Before other matters are discussed, some clarification of these as needed or not additions to the article (for the demographics section) by other editors. Best.Resnjari (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Athenean The issue is that Resnjari is trying to add material that is not really related to the article. He does so by insisting on adding material from sources that are not about Northern Epirus. For example, the Stoppel source he is so fond of doesn't mention Epirus or northern Epirus once, and includes areas far outside northern Epirus that conveniently include large concentrations of Muslim Albanians. And that is pretty much the only source he is interested in as far as demographics, and is incredibly insistent on it. He also adds out of context pics of mosques that have nothing to do with the article just to make a point, and then edit-wars to have his way [32]. He mischaracterizes other people's comments (e.g. the stuff above about someone having said Albanians are irrelevant and its bogus diff). From his comment above it is quite evident he doesn't like the term "Northern Epirus" and is basically bent on turning the article into "Southern Albania". Athenean (talk) 06:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator The main issue that has been identified at this time is that one editor wishes to add material that another editor thinks is outside the scope of the article. Will each editor please state concisely what the contested material is and why they think that it is or is not relevant to the article? If there is any other issue, will they please explain this concisely? Remember that overly long statements do not clarify issues. Remember that an article should be about its subject and not related subjects; see the coatrack essay for a discussion of irrelevant material (the coats rather than the coatrack are what are seen). In particular, Northern Epirus is a historical region, which predates the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, and discussion of the medieval or modern history or the present day seems to be of marginal relevance. (If any editor thinks that medieval or modern material is important, they should explain the importance.) Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors Resnjari Regarding demographics, the Greek state's official position was given at the Paris peace conference (1919)[33] of Northern Epirus (by settlement) in a bilingual Greek/French book titled Hartis Ethnografikos tis Voriou Epirou/Carte Ethnografique of l' Epir Du Nord . Within this classification the whole Gjirokaster and Korce kazas or regions are cited (p.3)[34] as Northern Epirus and the numbers of 111,534 Muslim Albanians to 116, 888 Greeks given. The Greek state itself acknowledged this large presence, why omit these numbers when the map [35] from this publication is also used in the article [36] with no qualms about it? About geography some clarification. A more recent peer reviewed publication on this topic cites the entire Gjirokaster/Korce provinces within the scope of Northern Epirus. Austin (2012) cites this twice [37]. p. 91: "Greece had been steadfast in its demands that southern Albania, or Northern Epirus, should become part of Greece.; Greece's position... sought territorial gains in the southern provinces of Gjirokaster and Korce." p. 92. "The Greek claim to Albanian territory is hard to define precisely, but would include the area south of a line drawn near Korce in the east to Vlore on Albania's Adriatic coast, encompassing essentially the entire provinces of Gjirokaster and Korce. Since the region was almost 25% of Albanian territory..." I used Stoppel because he cited religious demographics for Gjirokaster/ Korca regions referring to period of the Northern Epirus question and is peer reviewed/recent too. Editors who have expressed reservations have not offered explanation or shown why all this is wrong. Ancient period sections mainly use sources that refer to historical Epirus, not Northern Epirus. Scholarship sees Northern Epirus as a modern political construct (i.e see: pp: 450-451 [38]). I.e, German Wiki article [39] is structured from modern era (using Stoppel numbers too). Even stuff on the contemporary era in the Eng. Wiki article at times uses sources not refering to Northern Epirus, but is there because it refers to Greeks. For now i will leave it at that, though there is more to discuss on other things too. Best. Resnjari (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Too long, difficult to read. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator Will each editor please state concisely what material the dispute is about? The emphasis is on being concise. I may have to fail this discussion due to inability of the filing party to present a concise case. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors Here's a very simple explanation that illustrates what is wrong with Resnjari's approach. He cites one source that defines Northern Epirus as encompassing the kazas (ottoman provinces) of Korce and Gjirokaster, but then he uses another source (Stoppel) for the demographics of said provinces. This is the very definition of W:SYNTH, as Stoppel makes no mention of the term "Northern Epirus". It is also dead wrong since Stoppel's data is from 1927, thus from the period of the Albanian state, and not the ottoman empire. The albanian provinces of Korce and gjirokaster do not correspond to the ottoman kazas. This is exactly why wikipedia has WP:SYNTH as a guideline. Athenean (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Resnjari Part of the dispute is about numbers and their relevance to the article. Greek government numbers (1919) cite the term Northern Epirus (in the title) [40]. Should it be in the article, considering the proposed approach about having material only citing Northern Epirus ? Regarding Stoppel, apart from 1927 he also gives numbers for 1923 and importantly 1908 (Ottoman) all regarding Gjirokaster/Korca provinces/areas. (p.9-10) [41] Austin also gives numbers in relation to Greek claims of the area (p.92) [42] citing northern Epirus and says that the Greeks based it on the Ottoman numbers of 1908. Moreover if we took the premise to the next level about material citing only the term Northern Epirus, then 3 sections on the ancient period (which cites historical Epirus - no irredentist/political concept of Northern Epirus existed back then), most of the Ottoman period (until the 1870s when Greek claims on the area began due to eastern crisis) and much of the contemporary era (which has content relating to Greeks in Albania, yet not Northern Epirus) should go. Scholarship treats Northern Epirus as a political term/concept (pp: 450-451: [43]) and invoking Athenean's premise, then having most of that content would constitute POV as the scholarship used has nothing to do with Northern Epirus. It should either be transferred to the appropriate articles and or deleted outright. Otherwise most of the article as it stands now is already synthesis and POV. Some clarification on this at least ?Resnjari (talk) 06:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Fifth statement by moderator Unfortunately, I still don't understand exactly what any editor wants to add to or subtract from the article? If you want to add something, provide the exact text that you want to add. If you want to subtract something, indicate where the existing text is. If you want to leave the article alone, say so. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors Y'all have more rounds than some boxing matches. Just interjecting. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC) Resnjari lol, ok - point taken. I'll just stick to the issue of numbers/demographics for now. The article as it stands now has a whole host of numbers in the demographics section. These pertain to the ethno-linguistic makeup of the area defined as Northern Epirus. Other editors voiced the position that scholarship citing the term Northern Epirus is applicable/acceptable to the article and content/sentences should be based around them while those that don't cite the term should not be there. Ok, then should not the Greek government Paris Peace conference numbers in a Greek government publication citing the term Northern Epirus be included in the article due to relevance to the topic that gives the Greek numbers of Albanians also [44] ? Additionally for consideration into the article are numbers from Austin who also cites Greek government numbers used to claim the area. Austin states that Greece used Ottoman numbers compiled in 1908 for the Paris peace conference to claim the area (p. 92. [45]). Should they also not be in the article as the scholar used the term Northern Epirus (p. 91) in his analysis ? First i'll get clarification on just these two issues first. Is their citing in the article of relevance to the topic ? Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2016 (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.

