Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 199

Archive 195

←

Archive 197

Archive 198

Archive 199

Archive 200

Archive 201

→

Archive 205

Domenico Losurdo

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by 188.252.196.122 on 17:15, 2 December 2020 (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 Domenico Losurdo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved BunnyyHop (talk · contribs) Davide King (talk · contribs) C.Fred (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The lede of the article is constantly being edited by users (often of dubious background) who want to present Losurdo as an ordinary Marxist philosopher despite the fact that he was a lifelong Communist and a Marxist-Leninist. Also, a ton of reliable sources which point out the fact that he is in public mostly known for his defense of Stalinism, and that he is actually a Neo-Stalinist, are being simply ignored in favour of the claim that he is known for his critique of imperialism, colonialism etc. which are actually not unique to Losurdo but are mainstream. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Domenico_Losurdo#This_page_is_constantly_edited_and_vandalised_by_users_who_sympathize_Stalinism How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please read the talk page and advise on how to write the lede of the article. Summary of dispute by BunnyyHop Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Davide King Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I am not going to repeat things, so just look at this comment, where I analyse and explain what sources actually say and why the IP's edits were BLP and NPOV violations, including synthesis of sources to make a point and state it as fact rather than attribute it. I would also note they reported me once at the ANI and it was a failure. I would like to focus on the personal attacks and harrassement through hounding they made at Talk:Domenico Losurdo, including personal attacks such as accussing other users of allegedly sympathising with Stalinism or alleging that BunnyyHop and I were conspiring against them, even though I had several disagreements with BunnyyHop at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. The IP wrote "I'm not accusing anyone of being a convinced Stalinist nor do I want to draw others into this discussion, but on the other hand, I can see that you and Bunny hop are cooperating very well, whether consciously or unconsciously", implying there is meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry, again without evidence and ignoring I have actually disagree with the other user on several points elsewhere here. This is not consistent with what they actually wrote, without evidence, namely that "[t]his page is constantly edited and vandalised by users who sympathize Stalinism" and "[t]his is being done by users who are of Stalinist background. For example, the last time the article was edited it was by an user called User:Davide King who under the same name ('David King') promotes Stalinism on Quora and has the picture of Stalin as his profile picture there." Again, the IP falsely and quite literally accused me of being a Stalinist (so much for "not accusing anyone of being a Stalinist"), without evidence, when I do not really use Quora, I am not even sure I actually created an account, I only log in through Gmail, I did not make any question or answered any and this was based on the similarly of the name ("David King" and "Davide King", even though my username is Davide King; by this perverse logic and unsubstantiated accusation, am I a sockpuppet of User:David King?). Finally, the IP engaged in edit warring and they were reverted by at least four editors, one of which (4thfile4thrank) is not involved here. Davide King (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by C.Fred The IP has been repeatedly edit warring the article. The crux of their changes is the terminology, changing Marxist to Marxist-Leninist. While the user has attempted to discuss on the talk page and they have presented sources, they have not presented concrete changes, and their remarks have contained personal attacks toward other editors. That's why I've suggested to the IP to have a specific discussion on the article talk page and lay off the personal attacks. All my edits to the article have been as an administrator responding to edit warring and disruptive editing against consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Domenico Losurdo 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.

Bear Witness, Take Action

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Oceans87 on 18:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Bear Witness, Take Action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Oceans87 (talk · contribs) Gerald_Waldo_Luis (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I've proposed a few edits to fix significant mistakes in the lead and to add notable supporting sources. Most importantly, that an event was a one-off, when it is in fact recurring. The editor who originally wrote the article responded by saying no change is necessary. I cannot edit the article myself since I have a COI. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Bear_Witness,_Take_Action How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? It would be great to have an experienced Wikipedia editor weigh in here. Thank you. Summary of dispute by Gerald_Waldo_Luis event was a one-off, when it is in fact recurring. Nobody was notified of a sequel when or before it is released. We were just told "Oh, we're gonna do this livestream cuz of the protests and stuff." A lot of films use this style too, like Jaws (film). I don't see any problem with the prose. I'll just reword "teleconference," but apart from that, see no problem. GeraldWL 02:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Bear Witness, Take Action discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.  Volunteer note: @Oceans87: Do you agree with just rewording teleconference? Seemplez 10:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC) @Seemplez: Unfortunately, no. In addition to correcting the teleconference language, "Bear Witness, Take Action" is now a series, and it is an obvious mistake to say it happened once. It is not Jaws, in which a sequel would have its own article. It is the same exact initiative, and anyone looking this up will be deceived by the present statement of facts. The article is also missing sourcing required by WP:SOURCE and other corrections, which I have provided on the talk page. Thanks. @Oceans87 and Gerald Waldo Luis: If there is now more than one of these livestreams, then that makes it a series. Just because no one knew about the sequel doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think you should reword to "series of livestreams" wherever you can. If you both agree then I will close as resolved, if not I'll close as failed and open to RfC. Seemplez 08:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC) @Oceans87 and Seemplez: a series usually refer to multiple parts, not two. That's why Plandemic is "a pair of videos," and why House MD is a "TV series." If there are sources saying that it will in fact have more episodes, then I'll agree on calling it a series. But if there's none, maybe the latter's already fine imo. GeraldWL 08:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) @Oceans87 and Gerald Waldo Luis: Do you agree on "pair of livestreams" until a possible third episode is released? I think that's a good midpoint. Seemplez 11:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC) At least until the second is released. A livestream can be cancelled anytime. GeraldWL 09:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC) @Seemplez: A "pair of livestreams" is fine until a third is released - then we can revisit. Plus, I think it would be a good idea to also follow the WP:SOURCE to fix the sourcing in the article about the artists.Oceans87 (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC) @Oceans87: Regarding the sources, you should check at the reliable sources noticeboard as I have doubts about MSN as a reliable source. Seemplez 09:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC) @Seemplez: MSN syndicated the article from Entertainment Tonight, which is considered reliable after checking reliable sources noticeboard. Currently the only source in the lead is The Futon Critic. It would be great if the article could be corrected regarding the "one-time" event, as it is particularly misleading to the public now with people looking it up, since the event is in two days and was featured in Newsweek Oceans87 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC) @Oceans87 and Gerald Waldo Luis: I don't have the time tomorrow to change this article. GWL, will you agree to change the article to the paragraph in the talk page, substituting "series of livestreams" for "pair of livestreams"? If so, I'll close as resolved. Seemplez 12:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC) @Seemplez:, I agree to have it "pair of livestreams." GeraldWL 12:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: Will you insert the paragraph into the article tomorrow? Seemplez 12:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC) References 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:Kizyxolive

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Kizyxolive on 16:35, 8 December 2020 (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:Kizyxolive (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Kizyxolive (talk · contribs) Praxidicae (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I have added a link to my website next to my direct competitor. This link has been removed from 3 Wikipedia pages. I have asked for feedback and received none. How is my direct competitor's link valid but mine is not? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Praxidicae How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Remove my competitor's link or add mine. We list the exact same information. Summary of dispute by Praxidicae Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. User talk:Kizyxolive 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.