Maxine Feldman

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Snowhare on 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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 Maxine Feldman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Snowhare (talk · contribs) 70.55.26.190 (talk · contribs) Hilarymarsh (talk · contribs) 208.101.164.241 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview There is problem with drive-by vandalism of the page by both anon editors and 'created-vandalized-deleted' accounts. They are attempting to erase the referenced fact that the subject of the biography was a transgender male. They have not posted _anything_ to the talk page despite my inviting them to do so or added any references to challenge the existing ones - they simply deny that the subject was a transgender man with preferred male pronouns and revert the page to remove the verbiage they object to This repeated effort to erase their being transgender has been a persistent feature of the page for some months according to the page history Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have requested multiple times in the talk page for engagement by the people doing the reversions. They have not responded even once. This has become simple vandalism How do you think we can help? The page needs to be protected against editing by drive-by anon editors and 'only existed for 10 minutes' accounts Summary of dispute by 70.55.26.190 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Hilarymarsh Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by 208.101.164.241 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Maxine Feldman discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:2016 Uri_attack#Other_Nations

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rugby9090 on 22:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:2016 Uri attack#Other Nations (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rugby9090 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview User is asked to remove references which are not related to this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Uri_attack Have you tried to resolve this previously? 1. Talk Page 2. NPOV Notice Board How do you think we can help? Requested to provide relevant information or provide justification on current reference. Talk:2016 Uri_attack#Other_Nations discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: It is the filing parties responsibility to list and notify all involved editors, including themselves. While the filing is not very specific, it appears that the talk page discussion at hand is Talk:2016 Uri attack#Other Nations. The NPOV/N discussion is still open, but has received no comment. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:32, 21 September 2016 (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.

User talk:Sitush, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buff_4u2000

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Buff 4u2000 on 14:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Sitush (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Buff 4u2000 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Buff 4u2000 (talk · contribs) Sitush (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Akhilesh Yadav holds the public office of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, a State in the Republic of India. As a bearer of public office, i believe it is okay to write something about the work he has done as a Chief Minister. Currently, the page does not say anything about his work as Chief Minister, so it appears lacking. It has been 4 years since Akhilesh became Chief Minister and adding a line or two about his work should be okay. But, Sitush is repeatedly deleting my entries and warning me. I though wiki was free, but Sitush is involved in policing by misusing wiki rules & regulations. As times pass, people change, and countries and world changes. Wiki pages should be able to reflect the current stat of affairs. If people like Sitush get a free hand, they will make Wiki absolete. Sitush is stopping other contributors from updating relevant content. Such people have started believing that they own wiki. I request wiki to take action against Sitush, so that Wiki pages can remain updated. Have you tried to resolve this previously? i have provided all logic and rationality, but Sitush is not willing to accept. He just keeps deleting the new, relevant content i want to add. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buff_4u2000 How do you think we can help? Users like Sitush should be asked to reduce their policing behavior, especially when others users are just trying to add new information to a page. Summary of dispute by Sitush Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Sitush, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Buff_4u2000 discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Bret Hart

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 151.35.36.60 on 02:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Bret Hart (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Warlock82 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have an issue with the lead of the article. Since I'm tired of arguing with the editors here and I'm not really an editor myself, but only a reader, I'm passing the ball to someone else who may want or may not want to alert some higher-ups. To sum it up, the intro says, and I quote, that << [Bret] Hart changed the perception of mainstream wrestling in the early 1990s by bringing technical in-ring performance to the fore >>. [no source] It appeared really puffery to me, so I asked for clarification. An editor, Warlock82, said that it was reported in an IGN article and that they had just reworded everything a little. Per WP:PEACOCK I said that the quote should have been reported as a quote and not as a fact (and proposed an edit that reflected the policy), yet Warlock82 and other editors kept rolling back everything, with Warlock82 even going as far claiming that I had been vandalizing the article. This was my proposed revision: << according to IGN, Hart winning the WWF title in 1992 "changed the entire industry, re-setting the WWF back to the days of technical wizardry and reshaping all our notions of what a great wrestling match should actually look and feel like".>> [added source: article, quoted ad litteram from the source I received from Warlock82] In the talk page, the argument eventually evolved into the claim by three other editors that the bit in the lead was ultimately "a widespread opinion" and that my proposed edit was worse for some undisclosed reason. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussed plenty in the talk page. As far as I'm concerned, I've only received links to policies that ultimately did not support the opposing party's view. How do you think we can help? This is simply a matter of making the editors remember the style and format of Wikipedia. This is a case of peacock words. The only certain fact here is that a "journalist said this wrestler did this", not that the wrestler "changed the perception of the industry": this is simply what's - more or less - reported in IGN's article by some journalist; furthermore, it is a symbolical assertion that can't be proven. This is almost a carbon-copy of the Bob Dylan example in the "peacock" paragraph of the manual of style. Summary of dispute by Warlock82 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The user who kicked off the dispute was recently trying to force uncited hero worship into Eddie Guerrero. After failing to find sources supporting his desired hagiography and having it gutted, he seems to have turned to revenge editing. His angle is that we cannot use a WP:RS (in this case IGN, a reputable entertainment site with a dedicated wrestling section) to support consensus opinion regarding Hart's impact on the business and must state that we're giving only the cited publication's opinion. What he's not grasping (or choosing to ignore) is that the site's opinion is NOT being used: we're using its article as an RS to support consensus opinion. Since the beginning of time here on Wiki, we've used reliable sources to support consensus opinion on films, albums, books and everything else, so I see nothing wrong with the article. Also, I'm NOT the IP's only opposition here. There's clearly an emerging consensus against his proposal at the Bret Hart talk page. Warlock82 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Bret Hart discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has not listed the other editors or notified them. It is the responsibility of the filing party to list and notify the other editors. This thread is left open for that purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Just wanted to add that I notified Warlock82 in his talk page right after I had started the dispute resolution, it does look like he's AFK right now, though. 151.19.28.154 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC) As you can see, Warlock82 is resorting again to obnoxious and unhortodox personal attacks and to me this only makes him appear more biased. I'll keep my stance because this would be a simple matter of taking a look at WP:PEACOCK, stop arguing and report the fact. The fact being that it IGN said that Bret Hart winning the WWF title changed the perception of WWF fans. Two or three editors agreeing with him won't make his stance any more credible or me any less credible. The only incredible thing here is if anything saying that two or three editors agreeing with him amounts to an "emerging consensus", which if anything still goes against the policies. 151.38.52.163 (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC) IGN spoke to consensus opinion on Hart's impact. Nobody's using IGN's editorial opinion. And yes, you have a legacy of rigging and agenda-driven editing here on Wikipedia (failing with previous plots on the Seth Rollins and Eddie Guerrero articles), so that seems relevant. Warlock82 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC) That's not, because "name calling" and ad personam is not a proper line of defense. I may as well go on and say YOU and the editors are biased because that's what it looks like to me. Name calling is another thing Wikipedia policies are against. On topic, as eloquently proven, your contrived line of logic only gives leeway to more and more contradictions. And yes, even IGN saying "this is the best" or "this or that is one of the best" is using IGN's opinion in a journalistic sense. You're not supposed to be the judge here in saying what changed "the perception" and what not. It's nearly absurd that I have to state the obvious. 151.57.117.210 (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC) "even IGN saying "this is the best" or "this or that is one of the best" is using IGN's opinion" And once again, that is NOT what's being used here. Warlock82 (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Yes, according to you it's not being used. According to me, it is being used. WP:VNT refers to this exactly with the hypno-toad example. We disagree = the opinable part gets reworded objectively, reporting the fact per WP:PEACOCK, which basically has "Bob Dylan was a revolutionary fellow" being switched out for "Time said this about Bob Dylan: *quote*". That's how things are supposed to be done, and I'm even more convinced after spending a fair amount of time re-reading every consultable policy. We have done it for Guerrero's article as well - which was, even more appropriately, reworded with "according to Fox News, he was one of the in-ring greats". By the by, those parts in Guerrero's article have even been moved out entirely from the lead at the moment, but I don't think anyone is making a fuss over there anymore, right? Again, the double-standards in the Wikipedia wrestling project appear kind of apparent to me. 151.57.117.210 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Please keep discussion on this page to a minimum before the case has been opened. The filing party has not listed and notified any editors other than Warlock82. The filing party should list and notify any editors who engaged in discussion on the article talk page, including themselves. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 19:57, 23 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Bain family_murders#Joe_Karam