Maurice Gross

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Silberz on 13:14, 12 December 2020 (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 Maurice Gross (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Silberz (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Some editors keep adding a reference to the Unitex software, which was constructed after Maurice Gross's death and should not appear here. Moreover, Unitex is highly controversial piece of software, see pages: http://www.nooj-association.org/intex-and-unitex.html and http://intex.univ-fcomte.fr I believe no-one should use Maurice Gross honorable reputation to try to legitimise any piece of work, and surely not Unitex. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I already intervened on Maurice Gross' page and one editor did agree to remove any reference to the Unitex page. However, some people involved with the Unitex software keep re-adding references to it. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? As Unitex did not even exist during Maurice Gross's life, I believe it has no place in that page. Unitex is not a scientific piece of work: Wikipedia should not be used to legitimise it. Note that all French Universities are state-owned and therefore cannot lodge a complain to each other. This explains why, even though the "Agence pour la Protection des Programmes" has described Unitex as a counterfeit, there is nothing one can do to ban Unitex. Maurice Gross 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.

Indonesia

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by NouVa on 18:29, 5 December 2020 (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 Indonesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved NouVa (talk · contribs) AdaCiccone (talk · contribs) Juxlos (talk · contribs) Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) Austronesier (talk · contribs) Dispute overview A discussion on Indonesia's Modern era section has been under discussion for weeks. I was trying to update the content on the section by adding links to notable events, but over time, my improvements were rejected (possibly because of content ownership. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Indonesia#WP:OWN_on_this_article How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please help the discussion reach a consensus since this seems to have gone for quite some time, and neutral comments from experienced editors might be useful whether my edits are improvement or not. Summary of dispute by AdaCiccone Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My position on this: Sub-articles are created for a reason. Editors should utilise them to expand further what's already on the main article. Not literally every information should be put on the main. Information on a sub is not in any way less valuable or visible than those on the main. User:NouVa has asked several times about the number of post-2004 events (and how notable they are), to which I have responded several times that that is not the point here. My point is similar with other editors involved here, that if they were to be included, they have to be seen within the lens of the entire history of Indonesia. It's better to take a wait-and-see approach when it comes to recent events. If their impact took effect in the near future in a "watershed moment" way, then I believe few would have problem with such information (the impact) being on the main. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Juxlos Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not entirely sure why NouVa is still claiming content ownership when a good amount of users have explained how his edits constitutes RECENTISM and thinks that this is DRN material. Regardless, the current dispute is regarding his intention to present events that other editors consider insufficiently notable for inclusion in a top-level article. Austronesier I think elaborates the contents of the "dispute" sufficiently - primarily, an entire paragraph's worth of a number of events which are about a year old in the "History" section (admittedly "Modern history" subsection), and none of them are even about the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. It is plainly absurd to present a series of protests with none or single digit deaths and no ensuing changes to laws or political structures with equal or more prominence with events that still have consequences fifty years ahead. I would also point out that NouVa has clearly ignored the consensus of existing editors in order to push his version of the article - and yet still claiming an ownership bias. Juxlos (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by CMD Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Austronesier Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. In a nutshell: the "History" section of Indonesia gives a brief condensed summary of Indonesian history, which amounts to ca. 900 words of text (including image captions) in the "stable" version. Even the most traumatic events such as the mass killings of 1965-66 are given very dense space ("The army, led by Major General Suharto, countered by instigating a violent anti-communist purge that killed between 500,000 and one million people" – that's all). For detailed information, readers are referred to History of Indonesia and further subpages. User:NouVa wants to expand Indonesia#History with information of rather recent events, some of which are notable news which made it to international headlines (e.g. mass demonstrations after the two inaugurations of the current president Joko Widodo, or after some of his controversial policy decisions), but which will have zero impact on the timeline of Indonesian history. The only apparent reason to give these events coverage in this brief overview is that they were recent. So from my perspective this is about WP:DUE vs. WP:recentism. Ironically, WP:OWN is cited. I have made very few edits to Indonesia. I just happen to disagree with User:NouVa's approach of WP:recentism, which I have voiced in the talk page. FWIW, no one opposes the inclusion of events post-2004 (the year of the Aceh tsunami), but whatever is inserted there, should not give undue weight to events of secondary importance, if weighed against the other content of this 900-word summary section. –Austronesier (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Not international headlines, international third-page news.Juxlos (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by NouVa Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My main concern when filing this case is that my content additions about several major riots, and massive unrest through links and refs to the respective articles (which have significant coverage on the mainstream news outlets WP:SIGCOV) are well deserved to be put in the Indonesia article which the latest info of "Modern era" is about 2004 event, while some editors simply removed them without any effort to preserve some points. At the same time, I strongly disagree about wp:Recentism accusations on my edits because the current content of Modern era section is outdated; Also, Recentism does not mean such edits should immediately be removed. Otherwise, do @Juxlos: thinks that OLDERISM (putting 14 years old event) is better info to be put for "Modern era" of a country having a number of significant events in the last decade? For @Juxlos: Content Ownership definition is the behaviour to prevent/control any changes or any contributions to article, while what I've done is adding some notable contents to improve it, and not my intention to remove any contribution. Addition ^ @Juxlos: If you doubt about evidence of much control of the content (ownership) I give you this link to show how an editor making more than 40 edits in same article only in last 2 months. @Austronesier: If you mind about 'more-or-less 900 words'; you can paraphrase the text while not completely removing the points. My hope for moderator is to consider whether edits like this or this addition {of 3-7 sentences} is deserved to be add on the article, based on (WP:GNG) Notability guideline. Actually, those additions are improving the content and are not violating any fundamental principles, nor deserved to be reverted. (NouVa (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)) Indonesia discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. First statement by moderator (Indonesia) The first concern is to focus what the disagreement is about, and so decide whether moderated discussion leading to compromise is the way to resolve the dispute. An alternative might be a Request for Comments. Please read and follow the rules. I will restate some of the rules. Be civil and concise. In particular, overly long statements do not clarify the issues, even if they enable the editor making the statement to feel better. Comment on content, not on contributors. The purpose of this dispute resolution is to improve the article. Do not reply to each other in the space for statements. Your statements should be addressed to me and to the community. If you want to reply to each other, do it in the space for back-and-forth discussion, and we can ignore the back-and-forth. Each editor is asked to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they want changed in the article, or left the same if someone else wants to change it. We can address why in the next round. If at least two editors want to engage in moderated discussion, we will have moderated discussion. If you want to have an RFC, then say so. Please provide a one-paragraph statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC) First statements by editors Statement by Austronesier: I support an RfC. It will bring the wider community attention necessary to reach a consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by Juxlos: I'm not certain what an RfC would bring here. There is already a clear consensus against the edits, and even a DRN already feels like an attempt to prolong the dispute to force a single editor's viewpoint. NouVa is trying to use new article GNG criteria in order to include low-importance content in a top-level article. Regardless, go ahead. Juxlos (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by AdaCiccone: I don't mind an RfC but I don't think it would be of much of a solution. Nevertheless, go ahead. AdaCiccone (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by Chipmunkdavis: I do not believe an RfC would be a productive use of time. There is a consensus against the proposed edits as it stands, with inputs from a number of editors. An RfC cannot solve wp:main article fixation. CMD (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by NouVa: RFC is not necessary for this case, for me, just need reasonable judgement from the experienced editors whether my content edits deserved to be added on the article based on the existing rules... /NouVa (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)/ Second statement by moderator One editor supports an RFC. Two other editors comment on whether there should be an RFC. Maybe I wasn't clear in my question. Please make a one-paragraph statement as to what the content issue is. What do you want changed, or left the same? An RFC asks a question about whether to make some change to the article. Is there a disagreement about what should be said in the lede of the article about the modern history of Indonesia? And is modern defined as post-independence? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC) If you want an RFC, what should the RFC ask? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Second statements by editors Statement by Austronesier: The question is solely about the inclusion of material in the section Indonesia#History (which is a summary, complete with hatnote to the main article History of Indonesia). The inclusion in other articles (e.g. the "lede of the article about the modern history of Indonesia", which would be History of Indonesia or one of further subs) is not matter of the dispute. NouVa is informed about the existence of those other articles, but specifically wants include the material in the "History"-section of the general article Indonesia; failure to gain support so far from any other editor brought them to DRN. IMO, none of the material which NouVa wants to add is due for inclusion in the summary-style section Indonesia#History—which only gives a bird's-eye view of the milestones in Indonesian history. This is not because the material is recent (that's a red herring), but because it is of insufficient importance/impact. That said, an RfC would be simply stated: "Should information about [add list of concrete material that NouVa wants to include] be included in the section Indonesia#History?" Speaking for myself, I would gladly elicit input from other editors (beyond the range of page watchers of Indonesia) that see things differently than I do; that's how we create wide consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by NouVa: My simple question is - Do my edits violate any rule that deserve to be reverted? If not so, I don't think it is acceptable to remove them while there are editors trying to contribute and help the active progress of content article, rather than keep the current version. Just perspective, If anyone will give any newer info than 2004 tsunami story, either events of post-2004 or news from 2010s decade - even 2020 pandemic related news - I would not have make the edits that being protested now. (NouVa (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)) Statement by Juxlos: It does not matter that it does not violate any rules - adding the results of the 2018 Bogor regency election does not violate any rules, either, and the event is notable and happened within Indonesia, but we don't do that because it would be silly to include something so comparatively unimportant in the Indonesia article. Please do not keep shifting the argument as if we have been saying the events are not notable and ignoring literally every editor's statement saying that those belong on secondary articles. Juxlos (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Third statement by moderator (Indonesia) I don't seem to have explained adequately what I am asking. What part of the article in particular is the issue about? Is it about the body of the article, or the lede section of the article? I am inferring that it is about whether to include particular modern events in the lede section. If you can't explain in one paragraph what part of the article you want changed, or left the same, we can't have an RFC, and we don't know what to compromise about. One editor asks: "Do my edits violate any rule that deserve to be reverted? If not so, I don't think it is acceptable to remove them." The rule in question is probably the concept of due weight in the lede. Maybe there is no point in my saying to read the rules, so maybe I need to provide the rules in your faces: Here are the ground rules for any mediation that is conducted at DRN where the moderator specifies Rule A: Be civil and concise. Civility is required everywhere in Wikipedia and is essential in dispute resolution. Uncivil statements may be collapsed. Overly long statements do not clarify issues. (They may make the author feel better, but the objective is to discuss the article constructively.) Overly long statements may be collapsed, and the party may be told to summarize them. Read Too Long, Didn't Read, and don't write anything that is too long for other editors to read. If the moderator says to write one paragraph, that means one paragraph of reasonable length. Discussion of issues about the article and the editing of the article can only take place at one noticeboard at a time. Any old discussion at any other noticeboards must be closed or suspended. If you report any issues about the article at any other noticeboards, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement, you will be withdrawing from moderated discussion, and the mediation will be failed. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors. (There may be a combination of content issues and conduct issues, but resolving the content issue often mitigates the conduct issue or permits it to subside.) Uncivil comments or comments about other editors may be suppressed. "Comment on content, not contributors" means that if you are asked to summarize what you want changed in the article, or left the same, it is not necessary or useful to name the other editors, but it may be important to identify the paragraphs or locations in the article. It isn't necessary to identify the other editors with whom you disagree. Discuss edits, not editors. This means the same as "Comment on content, not contributors". It is repeated because it needs repeating. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion to statements by other editors; that is, do not reply to the comments of other editors. That has already been tried and has not resolved the content dispute (since talk page discussion is a precondition for discussion at DRN). Address your comments to the moderator and the community. Except in a section for back-and-forth discussion, replies to other editors or back-and-forth discussion may be collapsed by the moderator and may result in a rebuke. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. If the article is edited by a party while discussion is pending at DRN, the mediation at DRN will be failed. If there has been edit-warring over versions of the article, the moderator will not select which version is the "right" version to be displayed during moderated discussion. Simply stop edit-warring. The purpose of moderated discussion is to select between versions of the article, and the moderator will not act as an arbitrator. Do not communicate with the moderator on their user talk page. This is seen by other editors as trying to run around them. If you have a question for the moderator, ask it at DRN. It would be better not to discuss the article on the article talk page or on user talk pages while moderated discussion is in progress, because discussion elsewhere than at DRN may be overlooked or ignored. The moderator may not have any background knowledge about the subject. It is the responsibility of the editors, who are familiar with the subject matter, to inform the moderator about the subject matter, just as the purpose of the article is to inform the readers about the subject matter. Be specific at DRN. Do not simply say that a section should be improved, but tell what improvement should be made. Do not simply say that "All viewpoints must be discussed", but identify the missing viewpoints. If you say that the article has BLP violations, specify how they can be corrected. The moderator will provide a section for back-and-forth comments. Keep your comments in that section, so that anyone else can ignore them. Comments in the back-and-forth section, like everywhere else, must be civil. Every participant is expected to check on the case at least every 48 hours and to answer questions within 48 hours. What part of not editing the article wasn't clear? Do not edit the article while discussion is in progress. Now: Will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what part of the article they either want changed or left the same? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Third statements by editors Statement by AdaCiccone: The core of this dispute is about the inclusion of recent events one editor thinks is important but the other four (myself included) do not. It's not in the lead section, but a subsection (Modern era) in the 'History' section (which is two sections after the lead). I myself do not think a change is necessary. The current version is adequate already and should be left the same. AdaCiccone (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Statement by Austronesier: No, the dispute is not about the lede. The dispute is about the article Indonesia > section "History" > subsection "Modern era". "Modern era" refers to the period starting from the recognition of independence in 1949. One editor wants to add information to said subsection (I leave it to them to explain which information), four editors including myself reject these additions. I have said on two occasions that the dispute is about the History section of Indonesia (I admit not to have specified it down to the subsection level). Yet it was inferred that the dispute is about the lede. My straightforward information as a direct answer to the questions posed has been ignored twice; for this reason, I will not continue to contribute further to the discussion. From my perspective, I consider this moderation failed. Nevertheless, I will accept the result of the dispute resolution as continued by the remaining particpants, whatever its outcome. During this time I will not edit the contentious part of Indonesia, which is the History section, nor engage in discussions in Talk:Indonesia (or any other forum) about this specific content dispute. But I will not refrain from doing edits to the remaining non-contentious 11 sections of that article, and will continue to discuss other unrelated topics in that article, if there is reason to do so. @Robert McClenon: Thank you for your efforts so far. –Austronesier (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Fourth statement by moderator (Indonesia) One editor says that they will not be taking part in any further discussion, but that they will accept the result of the moderation. If at least two editors are prepared to contribute their views to a Request for Comments, I will be posting a RFC. The editor who has said that they do not want to discuss further is still welcome to contribute to the RFC. It is my understanding that the main issue has to do with an addition to the section Modern Era. Will each editor please state concisely what they want in the article (or what they do not want in the article), so that I can formulate a concise neutrally worded RFC? If there are two distinct portions of the article that have questions, then we can have a two-part RFC. If there is also an issue about History of Indonesia, then we can have two RFCs. Will each editor please state concisely, within 48 hours, what they want the RFC to ask about? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Fourth statements by editors (Indonesia) Fifth statement by moderator (Indonesia) @NouVa, AdaCiccone, Juxlos, Chipmunkdavis, and Austronesier: - If any of you want to provide input to an RFC, please respond within 36 hours, or this dispute will be closed as failed. I would like to start an RFC concerning the issue, but I need to know exactly what it is that the editors are disagreeing about. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Fifth statements by editors (Indonesia) Back-and-forth discussion It's not about subjective - one editor thinks is important but the others do not... - but it's about objective whether my previous content addition is deserved to be reverted while it's not violating any Wikipedia policies or guidelines, even link to main modern history article Post-Suharto era was reverted [1]. So the problem is whether 'personal' opinions about the importance, (by saying I myself do not think) which halt the progress of article or the rules of notability and significant coverage become the main concerns for the further improvement of the content. # NouVa (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Arguments (yours, mine and the other three editors') have already been put forth in the Summary of dispute by and the First and second statements by editors sections. The moderator is clear that he only wants a one-paragraph statement, stating what should be changed or left the same. That is what my recent comment (before yours) is for (simply answering the moderator) because there's no absolutely no point of me repeating my arguments. AdaCiccone (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC) I am not going to repeat my argument for the fourth time so NouVa can claim OWNERSHIP and refer to GNG a fifth time, either. My argument is best summarized by the essay: Wikipedia:But for Napoleon, it was Tuesday - to the protesters, what they're doing is the most important thing in history, and to the state of Indonesia, it was a month in 2020. Juxlos (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia is based on good faith cooperation managed by the guidelines, and the Wikipedia's contents would have never grown as great as today without open minded contributors who let any significant progress toward the ongoing improved articles over time, instead of removing the changes and stopping the content additions for personal reasons... I hope the moderator here would give advice or possible solution over the problem, I believe the problem will not wisely be solved through Rfc but the problem is about some users' preferences who keep persisting their views about what addition should or shouldn't be allowed on an article section, while the addition itself is relevant and following Wikipedia guidelines. I guess this is a behavioral problem, should I report to ANI instead? * NouVa (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC) It is not good faith to accuse multiple other editors of WP:OWN without substantial evidence. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Consensus. CMD (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC) It is clear from your edit history that you've never tried seeking the opinion of others before claiming ownership on the very first day of the dispute. From my perspective, your claim therefore is based only on your own interpretation of WP:OWN, and this makes it hard for you to convince others whether it has weight or not. What's more, your claim that the number of edits editors make within a span of several months consitutes "control of the content (ownership)" is not backed up by enough evidence because there is no such statement in WP:OWN. By this logic, all Indonesia's (very) active editors in the past can be accused of owning the article too, am I right? AdaCiccone (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC) @NouVa, AdaCiccone, Juxlos, and Chipmunkdavis: I won't continue to contribute to this discussion. I will accept the outcome of the further dispute resolution. As a courtesy, please inform me about its outcome. I will happily accept and support the consensus found as a result of a successful dispute resolution. In case it fails, please inform me where you intend to proceed. Thanks and good luck! –Austronesier (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC) NouVa You are threatening to report to ANI for... practically all other editors of an article agreeing that your edits should not be included and refusing to yield after your consistent pestering. Go ahead, but it will most likely end with you getting a warning. Juxlos (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC) @AdaCiccone: If you look for evidences of OWN, how about these few cases (from hundreds of edits) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] showing an editor easily removing added referenced contents by other editors who made efforts to develop the article, while a single editor not giving a chance to preserve the references given by them without providing a single relevant Wikipedia policy. @Chipmunkdavis: Do you understand this? In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. So just to say " I don't like," "I don't think. . . important..." etc. does not mean the editors should follow your own preferences and disagreements, above the the fundamental guidelines/policies which are the basis of content inclusion on an article. Such a opinion showing things which not compatible with a collaborative project and obviously Disruptive. If such editors who using more of their own thinking on this Wikipedia to prevent changes over the rules and revert justified article changes repeatedly over an extended period without providing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support the reverts is clear form of "Ownership" actions. READ it well While the main effects could be two: either it will eliminate potential contributors to make futher improvements or make such editors become more authoritaritative by not letting anyone to involve, except those suitable in their own views regardless the guidelines. NouVa (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2020 (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.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Justgravy on 11:20, 8 December 2020 (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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Standardisation for all London Neigbourhood / Area Pages (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Justgravy (talk · contribs) Roger 8 Roger (talk · contribs) MRSC (talk · contribs) Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) Lord Belbury (talk · contribs) WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) TransporterMan (talk · contribs) Schazjmd (talk · contribs) Dispute overview For a long while there was a loose formula for the opening paragraph for areas of London articles along the lines of: “X is an area of (compass-direction) London…”. This is an accepted standard and consensus reached by editors actively involved in the WikiProject London and had been for many years. About a year ago, a new editor took it upon themselves to inject some of their POV and mass change these opening paragraphs of these articles. Nobody really challenged them at the time (I was taking a break from Wikipedia editing at this time, otherwise I would have). I have returned recently to see the mess they created is still there, long after this user disappeared. I decided to try to change them back, but as soon as I did my edits were reverted? I decided to open a discussion about it to make people realise this is the previous standard (and also initially to try to improve further although this was shot down). However, users like Roger 8 Roger have prattled on about a load of nonsense and nothing has been done. All I am trying to do is to restore these articles to how they were before they were mass-edited based on POV. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A thorough discussion is needed, especially bringing to light points made long ago that have been archived. Summary of dispute by Roger 8 Roger Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. It is difficult to see what, if anything, is in dispute. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by MRSC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Magnolia677 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Lord Belbury Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Not sure why my name is here, all I did was revert JustGravy when they started prematurely applying their desired outcome of the RFC to London articles citing the RFC as a reason for the edit (eg. [7]), and asked them to wait for the RFC to be closed. I'm not aware of the past disagreements over compass directions in London articles. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by WhatamIdoing I'm not involved in this dispute and have no opinion on the question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by TransporterMan Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I have no dog in this hunt. I only performed some dispute resolution maintenance (noting a 3O removal and giving a bit of advice). I'm not a party to this dispute or discussion, will not be participating here, and do not need to be considered in any further procedures here at DRN. Also, I will not be acting as a DRN volunteer in this case. I would remind the filing party, however, that it is their obligation under the DRN rules to post a notice of this filing on each user's talk page. There's a template set out at the top of this page that can be used for that purpose. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Schazjmd Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_London#Standardisation_for_all_London_Neigbourhood_/_Area_Pages discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. If no one minds me facilitating this conversation, we may continue when everyone has commented in their respective spaces. Heart (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2020 (UTC) ​ Please notify everyone by leaving {{subst:drn-notice}} on each of their talk pages, a message on the talkpage of the project will not suffice. Heart (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC) No problem, I just have. Justgravy (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I do not understand how Roger can even say there is no dispute? He is disputing the removal of "Greater" from "Greater London" and he is disputing that historic county information should not be placed in the lead for all London area articles. Even though this goes against what was previously agreed by many editors, and had been agreed for a while before he showed up to Wikipedia. Justgravy (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2020 (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.