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Histrange on 08:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Bain family murders#Joe Karam (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Histrange (talk · contribs) Akld guy (talk · contribs) Melcous (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The intro to the article on the Bain family murders reads: "Bain's case was taken up by businessman and former All Black, Joe Karam." After his name I added "who believed that David was innocent." These words has been removed by three different editors. The reality is that Joe Karam fought for 13 years to prove David was innocent. He wrote four books about the case. One of them is called:" 'Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain." The title makes it clear that the author (Karam), thinks David was innocent. I have also provided numerous other sources on the Talk page which show that those who have read any of Joe karam's books understand that Karam clearly thinks David Bain is innocent. Unbelievably, two editors, Akldguy and Melcous, refuse to accept Joe Karam's own books as reliable sources on what Joe Karam believes about David Bain's innocence. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have tried to persuade them that there is no better source on what Joe karam believes about David Bain's innocence than his own books on the case, especially the one called "'Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain." How do you think we can help? Try to persuade Akld guy and Melcous of this simple logic. Summary of dispute by Akld guy Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. There is very little that I can add to what I have already pointed out to Histrange on the article's Talk page, summed up as follows. Joe Karam got involved with the case soon after David Bain was found guilty, in 1995-1996. It is absurd to suggest that WP can state what Karam believed about Bain's guilt or innocence. Nobody can possibly know what he believed. Even if a reliable reference were to turn up (and Histrange has not been able to find one) quoting Karam saying that he believed Bain to be innocent, we could say only that Karam said that he believed in his innocence. Karam's primary motivation seems to have been to publicize and put right a miscarriage of justice conviction. As with a defence attorney, the only public face he could present was that Bain was not guilty, even though he might have believed the opposite. Defence attorneys frequently have to do that. Histrange is attempting to draw a conclusion about Karam's state of mind, based on book titles and book reviewers' opinions of what Karam believed. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Akld guy (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Melcous The disputed text was added by Histrange and reverted by 2 different editors - Akld guy, and DiscoStuart. Histrange then opened a discussion on the article talk page, and left a message on my talk page asking me to comment. I agreed with the view of the other two editors, for similar although not completely identical reasons. Histrange has obviously not found these reasons compelling, although he has not responded to all of them. Histrange was in particular asked to provide sources stating that Karam actually held this belief, and I do not see that in the sources he has provided. The latest two sources he provided were a blogpost and a review on goodreads, which I have pointed out are both WP:UGC. As I have stated on the article talk page, I don't think the proposed text is necessary (particularly given the contentious editing history of the article, where statements like this have been added, and then alternative views added, and things start to get quite consulted). I also think if it was to be included, it should be in the body, not the lead. And finally, I agree with Akld guy and DiscoStuart that there is no reliable source provided that states that this was Karam's state of mind/belief at the time. Melcous (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Bain family_murders#Joe_Karam discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: The filing party has not notified the other parties on their talk pages. The filing party is reminded that it is their responsibility to list and notify all involved editors. There appears to have been sufficient talk page discussion over the last 8 days. All editors involved in the discussion have been listed. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 12:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC) It is unclear to me how this is supposed to proceed. What is the next step please? Histrange (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC) You should notify the other two editors on their talk pages that you have opened this thread. You may use the template for the purpose, but any clear talk page message is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Even though I didn't notify them on their Talk pages (I didn't know I was supposed to), they have both already provided summaries of their views on this page - so clearly they are aware of this discussion. Are you saying you want me to advise them about something they already know about? Histrange (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - It isn't the job of the moderator to persuade the other editors of anything (as requested in the filing party's statement), but to facilitate discussion, in which editors can try to persuade each other, and the moderator can try to facilitate compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Each editor is expected to check on the status of this case at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions within 48 hours. Be civil and concise, and comment on content, not contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and especially in dispute resolution. Overly long statements do not clarify things. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, not to discuss the editors. Uncivil statements or statements criticizing other editors may be hatted. Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress here. Discuss the article here, because discussion on the article talk page, while permitted, may be ignored. I do not claim any knowledge about the case; I expect the editors to provide me with the required knowledge. Will each editor please state, in one or two paragraphs, what they think are the issues about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors This dispute is over one phrase (in italics) in one sentence: "Bain's case was taken up by businessman and former All Black, Joe Karam who believed that David was innocent." The other editors keep deleting the part in italics claiming there was no evidence to prove that's what Karam believed at the start of his involvement (in 1995). As a compromise, I then proposed the phrase: ...who came to believe David was innocent. They refused to accept that either. This dispute boils down to reliability of sources. Wiki articles must be based on reliable sources. There are three kinds of sources: primary, secondary and tertiary. See WP:NOR where it says: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Joe Karam was directly involved in David Bain's case. He was so involved, he wrote four books about it (published 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2012). See Support of Joe Karam Since he was directly involved, that means his books on the case are primary sources. Here's the title of his third book: "Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain." Melcous thinks (see Talk page): "The title of his book is a conclusion looking back on the whole thing..." In fact in 2001, the appeals were still going on and Bain was still in prison; the retrial at which he was found not guilty wasn't until 2009. So Karam was still looking forward. But if the title of the book is a 'conclusion', then Karam's conclusion, with which Melcous concurs, is that David is "Innocent!" There is only one matter left in doubt. When exactly did Karam come to believe this? He clearly believed it as early as 2001. But who really knows and it really doesn't matter. He very clearly, as documented "came to believe that David was innocent." This is an accurate description of the situation backed up by a reliable primary source. I have also provided numerous secondary sources which support the primary source. Histrange (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC) I think there is still a basic question that has yet to be answered, which is why does this additional text need to be included, and in particular why does it need to be included in the WP:LEAD? The lead is meant to be a basic summary of the contents of the article, which in this case is the facts of the case. As soon as we start to get in to questions of who thought when and what we are in the realm of beliefs, opinions, and motivations. Why are these necessary at this point, particularly given that they can be disputed, and that they will always need references? Leaving the text as it is, simply states that Karam took up Bain's case, which everyone agrees is what happened, and is unpacked later in the article. The statement "who believed that Bain was innocent" has been disputed because there is no evidence that that is what Karam thought at that time or why he took up the case. The statement "who came to believe that Bain is innocent" has the opposite problem - it implies that Karam did not believe at the time he took up the case Bain was innocent, but came to believe this at some later point in time, which again we have no evidence for, and which can likely be disputed. Leaving it out removes any need for such speculation or implication, and I can't see what putting either statement in actually adds to the lead. Melcous (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Second statement by moderator The main issue that has been identified has to do with Karam's state of mind in terms of believing that David Bain is innocent of the murder of the five family members. There appears to be agreement on the undisputed facts and disputed facts in the case, that five members of the family were murdered, that David Bain was convicted and imprisoned, that David Bain claims innocence, and that Karam has written and argued in support of David's case. The only real question has to do with language as to Karam's state of mind. Is that correct? If so, it seems to me that the neutral point of view is to say nothing about state of mind and to let the undisputed facts and dispute over facts speak for themselves. If the book states that David Bain is innocent, isn't that sufficient without saying what Karam thinks and when? Can anyone propose a reason why it is important to introduce speculative state of mind material? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Second statements by editors Melcous writes: “The lead is meant to be a basic summary of the contents of the article, which in this case is the facts of the case.” If you read the lead more closely, you will see that the third paragraph talks about the ‘speculation’ which had surrounded this case and the ‘controversial circumstances’ surrounding the decision not to grant compensation - based on Judge Ian Callinan’s perception of David's ‘innocence’. The entire case against David Bain was based on circumstantial evidence and there is very little evidence or 'facts'which have not been disputed vigorously in the media for 20 years. There have also been endless disputes on the Talk page of this article over the minutiae of those alleged ‘facts’. If we followed Melcous’ suggestion and took out everything that involved ‘speculation or implication’, this article would be extremely short. However, there is absolutely no dispute over Karam’s state of mind in New Zealand (except on wikipedia). It is a well known fact that he believes David Bain to be innocent. He has argued this for 20 years and reliable sources have been provided in this discussion to validate this point. This is one of the five pillars on which Wikipedia is based: All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Robert McClenon asks: If the book states that David Bain is innocent, isn't that sufficient without saying what Karam thinks and when? Perhaps it would be - if the book was mentioned in the article - but it’s not. If we wish to adhere to Wikipedia policy, surely the question we should be discussing is whether or not the book is a reliable source. Once that's decided, we can discuss where the 'innocent' comments should go. Melcous says "it should be in the body, not the lead." That's fine with me - so perhaps we have agreement. Histrange (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC) So are you saying you are happy to leave the lead as it is? If so, then perhaps this dispute can be closed and we can move on to discussing the "Joe Karam" section in the article, which has not yet been done on the article's talk page. That is a separate issue. At the moment, in that paragraph there is this statement: "He [Karam] felt something was wrong with the case and began to study the evidence presented at the original trial." However the source that is given in the footnote actually says nothing about Karam's feeling about the case, or about his study of the evidence, nor indeed anything about Karam's beliefs or opinions at all, just that he has "fought a campaign to gain Bain a new trial." So already we have similar issues, and I would not be happy with the words proposed for the lead simply being inserted there without further discussion of what is appropriate. In regards to your first paragraph above, perhaps my use of the words "facts of the case" was unclear, but I would say that it is an agreed fact that there has been speculation about this case, and an agreed fact that the case involved controversial circumstances, so there is no problem with those statements. What you are proposing, to introduce words specifically stating that one particular person held one particular belief/state of mind at one particular time, is quite different and as all this discussion has shown, not an agreed fact of the whole situation. Melcous (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC) We have been arguing for a month over six words (who believed that David was innocent) with a reliable primary source and numerous secondary ones. Now you want to discuss another section altogether and the problematic sources for that section. We will be here all year at that rate. Let's keep it simple and do one thing at once. There is no point in discussing any other aspect of this article until we have settled whether or not Karam's book is a reliable primary source - not forgetting you have already conceded that Karam's 'conclusion' was that David is innocent. Histrange (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Yep, that's how wikipedia works. Ok, so if this whole dispute is over six words, can you see from the above that the simplest thing is to leave those six words out? Melcous (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC) It only works like that when editors are too stubborn to follow the principles and pillars that wikpedia is based on. I have a wiki pillar which justifies the inclusion of the six words. You don't have one that validates its exclusion. All you have is your idiosyncratic wish to leave the words out, which is not an acceptable editing strategy on wikipedia. Histrange (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Third statement by moderator I forgot to state one of the usual rules. That is: Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. We already know that has not worked. Address your comments only to the moderator and the community. Now, again, is there agreement on what I stated are the facts and the disputed facts of the case? Is there any specific reason why it is necessary to get into Karam's state of mind? Is there any reason why Karam's state of mind cannot be omitted, and why we cannot let the readers infer Karam's state of mind from his writing? One editor referred to a Wikipedia pillar. What pillar requires us to get into an author's state of mind? Also, stop commenting on contributors and comment only on content. Can we leave Karam's state of mind out and let the facts and disputed facts speak for themselves? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Third statements by editors In this case the 'state of mind' of the key players are all reported as 'facts'. The first jury in the case came to the conclusion ('state of mind') that David Bain was guilty. The 'fact' that the jurors found him guilty was based on an assessment (using their minds) of the limited evidence available to them at the time. The Court of Appeal, with the same limited evidence, came to the same state of mind. However in 2007 after Joe Karam got involved, the Privy Council in London came to an entirely different conclusion (state of mind) - they found there had been a miscarriage of justice. This 'state of mind' was confirmed at the retrial, when the second jury found David Bain to be not guilty. The first judge (Ian Binnie) asked by the NZ government to consider compensation for David Bain came to the 'state of mind' that David was innocent beyond reasonable doubt and therefore deserving of compensation. The government didn't like that opinion (state of mind) and shopped around for a second judge (Ian Callinan). Callinan produced a report which supported the state of mind of the government, i.e. that David Bain should not receive compensation. In other words, this entire article is based on the different states of mind of the various people involved. Joe Karam was more involved than any of the jury members or any of the judges. His support for David Bain lasted for 20 years. He wrote four books on the case providing ample evidence that his opinion, conclusion or state of mind was that David Bain was innocent. The article notes that without Joe Karam's support, there would never have been a retrial. Karam's state of mind, and his drive, was therefore more important to the case than the opinions of everybody else involved. Because of his close involvement and major influence on the outcome, Karam's books are a reliable primary source on the case. Reliable sources are the Wikipedia pillar that allow us to report the state of mind of the two juries, the Court of Appeal, the Privy Council, and the two judges who were asked to consider whether or not David Bain should receive compensation. The same reliable sources allow us to demonstrate Joe Karam's 'state of mind' which had such a big impact on this case. This Wikipedia pillar is all about neutrality. WP:5P says: "We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone." If the article contains information about the state of mind of everyone involved in the case except Joe Karam, the key player, it is no longer giving due weight to a major point of view (state of mind). Histrange (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) User:Histrange is asking us to put into the article an alleged belief held by Joe Karam. We cannot do that because nobody knows what Karam believed, or, for that matter, what he came to believe. Joe Karam may have been motivated solely by the desire to put right what he perceived to be a miscarriage of justice, which it ultimately was proved to be. He may have actually believed that Bain was guilty, but was outraged that he was convicted in a flawed trial. The only hope Karam had of righting such an injustice was to call for a finding of "Innocent", despite the possibility that he believed Bain to be guilty. Just as we can never put words into a person's mouth, we cannot put a belief into Karam's mind. It is absurd to state in Wikipedia's voice that someone believed something. The best we can do is to state that someone said they believed something, if a reliable quote of them saying such a thing can be found. In this case, no quote from Karam explicitly expressing a belief in Bain's guilt or innocence can be found. If he believed Bain to have been innocent, it is likely he would have explicitly said so in his many, many interviews and TV appearances. Akld guy (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Sciences Po#Full_protection

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Launebee on 16:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Sciences Po#Full protection (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Launebee (talk · contribs) MePhisto (talk · contribs) SalimJah (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The page has been fully protected, but there are quite obvious advert sentences in the lede like "its rankings in law, economics, and sociology were among the top in Europe", which is untrue. I made propositions but, after having been insulted repetitively (incident complaint filed), other users disagree with my propositions, and accuse me of being bias. So I would like to have neutral opinions on my propositions. As pointed by the admin, other changes of advertisement content may be need in the article, but these point might be the most important since they are in the lede. Once again, I also added in the article other stuff, like the (only) good ranking of SP by Eduniversal, but oddly enough, I have never been critisized for it. Have you tried to resolve this previously? The personal attack part is on AN, here is on content. How do you think we can help? Tell your opinion of my propositions. Summary of dispute by MePhisto 1. I - and user 75.156.54.227 - hold that the article should include information on Sciences Pos "academic profile", which would include information on the admissions process and the degree structure. It is my understanding that Launabee objects to this, because he believes that this kind of information would be "unencyclopedic", and because Wikipedia is "not a catalog". User 75.156.54.227 has given - in my opinion - very convincing counter arguments to these claims on the talk page. I don't see any merit in reiterating the arguments on this page. 2. Launabee also opposes the wording of the following sentence: "The campus encircles Boulevard Saint-Germain". Please see the Talk Page for the counter arguments to Launabees position. Summary of dispute by SalimJah Looking at the revision history of the Sciences Po article, I see that IP user 75.156.54.227 had added a lot of content to the page. This content may have been framed in an overtly laudable way, and there are ways to discuss that and improve the write-up. But Launabee merely and repeatedly reverted those contributions without any willingness to reach a middle ground, which was counterproductive: (i) it did not help the article get better, (ii) it nourished the animosity of the newbie against him (and Wikipedia) which arguably drove him away (see the talk page), and (iii) it created unnecessary work on the part of the community, trying to solve what eventually became a personal dispute between Launebee and the IP user. Looking at the arguments on the talk page, I agree with MePhisto that before giving-up, the IP user had put forward convincing arguments in support of his edits, so that much of the material he contributed could have been improved upon or moved to other sections of the article. I've tried to step-in and restore a more collaborative working dynamics here, but I understand from Launebee's reactions on AN (where he repeatedly reported my edits as being personal attacks against him, for example this edit summary) that he tends to take *any* substantive comment as a personal attack, which is highly unfortunate in an environment like Wikipedia. For the above reasons, I believe that Launabee's behavior in this dispute was inappropriate and costly to the project and the community. Here is a dispute on content, about the precise propositions of changes that I made and you are only discussing general behaviours. This is not the subject here. If you have complains about my attitude, please do them in AN (you already did them actually, and I’ve answered you - and I did not write your edit summary was a personal attack, I said it was aggressive to write it without any discussion with me first), but here, it’s only a discussion on content. --Launebee (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Sciences Po#Full_protection discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The filing party has listed and notified two other registered editors. The filing party may not have known that they are supposed to list themselves as a party, so I have listed them. The filing party has not notified the large number of unregistered editors, and should make some effort to notify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Robert McClenon: I notified all the current parties. You can verify in the talk page: all IP addresses but one are one user, and the other one is gone from the discussion. --Launebee (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - If the IPs were notified, please list one IP address for any particular unregistered user. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC) I don’t understand. All the IP adresses but one correspond to MePhisto, who has been notified. --Launebee (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2016 (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.