Crusader states

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

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. Filed by Borsoka on 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Crusader states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Borsoka (talk · contribs) Norfolkbigfish (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Section "Outremer" fails to give an explanation for the article's title ("Crusader states" instead of "Outremer"). The same section does not clarify the relevance of the term "Franks" in the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Article name Franks Unnecessary_Tagging How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? A mediation may help us to understand the other party's concerns. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Norfolkbigfish This is not a single dispute, and possibly a dispute at all. There are two questions that if the sourcing is respected could be dealt with on the Talk page or at the very worst through two RFCs. The two points of contention are: 1) Whether the term used as the article's name, e.g. Crusader states'‘, is misleading, and therefore that should be mentioned in the article. 2) The nomenclature of the name most used as a collective noun for the incomers to the Holy Land that the article discusses e.g. Frank. Crusader states/Outremer On WP the name of the article(s) has already been discussed. It was successfully proposed that the Outremer article be merged with Crusader states at Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1#Merge_from_Outremer. The consensus was against moving Crusader States back to Outremer with this debate Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1#Requested_move_10_March_2020. There is no question that both descriptors satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. There is no doubt that academics use both terms. For example, Tyerman in God’s War uses Outremer 275 times and Crusader states 15. Barber in a work called The Crusader States uses Outremer 17 times and Crusader States 148 times. That said historians do not agree whether these terms are accurate. Professor Christopher MacEvitt, Faculty Director at Dartmouth (https://faculty-directory.dartmouth.edu/christopher-macevitt ) among a general critique of the usage of the term crusader states published a paper What was Crusader about the Crusader States? ( Al-Masāq, xxx (2018), pp. 317–30). A response is cited in the article in by Andrew D Buck, formerly of Queen Mary University (https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/Andrew-D-Buck-2123225758 ) and now a specialist at University College, Dublin. Academics do not agree on this, and it is clear there is no consensus among them. For the lay WP reader this is probably confusing, and the casual use of these terms is misleading, it implies a certainty that does not exist. The article deals with this by using the passage cited in the article by Dr Allan Murray of the University of Leeds ( https://ahc.leeds.ac.uk/history/staff/1010/dr-alan-v-murray ): An alternative name for the four Frankish principalities in modern historical writing is the “Crusader States.” Although common, this term is less accurate, since after around 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders, in the sense of people who had taken a vow to go on crusade. Thomas Asbridge, reader in medieval history at Queen Mary University ( https://www.qmul.ac.uk/history/people//academic-staff/profiles/asbridgetom.html ) cited in support of this writes The term ‘crusader states’ is somewhat misleading, as it gives the impression that these settlements were exclusively populated by crusaders and that their history might be interpreted as an example of ongoing crusading activity. he goes onto acknowledge The issue of the continued influence of crusading ideology over the history of the Latin East is a more vexed question. ' he then refers to a Riley-Smith article, but the work of MacEvitt and Buck is in the same area.(page 115 and page 698 note 49) WP:COMMONSENSE would indicate that the article should use a title that is readily understood, but where that title could be misleading, contested or not completely accurate it should be mentioned. The article does this in the lead to explain the Outremer redirect and in the body for sourcing and expansion. There may be copy editing required, but no need for tagging or substantive change. Franks The chronology and etymology of the term is clear. Franks were a Germanic tribe that invaded Western Europe between the 8th and 10th centuries. These became known in the Eastern Roman Empire by the Greek Frangoi and later the Arabic al-Ifranj. Overtime, in the East the term became used for all Westerners. When the First Crusade arrived, chroniclers used the Latin variant Franci, both for subjects of the king of France and for all the crusaders. It is likely that this reflects actual linguistic usage and the adoption of the term by the Roman Catholic and predominantly French speaking incomers, as Murray again puts it, sourced in the article to pages 297 to 298. The term Franks is widely used today by academic and popular historians for all the crusaders, the immigrants that followed from western Europe and their descendants in the crusader states. Cobb is his work cited in the article uses the term 740 times. It is right the term is explained for lay readers, particularly considering the this was a result of self-identification of a people the article is about. Murray again summarises well: However, it is also used to refer to all members of the crusader armies, irrespective of nationality or origins, particularly with reference to the later stages of the crusade and the beginning of the Latin settlement in Syria and Palestine. It seems likely that the chronicles, some of which were composed by eyewitnesses, reflect actual linguistic usage; having become familiar with Byzantine and Arabic terms for “Franks” in the course of the crusade, the crusaders themselves and, increasingly, their descendants who remained in the East adopted the name as a convenient self-designation to reflect the realities of life in a region where their own diverse origins were far less important than the crucial social and legal distinctions between dominant Latin Westerners on the one hand and the various native peoples on the other. The Arabic, Syriac, and Armenian sources that touch on events in Outremer generally refer to its Latin Christian inhabitants as Franks in their own languages. General There has been repeated and frequent tag bombing of the first paragraph in Crusader_states#Outremer and circular discussions at Talk:Crusader_states: The chronicles of the First Crusade sometimes used Franci, both for subjects of the king of France and for all the crusaders. It is likely that this reflects actual linguistic usage and the adoption of the term by the Roman Catholic and predominantly French speaking incomers. was tagged clarify with the reason We are informed that the participants of the First Crusade were called Franci. Why is this relevant in the article's context? What was the ethnonym of the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the crusader states? despite the academic consensus Murray was cited as supporting on pages 470 to 471 in the work in Crusader_states#Bibliography and the article requiring some explanation of an academic term. Modern scholars commonly use the term Franks for the crusaders, was tagged dubious with the reason Can you refer to a modern scholar who use the ethnonym "Franks" when referring to King Sigurd the Crusader of Norway, King Conrad III of Germany or King Andrew II of Hungary? . We are debating a collective noun, the reason here is a redundant argument. Murray’s citation to pages 297 to 298 covers this. Some historians consider the use of Crusader states as misleading because few Franks were crusaders. In the Middle Ages the states were often also collectively known as Syria or Syrie was tagged clarify with the reason If crusader states is a misleading term, why do we use it? Perhaps the article should move to have a neutral name. despite the rationale explained above. Summary The substantive information in the paragraph is supported by WP:RS. Crusader States is a contested term in academic circles, but WP:COMMONNAME for WP. Franks is a collective noun in common usage for all the Roman Catholic, predominantly French/Latin speaking incomers resident in the Latin East irrespective of their origin. The WP:COMMONSENSE resolution to this dispute is to accept this as the consensus among academics and remove all the tagging.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Borsoka The above summary does not reflect (and does not address) my concerns. 1. The article (not the sources cited in the article) fails to give an explanation for the article's title ("Crusader states" instead of "Outremer"), although it states that "Crusader states" is a misleading term. 2. The article (not the sources cited in the article) fails to explain the relevance of the term "Franks" in the article's context. What is important in the article's context is that the European settlers and their descendants in Outremer were called Francs and now are mentioned as Franks - all other information is irrelevant. Borsoka (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Crusader states discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Hello, I will be the volunteer to help resolve this dispute. Is there anything additional that needs to be said before we continue? BJackJS talk 21:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Hello BJackJS I don't think so, certainly not from me. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you for volunteering. My summary above reflects my concerns, I do not want to expand it. Borsoka (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Alright then, I understand that User:Borsoka's concerns are the articles justification for the name 'Crusader states' and does not explain the term 'Franks' usage. I would be inclined to agree that an explanation of the term Outremer should be there, especially because of "The use of the description Crusader states can be misleading". How about the explanation of the term Outremer: the lands on the far side of the Mediterranean Sea, seen from the perspective of Western Christians or some such variant. It is what Murray uses. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC) This is not an explanation for the choice of the article's name. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC) It was an attempt to answer BJackJS's comment I would be inclined to agree that an explanation of the term Outremer should be there. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC) WP:COMMONNAME applies, a quick Google on the term gives c323,000 hits. It is also misleading, cited to academics working in the area. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC) And? My concerns are not addressed. Are our readers required to read WP policies, closed RfCs and do our homework to explain the article's title if the article emphasizes that it is misleading? Borsoka (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC) What name do you suggest, and what would you source it to? The fact remains that crusader states is a very common, probably the most common term, in general usage but academics consider it misleading, to the point of writing papers discussing the name. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Could you please read my and BJackJS's comments more carefully? What is needed: a short explanation based on at least one reliable source explaining why is the article is titled "Crusader states" instead of "Outremer". Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC) I believe BJackJS was referring to a description of Outremer. I don't agree an explanation is necessary, and it is clear that neither do any of the works used as sources in the article. In order that this moves forward, why don't you draft an explanation and source it? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) If you can only verify the alternative name, Outremer, why do not you move the article from Crusader states to Outremer? Alternatively, you could refer to Asbridge (who is cited in the article). Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC) It seems my previous question has been missed. In order that this moves forward, why don't you draft an explanation and source it? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC) I've thought it is your turn and you want to fix the problem. A week ago, I drafted a text ([8]) that you deleted without any actual explanation ([9]). All the same, I drafted a new text ([10]). Borsoka (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Crusaders were a minority, of a minority e.g. the Franks were a minority already, and crusaders were a minority within that. Considering Crusaders as part of the total populaton obscures this point. Otherwise, if it works for you there would seem to be no problem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Crusaders were a minority population within a minority Frankish population from around 1130. Do you think the "Crusader states" is not a misleading term before that date? Could you refer to a reliable source suggesting it? Borsoka (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC) uninvolved editor - Is this actually a WP:COMMONNAME issue? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Yes. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC) No. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Me again. Would the post 1204 political entities on/around former Byzantine soil all be counted, without dissent, as part of "Outremer" by modern sources? Same question for those lands with regard to "Crusader States"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:52, 7 December 2020 (UTC) This is exactly the question that I decided not to raise weeks ago. :) For the time being, the article is obviously dedicated to the four states in Syria and Palestine (even Cyprus is ignored). Althogh the scope is limited, the article contains dozens (or hundreds) of sentences that present misinterpreted info from scholarly books or that are out of context. I think the article should be improved while its scope is limited and after it reaches the level of a GA, its name or its possible expansion could be discussed. Borsoka (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Which ignores the fact that the article was already at GA, at the point you got involved.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Yes it was listed among the GAs, but it never reached the level of a GA ([11]). Borsoka (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Simple answer to your question Dweller is that the Frankokratia is not generally considered as part of Outremer. Similarly, it would be contested to include them under the umbrella of Crusader States. Some academics even challenge the inclusion of the four polities in the Levant and I have seen an argument made that only France under St Louis can be considered as fitting the description. It is clear that there is no consensus on the term. It is misleading because politically and organisationally they were only states with an active significant Catholic crusader population (under an unfulfilled oaths) for a tiny duration. For the majority of their existance their politics were secular and parochial. Those academics in favour look at the states' culture, art, literature, songs etc as Buck puts very well. That is difficult for the lay reader to understand and if this article followed that approach it would look very different, memoralisation would be the focus rather than chronology and politics. There is a space for that article but it is not this one, and it not what the lay reader would expect. It is still down to WP:COMMONNAME, the expectation is that the article is about the medieval Frankish incursion into Middle East. It is not a stretched definition that could include Malta in late 18th century. Although, I believe there is an argument in favour of that second article as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Our usual method for dealing with things that are contentious is to go with the COMMONNME approach but then include cited material that critiques it and defends it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Pretty much what the article is doing. Asbridge for 'misleading', Buck for culture. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Frankokratia is not generally considered as part of Outremer, but the Frankish states on the ruins of the Byzantine Empire are often listed among the crusader states. However, I suggest that we should accept the status quo and try to improve the article within its present scope. Whether its name properly reflects its subject (the four Frankish realms in Syria and Palestine) could be discussed later. Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (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.