User talk:Fixuture#Kiwix is open source

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Fixuture on 20:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Fixuture#Kiwix is open source (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Fixuture (talk · contribs) Doc James (talk · contribs) Kelson (talk · contribs) Dispute overview In List of Wikipedia mobile applications User:Doc James and User:Kelson keep inserting that the app WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia (link) is open source. However to date they could not provide a link to the source code of WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia, neither could I find it in a search. Only Kiwix - a separate entry in that list, upon which WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia is based, is open source. The 2 users keep reverting my removal of the {{yes}} tag in the table without further explanation in the edit summary. As a programmer and person highly interested in open source software I very well know what open source software is and as neither editing the article nor discussing this with them on my talk page helped I'm asking for help here. Have you tried to resolve this previously? Discussing this with them on my talk page How do you think we can help? Being a third party or contacting relevant people Summary of dispute by Doc James Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It appears Fixuture wants step by step instructions on how to make an app based on ZIMs? The readme file supposedly contains those instructions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Kelson Being the creator & tech project manager of Kiwix, I know pretty well that all the softwares we have been producing & publishing for the last 10 years are open source. "open-source" is a precise word and it has a pretty accurate definition, like you can learn here. Wikimed is one of maybe 30 softwares the Kiwix project has created and maintains. I wanted to make its nature clear on Wikipedia with this contribution. User:Fixuture reverted it a few times with the argument "Google can not find the source code" which then evolved to "I can not find/understand how you create the Wikimed app"... which means for me "I can not understand how Wikimed is built so I decide this is not open-source". To find a solution to that small dispute, I have open a discussion on Fixuture's talk page without much success... and here we are. Off course everything we do is open-source, the link to the source code is on the web site. The first code repo is "Kiwix" and it provides the necessary documentation and license to compile the Wikimed app. Dozens of developers have already achieved to compile Kiwix and custom apps (the generic term we use for apps like Wikimed). It is also true that many of them have asked questions if they had doubt about the process. Not Fixuture. Kelson (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Not sure if this is the place where I can comment on the dispute (if not please move my response). You still have failed to provide a link to the source code of WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia. And if the source code is the same as for Kiwix (once again: a separate entry in that list) except some configurations or the like (I already wrote about this on my talk page) then I still can't find any mention of WikiMed Medical Encyclopedia in the readme of the Kiwix source code. I see that you don't care about practical open source which means that in the real world an developer keen on making improvements or derivatives of a software is able to do so by being able to 1) locate, 2) download, 3) compile and 4) modify (typically this looks like this: 1) googling the name of the name of the app + "source code" 2) clicking a download button or using git 3) following instructions to compile in the readme or a tutorial 4) using an IDE) the source code but even if you only care about it being categorized as "open source" there are some requirements which haven't been met. --Fixuture (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC) User talk:Fixuture#Kiwix is open source discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer note - There has been some brief discussion on a user talk page. The filing party has not notified the other parties of this filing here. The parties are asked to try to discuss the issue on an article talk page (where other users who may have the article page watchlisted will see it), and the filing party is reminded that it is their responsibility to notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Comment Alright, sorry for that - at first I though the users named under "Users involved" would be notified automatically - but apparently that's not the case. They should get notified anyway as I linked their user-pages under "Dispute overview" though. Will notify them if that's not the case or if I should make a post about it despite of that tomorrow. --Fixuture (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - The filing party has not notified the other editors of this filing. There is a template for the purpose, but any talk page posting is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Alright - notified them now. --Fixuture (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Fixuture seems to be struggling to understand that the Kiwix source code (open source, at https://github.com/kiwix/) and the WikiMed content (http://download.kiwix.org/portable/wikipedia_en_medicine.zip) come in two separate 'bundles' from two separate locations. They think there's a single repository which has Kiwix and the WikiMed content in the same place, when that's not the case. It doesn't actually alter the fact that the software and the content (obviously, in the case of the content) is open source and to claim otherwise is slightly bizarre, frankly. I'd question just how competent Fixuture is if they're so unable to understand how to find the source code, to review the code and to determine how it all works - certainly not competent enough to be starting dispute resolution threads complaining about something they evidently don't understand. I've had nothing to do with the WikiMed offline tool and in 30 minutes I've got up to speed with the dispute, found the source code, the ZIM tool, and where to locate the WikiMed ZIM file. I've read the README file and if I wanted to, could have everything up and running 30 minutes from now (give or take some downloading time). Nick (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC) Perfect User:Nick. Would love to have more people able to make these offline apps. We have a few languages in a backlog right now. Interested in joining us :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC) I've many things on my To-Do list, but when I get caught up, I'd very much be interested in helping, yeah. Nick (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer question - Is the article in question List of Wikipedia mobile applications? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2016 (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.

Talk:Finding Prince Charming#Stop using ",000" for ratings

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 119.224.39.131 on 01:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:Finding Prince Charming#Stop using " (edit | subject | history | links | " watch | logs) Users involved 119.224.39.131 (talk · contribs) Whats new? (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The user is adding an unsourced value of 1,000 to episode ratings because user doesn't like using units in thousands or millions. I have tried to explain that adding 1,000 to the cited value changes the value and invalidates the referenced citation, but have the user continuing to state the same argument. Have you tried to resolve this previously? I tried to use units of millions in line with other articles and citing examples of how the user is altering the values. How do you think we can help? I need someone else to explain how the source is being misrepresented and altered by the addition of ",000" Summary of dispute by Whats new? Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In reply, I think most of the relevant points I've made are on the talk page. It is not that I don't "like using units in thousands or millions," but in this case (as with many programs on low rated channels or in channels in countries with lower populations) where all viewership figures to date are well below seven figures, it is not necessary to list as decimals. Rounding to thousands is not typical. Using the full number with relevant zeros is common. The IP user seems to struggle to understand that the source lists all ratings rounded to the nearest thousand. There is no unrounded figure to source, so like other television related articles, the viewership figure is average based on Neilsen figures published by reliable sources, so (for example) 150,000. That is the number that can be reliability sourced. Adding zeros does not 'invalidate' the figure, as there is no more precise figure available. Formatting the number as 150,000 or 0.150 million or as 150 (thousands) makes no difference, as these are the same number based on the reference used. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:Finding Prince Charming#Stop using ",000" for ratings discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. It is more common to use millions for article uniformity and using full figures implies that the full value is known. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Volunteer note - There has been discussion on the article talk page. The other listed editor has been notified. A third editor has commented, and has not been listed or notified. They should be added to this request. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2016 (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.

Talk:ReCore

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Arcmind on 14:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC).