MutualArt.com

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Bodokh on 13:42, 16 December 2020 (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 MutualArt.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Bodokh (talk · contribs) StephenJPC (talk · contribs) Dispute overview On the talk section, there are 2 posts which are ruining the good name of MutualArt.com. I work at the company, and there is no problem at all with customer support, our lines are always active and we have quick email replies. According to the guidelins for the talk page: "This page in a nutshell: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." Calling the company a "scam" is a personal opinion. We offer services like other companies in the industry and we are completely legitimate. One user called StephenJPC has posted 2 posts calling the company a scam without any information to prove these false claims hurting our brand. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MutualArt.com#Is_MutualArt.com_reputable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MutualArt.com#MutualArt_and_the_Artist_Pension_Trust How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Remove these false claims as they have no proof at all to make any claim against the company to hurt the brand. Summary of dispute by StephenJPC Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. MutualArt.com discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Comment I reported the case at WP:COIN – seems not very much a case for DRN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2020 (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.

Motörhead

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Romomusicfan on 17:02, 16 December 2020 (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 Motörhead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Romomusicfan (talk · contribs) Sabbatino (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The intro of the article correctly notes that all of the "classic" line-up of the band was dead by late 2018. I added a sentence to this that Larry Wallis's death in 2019 compounded the situation as it left founder drummer Lucas Fox alive from any lineup prior to 1982. Sabbatino deleted this Wallis was not part of the "classic" lineup. I wrote to Sabbatino's talk page and pointed out that my edit was not to do with the classic lineup but the separate issue of four out of five members 1975-1982 now being dead. Sabbatino replied this had nothing to do with the *previous* sentence about the classic lineup. Sabbatino also added that Wallis was "not important". I pointed out that the sentence about Wallias was a different sentence from the one about the classic lineup. I was not sure what to make of the remark about Wallis being "not important" so I replied in brackets that Wallis was certainly important, regardless of whether he is relevant. Sabbatino deleted the entire discussion from the talk page, declaring "I'm not wasting my time with someone who can't understand what I meant" So now I must seek alternative avenues for resolving this. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? This discusssion was on Sabbatino's talk page before Sabbatino blanked off the conversation: [12] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Third (or more) opinion on whether my edit (mentioning how Wallis's death left Lucas Fox as last surviving member pre-1982) belongs in the article or not - bearing in mind it was a separate sentence from the one about the classic line-up. Summary of dispute by Sabbatino Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Motörhead 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.

Timeline of BBC One

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Rillington on 14:20, 18 December 2020 (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 Timeline of BBC One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Rillington (talk · contribs) 82.3.149.129 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Someone who only edits using an IP address has recently kept reverting an edit from the 1997 section of this article and I keep reverting it back to my version. I have tried to modify the article to try to appease this editor but this editor still reverts the addition nonetheless. I see no other way to resolve this other than asking for a dispute resolution. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? I've tried to reword the entry that the editor keeps reverting but the IP address continues to do this nonetheless. The editor posted a comment on my talkpage and then after I replied, 'undid' and ignored my reply and reposted with the same comment I'd replied to. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Can you please rule as to whose version of the 1997 section of this article should be used. Summary of dispute by 82.3.149.129 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Timeline of BBC One 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.

Lola Astanova

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by JPS1965 on 22:02, 18 December 2020 (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 Lola Astanova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved JPS1965 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview I am a fan of Lola Astanova, so periodically I add information to her page with references to open media sources. Over the past several months, several users appear to constantly make arbitrary changes to my additions and never providing any reasoning or references for changes. I have always explained my edits in the talk, but they simply remove my changes without engaging in the conversation or providing any grounds for their edits. Specifically, they do the following: 1. The constantly change the year of birth from 1985 (as I reference in a Haute Living magazine article) to 1982. 2. They constantly change the country of birth from USSR or Soviet Union to Uzbek SSR, which was NOT a country, but rather a region of the USSR where Ms. Astanova was born. It is inaccurate to call it "Uzbek SSR" by any measure. 3. They removed information regarding Ms. Astanova's duet of Hauser of the 2cellos, regarding her film project with Andrea Bocelli and David Foster, and regarding her electronic music release by Sony Music earlier this year. Every single piece of information I added was referenced by public sources and was easily verifiable through iTunes, YouTube and other platforms where those projects are available. Removal of that information for no reason and with no explanation appears malicious. The users who are doing that appear to have an agenda and they are not sticking to just listing the facts with public source references. I am asking to please look into these instances and help protect the page's accuracy and integrity. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lola_Astanova How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I am not a very advanced user of Wiki, I simply want to add the facts to the artist's page without any opinions or agenda. I'd like to make sure that the facts are not being maliciously removed and changed by other users without any references. I'd like for the community to clarify the rules for the other users, and help me bring this matter to the administrator's attention, so that they page stays accurate and up-to date. THANK YOU! Lola Astanova 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.

Textile

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by RAJIVVASUDEV on 03:10, 19 December 2020 (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 Textile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved RAJIVVASUDEV (talk · contribs) Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) Dispute overview It is about the recently added section Piecegoods that is mentioned in a few textile articles but never explained what is it and why it was produced and traded. The section was cited but even then reverted. Thanks and regards How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? To avoid edit war, initiated the discussion on the talk page, asked help from an expert and other users also. Kindly advice. [[13]][[14]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Piece goods should be a section/part of textiles. Wikipedia maintains an inclusion threshold of "verifiability, not truth." Hence we can not delete any info bearing RS, importantly when it is absent from the encyclopedia. Summary of dispute by Roxy I will not be taking part in this process. Rajiv cannot communicate effectively in English - I believe that WP:CIR applies to language ability too. His badly written notification of this request on my Talk page was conflated with a 3O request such that I had no idea that a DRN had been filed. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Roxy the dog, please do not harp on the same(Mum [[15]] )narrative. DRN is a venue for resolving disputes over articles, and We should maintain the decorum WP: EQ, WP: DR of this forum. We had enough discussion on the talk:piecegoodsand talk: textile. Hence we both should not blame each other. Like you are not an expert in the textile field and considered khes is Kesh (Sikhism), I might not know every policy and noticeboard. Let DRN stay focused on the article, not Rajiv, because Rajiv and Roxy is not the topic. Thanks and regardsRAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Textile discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not listed the other editor and has not notified them. They should be listed, and should be notified of this filing. The filing editor is cautioned to be civil and not to be confrontational in edit summaries. A Third Opinion would be a lightweight method of trying to resolve this dispute, rather than moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2020 (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.

2020 Ganja missile attacks

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Steverci on 01:38, 17 December 2020 (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 2020 Ganja missile attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Steverci (talk · contribs) CuriousGolden (talk · contribs) Solavirum (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This subject event took place after the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert. I had added this fact to the article, along with several citations supporting it. CuriousGolden reverted the change, asking for a source that "links these two events". I went on the talk page and provided just, that, giving yet another source from as official Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. However, CuriousGolden now appears to be trying to move the goalposts, asking for a source that explicitly links the article to "retaliation to attacks on Stepanakert", even though my edit had never stated that. Given that the Foreign Affairs Minister referred to Stepanakert when asked about Ganja, this means that it is important to tell the reader that Stepanakert happened first. The article currently gives the impression that the missile attacks were unprovoked. The talk page discussion had devolved to an argument about interpretation of sources. Although I had shown the sources I provided to clear and reliable, I decided to seek a dispute resolution to prevent edit warring. I would also like to add I wanted to add the Stepanakert attacks to the Bombardment of Tartar article as well, which happened only one day before Stepanakert, yet Stepanakert isn't mentioned on the article at all. The talk page discussion could only take place in one place, but it was about both articles. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:2020_Ganja_missile_attacks#2020_bombardment_of_Stepanakert How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Please take a look at the revision changes and talk page discussion, and help discuss if you think the Stepanakert bombardment should be mentioned as having taken place previously or not. Summary of dispute by CuriousGolden Steverci tries to draw connections between 2 unrelated events without providing any proper source and puts it in lead. And when asked to provide a WP:RS that connects these 2 events, they accuse me of WP:JDLI and moving the goalposts even though I asked for the same thing the entire discussion, even when I first reverted their addition. It's not really a dispute, I asked them to provide a WP:RS to support their WP:OR and they failed. Summary of dispute by Solavirum He isn't telling the full story here. Steverci tried to relate those things, and tried to make it look like a "revenge attack". The MoFA source he refers to doesn't even state such a thing. There's not enough, actually, not a single WP:RS that states that, and this is just his own assumption. I call this particular case WP:OR and WP:NOTAFORUM, but overall, the user has worrying activity. This includes his rhetoric, with remarks like it hurts the victim narrative the article tries to sell. He also wanted to remove Armenia as a belligerent in the article about the war. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 07:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC) 2020 Ganja missile attacks discussion Volunteer Statement I'm happy to mediate this, however Steverci If this is the only source you have- your current changes constitute WP:OR You cannot add the word revenge if its not stated by a source clearly. However, I'm happy to mediate a discussion to find a more appropriate way to include a link between the two attacks if you would like. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC) I never used the word "revenge" to describe the attacks, not even on the talk page. My edits stated "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles by Azerbaijan against civilian areas in Stepanakert" and "On 27 September 2020, Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles against civilian areas in the bombardment of Stepanakert." Like I said, there has been some attempted goalpost shifting. Here is my edit on the article, which also includes 3 more sources. --Steverci (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC) All of the sources you provided are about the bombing of Stepanakert, none of them draws connections between Ganja and Stepanakert bombings, as you implied, which is what this whole "dispute" is about. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 17:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC) There are three sources (from Eurasianet.org, BBC, and Mediamax) used for the warning by Arayik Harutyunyan. His quote from the first article: "The Azerbaijani terrorist army is targeting civilians in Stepanakert, using Polonez and Smerch MLRS,” said Arayik Harutyunyan, the de facto leader of Karabakh, on October 4. “From now on military objects in large cities of Azerbaijan are the target of the Defense Army of Artsakh [the Armenian word for Karabakh]. Calling on Azerbaijani population to leave these cities to avoid inevitable loss.". So whoever wrote this left out the reason for the warning (almost making it appear as a threat) and left out that Azerbaijan was the first to target civilians. I'm sure it was unintentional though. --Steverci (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC) Kind of a useless warning when a separatist leader warns another nation in a language they don't understand, which was pointed out by Human Rights Watch. Again, those 3 sources all are about the separatist leader's "warning", none of them draws connections between the 2 attacks. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Unless you find solid sources that directly states that this was in retaliation, or that these are related to each other, these are not going to added. This, by defition, is WP:OR. If none of the WP:RS mentions Stepanakert/Khankendi alongside Ganja or Tartar, we don't add it. If we followed your logic, we'd have to write that every single individual war crime reportedly committed by the Azerbaijani servicemen would pass under as a revenge for Khojaly. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 13:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Statement 2 I'm sorry, if you don't have a source that specifically states a link- This is WP:OR. Also- I would like to remind those involved that back and forth discussion should be limited. Please engage with the volunteer, not each other. Now, Steverci do you have a source that says- specifically "These attacks are related"? If not, I'm afraid there is nothing to discuss. It doesn't matter if its obvious, or if they forgot to include something- it has to specifically be stated that Incident A is linked to, caused by, or revenge for, Incident B.Nightenbelle (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC) As I cited above and on the talk page, "The Azerbaijani terrorist army is targeting civilians in Stepanakert, using Polonez and Smerch MLRS. From now on military objects in large cities of Azerbaijan are the target of the Defense Army of Artsakh" - Harutyunyan[16] Meanwhile, Nagorno-Karabakh's authorities said that they had destroyed Ganja's military airport. They said they had acted after Stepanakert was hit by missiles and alleged the Ganja facility had been used by Azerbaijani forces to launch attacks on civilian areas - BBC.[17] Harutyunyan has underlined that Azerbaijan was the first to violate the international law by targeting civilian population. - Mediamax[18] Interview where BBC journalist asks why Ganja was targeted, and Foreign Minister Mnatsakanyan replies with the shelling and bombing of Stepanakert as well as other civilian locations[19] --Steverci (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC) So all those sources are just claims of the Armenian leaders, and not third party sources? The last source, Mnatsakanyan, repeatedly evades question of BBC, and does not say that Ganja bombed in response for Stepanakert. When asked about attacks on Ganja, he starts talking about attacks on Stepanakert, and when journalists asks what does it have to do with Ganja, he continues talking about the same thing. Weird. And Ganja airport was not hit, despite claims of separatist leader. Not a reliable source. Grandmaster 10:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Eurasianet and BBC aren't third-party sources? Actually, BBC could probably be considered pro-Azeri now that they have an Azeri subsection. This actually explains why the interviewing journalist was so biased and unprofessional. Mnatsakanyan didn't evade anything, he answered the question by exposing what the journalist omitted: because they targeted civilians first. About the airport, BBC was just reporting the official statement. Eurasianet, BBC, and Mediamax all quoted Artsakh authorities that the missile attacks were because of the bombardment of Stepanakert. There's really nothing more to say. --Steverci (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC) I did not say that BBC itself was biased. But BBC only reported what Armenian officials said. And Mnatsakanyan made no explicit connection between the two events, despite BBC reporter pressing him. And no third party reliable source stated that one attack was a response to the other. Grandmaster 10:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC) All of the 3 sources are quoting the Artsakh authorities and that quote is that Artsakh allegedly fired Ganja because there were military facilities there. And that allegation is already mentioned in the Background section of the article, including the "warning" they gave. So, the whole point of this dispute seems odd to me. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC) So the Artsakh authorities aren't reliable sources for their own intentions? --Steverci (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Did you even read my comment? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 04:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Statement 3 The BBC providing direct transcripts of interviews is not a third party source- that is still considered primary I'm afraid. And none of those quotes say that they are retaliation- just that the other side attacked first- which is different. Saying its retaliation is WP:OR unless someone says "We attacked BECAUSE they attacked" not- Well they went first so they are bad guys. You are inferring it is revenge- and you are probably right, but until a WP:RS says it- we can't put that in the encyclopedia. So, are there any 2nd or 3rd party sources that are providing comentary on this being revenge? Nightenbelle (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Please note there is another BBC source on their own website. I never wrote on the article that the missile attacks were "retaliation", that was CuriousGolden trying to move the goalpost. My edited simply stated "The missile attacks happened one week after Azerbaijan began firing cluster bombs and missiles by Azerbaijan against civilian areas in Stepanakert." Currently, the bombardment of Stepanakert isn't even mentioned at all. Just a brief mention that "military facilities permanently located there had been targeting civilians" which is labeled as a "claim", thus making the bombing itself also appear to be only a claim. --Steverci (talk) 04:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC) "CuriousGolden trying to move the goalpost". Are you actually joking? This is exactly how you proposed the addition to be in the talk page: Zohrab Mnatsakanyan confirmed this was retaliation for Azerbaijan shelling civilian areas in Stepanakert. Keep WP:ASPERSIONS to yourself, I don't appreciate it. And as I told you right afterward, that was just my casual wording, which you've been distorting to make the discussion about something it wasn't. The changes I was proposing were always the exact ones in my edit revision. --Steverci (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC) You're accusing people of distorting things... when it was you that said "retaliation" first. Please read WP:ASPERSIONS and follow it, accusing people without evidence can have serious consequences. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 05:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Said on a talk page, not published on the article. You did read my revision before reverting it, right? --Steverci (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC) Volunteer Statement 4 And with that, I'm going to suggest that you get a WP:RFC or one of you go to the WP:ANI the back and forth and personal attacks have not stopped, you are not making a good faith effort to solve this issue- you are both simply restating the same thing and arguing rather than trying to solve a problem. The DRN does not make decisions, and we do not handle personal disputes or behavior issues. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2020 (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.