Closed 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:ReCore (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Cognissonance (talk · contribs) Ferret (talk · contribs) 331dot (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Have been trying to work on an article for Recore. However since I put the article up, User: Cognissonance has not ceased to interject, deleting the entire article, and undoing all of my edits. After the first three deletions, I attempted to revert their undo, engaged in a minor edit war, and was advised by User: 331dot. Hoped to resolve with editor through discussion on their talk page, but editor responded with stuck up movie quotes and self proclamations on how great they are. Most recent engagement asked editor to back down and awaiting reply. You can view the rest of the conversation on User talk:Cognissonance. Have you tried to resolve this previously? talking with editor, attempted to improve article to fit their opinion to no avail. How do you think we can help? If other editor can be advised to either steer clear of me, or perhaps to improve their communications without arrogance and self superiority,than that would be great. I see no reason a five-year vet should be worrying over a plot summary under construction on a page marked as low relevance. It is ridiculous. Summary of dispute by Cognissonance Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. What we've got here is failure to have a sense of humor. Snark is the soul of wit, and I find you offensive for finding me offensive. Where should I post to resolve that dispute? I told you, this would eventually resolve itself. Did you learn nothing from Jeff Goldblum? The plot section is dank. There's nothing left for Arcmind to be triggered about. Cognissonance (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Ferret Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Finding this as a result of just keeping an eye on the article. It doesn't appear any of the other parties were notified. The dispute overview has a lot of hyperbole and misrepresentation, such as claiming Cognissonance has deleted the entire article, while at most, she reverted Arcmind's plot additions. It also neglects to mention that 331dot also reverted him. I myself notified both editors of 3RR during the original reverts on September 12th, which I believe neither violated. Arcmind has made many claims of ownership over the article while discussing, as well as declarations that they would continue to edit war (See here). While I can't condone how Cognissonance has responded at times with snark and offensive edit notes, it should be clear for the article history that Glitchgirl has made very hefty improvements and expansions on the article, both before and after Arcmind made his first plot addition. Arcmind has repeatedly accused her of doing nothing to improve the article in his responses and to leave the article to him as someone who wants to improve things, which is simply not whats happening. Ultimately, I'm not really seeing a content issue here. What does Arcmind want changed in the article? The article now has a fairly complete and accurate plot section now. When this originally started, the game hadn't been released yet, and Arcmind's additions were reverted as being too close of a paraphase to official promotional content. The game has since being released, and so the primary source is available to back the plot section and fill in the details. Arcmind's last two contributions to the article were this plot addition, and the addition of a synopsis. I myself did some reworking on the plot later and merged the synopsis into the plot section, but the content is essentially still in the article. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Summary of dispute by 331dot Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I only found out about this discussion upon reading Arcmind's user talk page where they said they started one(but I wouldn't call it a notification). I became involved upon observing the edit dispute regarding the plot summary. It seemed to be too well lifted from the game's website to be useful(the text was simply rearranged/few words removed) and since it was a day or two before the game's release and Arcmind said the summary didn't add much to the article I encouraged them to wait until the release of the game(and playing it) before attempting to write the summary. They agreed. I have encouraged Arcmind to stay cool and discuss any concerns- and while they have commented on the talk page, they have stated things like "don't touch my articles" and stating there will be "a lot of edit wars"(same post). This isn't to say that Cognissonance is completely innocent, personally attacking Arcmind [46] on at least one occasion. That's all I can say right now, if there are any questions, please ask. 331dot (talk) 12:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Talk:ReCore discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. May I? There is no doubt that the early efforts by the editor were way too close to the source. There is also no doubt that ArcMind should have sought the talk page earlier, and should have refrained from personal attacks and sarcasm. By the same token, Cognissonance's responses and comments are snarky and offensive; in this edit, the edit summary is offensive and the revert of the content unwarranted (I see no copyvio, and note Cognissonance made the same revert a little later). If I were wearing my admin hat I would be sorely tempted to block them both of incivility. But since we are here to resolve the dispute, I suggest that a. both refrain from personal attacks and snark (this isn't the internet, where anything goes); b. both take a step back from the article or at least from the summary; c. GlitchGirl, being the more experienced editor here, consider taking a different approach to a new editor who may not be as well versed in policy as they are. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC) I know they were similar. I was still working on it. I had just brought the info to the wiki as my base pad of facts. There were no initial personal attacks, sarcasm is not against wiki policy. After being reverted thrice with nothing to go on but snarky remarks, yes I chose to speak in a manner that conflicted policy. Further, I am not inexperienced, I have been a wiki editor for a long time. Just have been working on other wikis that I felt needed some help. I am full versed in Wiki policy, but I wanted to express my concern in a rather vibrant and eye caching manner in case the other editor was being spiteful. I initially and honestly thought I was doing something wrong, but after her first snippety remark, i saw otherwise. Why can't any of you see that. I am simply reacting to a situation, not causing it. And her, being the more "experienced editor" I say she should have known better, and tried harder to prevent a problem she apparently wanted to have. I need an admin, does anyone know of one I can talk to? Arcmind, looking at this request again, I really think it is a good idea for you to take a deep breath and try to comment here in a less antagonistic manner. Such an attitude--I speak from experience--is rarely conducive to winning your audience for you. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC) Okay. If the other editor would please stop deleting my work in progress, and give me some pointers as to what they are trying to achieve, it would be easier for me to comply, and cause less frustration. I would greatly appreciate their cooperation, but so far, when I asked on their talk page, received a stuck up remark? Is that how things are supposed to work? Volunteer note - I am neither accepting nor declining this case at this time, but have a few comments. While there has been discussion, it has been minimal (and not entirely civil), and it would be useful if the editors could discuss further on the article talk page. Also, the filing party has failed to notify the other editors, and has not listed themself as an editor. It is the responsibility of the filing party to notify the other editors. (This case was entered from an IP address. Is there also an unregistered editor who is a party, or did the filing party accidentally enter this case editing logged out?) I would suggest that all of the parties take the advice of User:Drmies, because civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and especially in dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC) That was me. My Pc accidentally logged out before I filed the case. As for the discussion, it is futile. I have already made two polite attempts to reach the other editor in a civil manner. After being treated starkly and rather rudely, I lost some of my cool and became slightly uncivil. I admit to that. However, we are focusing on language rather than the actions that provoked it. I have agreed to maintain a level of civility and level-headedness to reach a peaceful end. All that the other editor had to do was to communicate with me as to what they were trying to accomplish. The whole reason for this was because the editor did not say anything. From my end, it appears as someone picking a fight. All I needed from them was for them to state that it was too similar, and that I had to change it. From there, I would have notified them that I as still making revisions, and that would have been that. Simple and easy. Now, the other editor has seemingly backed off, so there is no need for further action apart from the fact that they should remember too explain their reason backed by wiki policy, not movie quotes. That's all I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 11:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC) I'm taking care of the IP matter. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)  Volunteer note: Due to the other editors making statements here, I have notified Cognissonance using {{subst:drn-notice}}. There has been no new talk page discussion. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 23:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Keep discussion here to a minimum until a volunteer opens a thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC) Now wait a minute here, if we are going to play word games (not meant to be an insult, just an adjective for by playing by the letter) then let's be fair, reverting is equivalent to deletion if an entire article is deleted in the process, and by article I mean section, and further, I was not told HOW to fix it just that it was inadequate. I was also never claiming ownership over the said article, but merely stating not to interfere with my contributions in what appeared at the time to be a destructive manner. My problem and this entire issue stems from a lack of communication on the other editor's behalf. In addition, the first plot addition was still being worked on, therefore it was going to be similar until I had finished my revisions. Also, my claims about the other editor not doing anything useful were not meant to be attacks, as when they were made, the other editor had done nothing except "revert" my edits. The entire situation on my end can be described as, edit, reverted, puzzled, re-edit, reverted, a little annoyed, re-edit, revert, brushed off, mad, re-edit, notified by User:331dot, told User:Cognissonance to stop messing with contribs unless she could improve them versus deleting, no answer, later asked her reason on her talk page, brushed off, angry,message dispute board, finally some communication. What you see, is someone who has no idea why they are being reverted so much without proper reason, before they can even contest the edits or justify them, and then having the reverter be "humorous" at the wrong time. If the other editor's intentions were strictly goodwill, then I apologize for whiplashing, but I have had people do this on other wikis before, and Cognissonance's responses and mannerisms seemed to support this, making me a little madder each confrontation. Seeing the article being disputed over has been successfully completed in the regard I was trying to accomplish, and Cognissonance has finally explained her actions, I get the picture. Now in response, to Cognissonance's direct commment, the dictionary lists snark as meaning an attitude or expression of mocking irreverence and sarcasm and wit as meaning mental sharpness and inventiveness; keen intelligence and or a natural aptitude for using words and ideas in a quick and inventive way to create humor. Therefore snarky attitudes do not constitute for being witty, and are still deemed rude by my accord. As for the age old " I find you offensive for finding me offensive " tagline, it is just a fancy way of saying you are offended that I did not suck it up, and actually reacted to an unorthodox manner of dealing on a wiki where communication is vital. So yeah, if you want to resolve you being offended, then the best advice I can give you is to just stop offending others. And if you are referring to the movie actor, no. I do not adopt random philosophies out of the blue just because someone says it. If something is going to be in my religion, it better have a firm base, unlike evolution, atheism, anti-theism whatever you want to call it, because like it or not, they all require some level of faith. So if someone is going to pitch me an idea based on faith that they know their stuff or that something is wise, if the bible is flawed because it was written by religious men who aspire to be good, oh the eternal flaws that would abound in man-made philosophy with no concern for humanity's better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcmind (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC) First statement by moderator I am opening the discussion of this article for moderated discussion. Here are a few ground rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia, and is especially important in dispute resolution. Overly lengthy statements do not clarify issues. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors. Uncivil comments or comments about the behavior of editors may be hatted. I expect every editor to check on this page at least every 48 hours and to respond to questions at least every 48 hours. Do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. It would be better not to discuss the article on its talk page, because discussion should, for now, be here, and comments on the article talk page or on user talk pages may be ignored. Now: Will each editor please state, in no more than two paragraphs, what they think the issues are (without naming names of other editors)? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC) First statements by editors From my view point, there are no current issues with the article. This dispute began over a plot section that was reverted as being too close to the source content, before the game was released. Prior to that time, there was no plot in the article. After the game was released, which was a day or two later, the article saw heavy expansion including a new and fairly complete plot section, which multiple editors worked on. I personally do not plan to make further edits to the article, and have no real interest in it. I simply had it on my watchlist due to some prior vandalism (Unrelated to any editors named here) that I was monitoring for recurrence. -- ferret (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2016 (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.